How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say

reply to post by jrod


of course!! what a stupid answer on my part.
thanks for picking that up.

reply to post by December_Rain


You may want to look into reading these:

Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

and so on and so on...

"Climate Gate"...
Google Climategate

- Peace

MrXYZ,

I agree.

I truly agree that we need to rein in our polluting ways but I'm not convinced that cap and trade is the way to go, either. It would be better to more strictly monitor polluters and shut them down when they exceed environmental standards, rather than giving them the out of purchasing more polluting power from industries not exceeding their maximums. It has all of the appearances of a scam designed to make some very wealthy people on the barter of carbon credits instead of wisely investing towards technologies that do more to eliminate pollution, and places the incentives in a completely different direction than where the focus should remain. It's a distraction.
.

The problem with denying the human contributions to the greenhouse effect here on earth, is that the position is championed by those that would prefer maintaining the status quo in our current habits instead of actively seeking and implementing better technologies that have the power to supplant the old order: big oil, & coal.

Well,when I was a young man we use to cruise around in my car for entertainment.

In the fall I would drive to each persons house and pick them up eventually there would be six of us in the car talking and joking.

Sooner or later it would start to get warm inside the car from everybody's body heat and breathing.

We would have to roll down the windows to let some cool air in the car.

I am not a scientist but do you think it is because we have 6 billion people populating the earth now and adding 7 million a day?

reply to post by Oneolddude

I really like that theory. we also have the all the heat transferred from various industrialization world wide. It would be interesting to find out how many joules man kind and his devices directly heat up our atmosphere by convection or however.

brings the matrix to mind, how many btu's did morpheus say we produce??

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Dark Ghost

 

Not directly, but indirectly. Just look at the graphs.

Which tell us the Earth is warming.... and the most likely explanation is CO2.

Just because it was locally warmer in the past doesn't mean we can make the planet as warm as we like!

Asteroid impacts were common in the past, and even though some life survived then, we wouldn't want it to happen again.

how exactly are we going to stave off the evil asteroid attacks? Less CO2?

what about the plants, I thought they lived by converting CO2 into O2. They would be pissed if you took away their food.

post by Dark Ghost

what about the plants, I thought they lived by converting CO2 into O2. They would be pissed if you took away their food.

Trees 'grow faster due to global warming'

Amazing ! Right !
So, all we've got to do is plant more trees. Co2 will disappear from the atmosphere like snow from the sun.

deleted post...

[edit on 28-2-2010 by novacs4me]

Ahem... can I play too?

reply to post by December_Rain

To answer some of those replies:

Answer: As carbon dioxide (CO2) is pumped into the air through human activities, heat becomes trapped in the atmosphere. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect." If the earth's global temperatures rise a mere 3 degrees, there will be catastrophic results all over the world.

Firstly, this is a qualitative analysis only. Quantitative analysis shows that the increase we have admittedly seen in atmospheric carbon dioxide is woefully unable to account for the observed/predicted warming trend through 1998.

Secondly, if indeed carbon dioxide levels were responsible for global temperature increases, the global average temperatures would continue to rise along with carbon dioxide levels, perhaps not linearly, but definitely as a function. This is not observed since 1998; carbon dioxide levels still creep up slowly and yet temperature increases have been non-existent.

Thirdly, I am still waiting for a scientific explanation as to how a 3°C temperature rise will lead to 'catastrophic' results. The glaciers of the world are not sitting there within 3°C of the melting point. The entire Arctic and Antarctic ice masses would have to melt in order to raise the ocean levels by the predicted amounts, and even then no mention is given to increases amounts of water vapor taken into the air due to the higher air temperature (a logarithmic function).

Answer: Actually the ocean's ability to store CO2 is not very long. Only 50% of CO2 is absorbed by areas of the ocean that are not very deep. In these areas, CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Recent studies have shown that only 30% of CO2 is stored in the deep ocean. The rest, some 20%, stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

Firstly, I question the numbers used. Carbon dioxide is almost undetectable except through the use of expensive sensors, and it is painfully obvious that such sensors are only used at minimal sampling points around the globe.

Secondly, it is not the oceans themselves that absorb the majority of carbon dioxide. The oceans maintain an equilibrium which is based on the atmospheric pressure and the amount of carbon dioxide available in the atmosphere. The absorption comes from oceanic plant life which uses the absorbed carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, maintaining the food chain of the ocean. As carbon dioxide is absorbed from what is dissolved in the water, the equilibrium shifts and more carbon dioxide is then absorbed to replace what was used. That means that the amount of carbon dioxide 'absorbed by the ocean' is influenced in a major way by the amount of plant life in the ocean, not by the absorption properties of carbon dioxide alone.

Answer: While the Arctic may serve as a great resource for measuring climate change, looking at one small area of the planet is not the best way to assess the situation. During the 1930s, for example, warming occurred in the Arctic, but the cause is not exactly known and did not take place all over the planet.

And this means that the present situation, wherein Arctic ice seems to be melting at an accelerated rate, is not a unique event in history and therefore can be attributed to causes other than carbon dioxide levels. It also explains why the Arctic appears to be experiencing more warming than other areas of the planet, while it receives the least amount of solar radiation per unit area, has the highest albedo on the planet (due to the angle of the ground as much as to any ice reflection), and is the most remote and therefore should have the least concentrations of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Answer: The warming that happened during 800-1300 AD is considered to be a local warming event, which is quite different than the changes in the global climate we are experiencing today. Ice samples have shown that temperatures around the world varied during that time.

Temperatures around the world constantly vary. That has not changed.

One cannot use such an argument that local phenomenon is irrelevant, then make the argument that local events (like melting Arctic ice) are relevant. Either both are irrelevant, or both are relevant. It is true that there is a difference between global climate and weather, but the two are related: global climate is the summation of local weather patterns on a world-wide basis. As such, individual weather observations by themselves can be contrary to global phenomenon, but taken together they begin to affect the global conditions.

Answer: When new evidence is found scientist alter their theories and data. No additional samplings taken anywhere in the world confirm that CO2 levels were above 290 parts per million in the last half of a million years. The Siple ice core samples in the Arctic cannot be used to counter this overwhelming consensus. Perhaps temperatures in the Siple area were elevated for a month or a year, but not consistently and not anywhere else on the planet at the same time. Since new data has come to light to address these findings, scientists have adjusted their graphs.

This is not what has happened with the CRU and the IPCC. Instead of changing their views as new data is received, they regularly either ignore or 'adjust' new data to fit their theory.

Answer: Past warming cycles are not the result of greenhouse gas emissions. These warming trends were the result of the earth's rotation around the sun. When the earth heated up in the past, more CO2 was released from our carbon sinks, which created a greenhouse effect. So when humans release CO2 today we are not allowing the earth to go through its natural cycle. Our oceans haven't even started heating up yet. But if they do, and we do not cut CO2 in the atmosphere over the next twenty years, catastrophic effects will ensue.

Again, why are past observations not plausible today? It is plainly obvious that carbon dioxide in ground deposits can be released due to rising temperatures, explaining why past warming episodes preceded carbon dioxide level increases. But this correlation seems to be ignored today, or worse, reversed without any real explanation.

Man-made carbon dioxide behaves no differently than carbon dioxide from any other source. There is no tiny stamp on the molecules that reads "man-made". The source is irrelevant to the action of the chemical. And again, exactly what catastrophic effects are we referring to? Plants growing faster, producing more food? The growing seasons increasing worldwide, again allowing us to grow more food? A lessening of cold-related death rates? A decrease in the amount of energy needed for heating?

Your source

Yeah, sounds seriously catastrophic to me. Lower energy bills, More, cheaper food. My God! We cannot allow this!

And that's assuming that the Global Warming myth is true... which it is not.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Ahem... can I play too?



Yeah, sounds seriously catastrophic to me. Lower energy bills, More, cheaper food. My God! We cannot allow this!

And that's assuming that the Global Warming myth is true... which it is not.

TheRedneck

I love it when my ideas are baked up by someone who can actually put it in words.
Thank you.

Sorry Folks but I have just so got to do this although these points have probably been covered.(quotes reduced to save space)

Originally posted by December_Rain
Below are a few responses to frequent statements deniers toss out.

The Skeptics: no evidence that humans are contributing to climate change.

Answer: As CO2 is pumped into air heat becomes trapped in atmosphere.

Please explain this interesting closed cycle system which as far as I am aware does not exist on our planet otherwise we would have boiled away long ago. Please also explain just how a gas is supposed to blanket the atmosphere. A greenhouse depends upon the removal of convection. No such system exists in the atmosphere. You are suggesting a system that has positive feedback, whereas in reality the system has negative feedback.

You need to read ALL 47 pages of this document The CO2 Debate Is Not Over by W.R. Pratt. before you continue to make such silly statements. You might also be interested to know that so called 'skeptics' do not deny that humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere. To do so would be almost as ridiculous as believing in global warming. What we do deny is that the human element is of any major significance. Your initial premise as to the position of Climate Realist is not even correct and yet to continue to argue from this disadvantage.

The Skeptics: CO2 can't be to blame for any climate change as emissions only stay in atmosphere for 10 years.

Do they really? I can't say I have heard that one yet. 10 years, or as little as 2 weeks (in the atmosphere) sometimes.

The Skeptics: Global CO2 emissions do not match Arctic temperatures

Answer: While the Arctic may serve as a great resource for measuring climate change, looking at one small area of the planet is not the best way to assess the situation.

So does this explain why the 'warmist' scientists not only exclude the Antarctic but all regions above 62 deg N and certain other cherry picked locations from temperature measurements favouring particularly those in UHI areas and the juiciest of them all - those on tarmac or next to air conditioner outlets?

During the 1930s, warming occurred in the Arctic, but the cause is not known and did not take place all over the planet.

Neither does any current warming yet your people are determined to exclude the colder areas to prove that it does.

The Skeptics: It's actually been much hotter than it is today during recorded human history. During medieval times, for example, warm temperatures plagued

Got to interrupt there. Plagued???? Oh how they must have hated being able to grow grapes in England, and to farm Greenland. That must have been a serious annoyance.

much of Europe.

Answer: The warming that happened during 800-1300 AD is considered to be a local warming event, different than the changes in the global climate we are experiencing today. Ice samples have shown that temperatures around the world varied during that time.

Of course temperatures around the world does not vary these days I suppose? Antarctica is just about the same temperature on average as the Sahara?

The Skeptics: ice core sampling is not a reliable way to measure changes to our climate

Answer: Specific ice samples may not be completely reliable. However, in order to reduce error many samples are taken all over the world... When used in conjunction with other resources, like tree rings, these records are undeniably accurate and reliable.

Well dang me, I never knew they sampled the ice in the Sahara as well. And these tree rings, this will be the sample of the ONE SINGLE tree which went to create the hockey stick graph will it? Oh and about those bubbles. Tell me, how do you understand the statement by the scientists that moved ice core data by 83 years so that it neatly fitted where they wanted it to on the basis that the air trapped in the ice core was younger than the surrounding ice? Pardon???? Does this actually mean that the air trapped in a glacier or ice sheet today is from 83 years in the future???

The Skeptics: Scientists fix the data all the time.

Oh this may be the bit I was referring to.

Answer: When new evidence is found scientist alter their theories and data.

Now there we have it and their data

No additional samplings taken anywhere in the world confirm that CO2 levels were above 290 parts per million in the last half of a million years.

This is from the article linked to above

natural CO2 levels can vary by more than 100 ppm in a single day. Yet our daily CO2 emissions are a minute 0.0112511415525114 ppm

Can you explain that please?

And I was taught at school that the levels during those prehistoric times were much higher, and let's face it I came out of school not long after they ended.

The Skeptics: Our environment has a great ability to adjust for inflation in CO2 emissions. When an increase occurs, our carbon sinks pick up the slack over a period of decades. So all the hype about global warming is nothing more than hot air.

Answer: Past warming cycles are not the result of greenhouse gas emissions. These warming trends were the result of the earth's rotation around the sun.

It has stopped doing that now so I guess that must be the reason.

Our oceans haven't even started heating up yet.

Absolutely right, they have started cooling but the IPCC chooses to ignore this fact.

I completely believe that human activities has raised the risk which threatens the planet. I don't need no chart or graphs to tell me what I see in front of my eyes. One just have to look outside their window. The short winters, prolonged summers, erratic climate etc. I know many people are against believing, it's human nature to disassociate themselves from the harm they do. Part of self mechanism nothing wrong with that.

Self flagellation also tends to be a human trait.

[edit on 28/2/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by countercounterculture


Approximately 0.8 kWhr per person. That's huge amount of megawatt hours for the world

reply to post by PuterMan

Do you mean 0.8 kW instead of kWhr? If you are using kWhrs as a unit, then you need to include the length of time involved, as in, is that per hour (meaning it is actually kW), per year, or in an average lifetime?

Edit to add: nice post above that one... I missed a few points you picked up on. Good show!

TheRedneck


[edit on 2/28/2010 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by Oneolddude
I am not a scientist but do you think it is because we have 6 billion people populating the earth now and adding 7 million a day?

0.035 g/breath so assuming a respiration rate of 12/min average = 0.42g per min * 60 * 24 = 605g/day * 7,000,000 = 4,235 tonnes of CO2 per day * 365 = 1.5 megatons for the humans of the first day. Extrapolate that over 365 days reducing by 1 set perday give 283 GIGATONS just from new borns. Sort of put the warmists 28 GT of CO2 emissions (8gt carbon) into perspective.

Please check my maths, I may be wrong. (I just double checked it in a spreadsheet and it seems right. Depends if the birth figure is 7 million)

OK actually I think .035 is for an adult, but they will get there.

Found some sources Between .56kg and .9kg per day and the one I used 0.6kg perday

Wow I just found this little gem in that warmist site Wikipedia.

Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are non-anthropgenic.

[edit on 28/2/2010 by PuterMan]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yes good point. Kw per hour I believe it is (used in heating calcs as I recall).

[edit on 28/2/2010 by PuterMan]

[edit on 28/2/2010 by PuterMan]

Of course another thing to think about is that if a rise of 3 degrees C. is considered a catastrophe, then it makes one wonder how on earth those poor dinosaurs (and the animals that came before them) could survive on an earth with NO polar ice caps at all!

There were actually several known species of dinosaur that evolved to live in what were polar regions millions of years ago. Some of these dinosaurs had huge eyes so that they could see in the winter darkness of the polar regions. There are also lots of fossilized plants that grew in summertime in the prehistoric polar regions as well, where as today at the same latitudes the only plants that can survive, summer or otherwise, are lichens.

But yet paleontological history tells us that it was likely a combination of the asteroid impact and a COOLING climate that did the dinosaurs in, not warming.

Clearly the earth has been much, much hotter and also much cooler in the past - temperate forests growing in the polar regions and glaciers in what is now New York City.

It's rather like being scared to death of a tiny spider when in the past the denizens of the earth have been faced with metaphorical lions, tigers and bears. Any warming that might be going on (man-made or otherwise) is nothing compared to what the earth has already seen.

Personally I do not believe human activity contributes to climate change, at least not in the way suggested by demonizing a natural part of earth's atmosphere, CO2. Honestly I think that the so-called "heat island" effect would have more influence on the atmospheric temperature than CO2. Very few natural surfaces radiate a huge amount of heat back into the atmosphere at night, but many man-made surfaces, like asphalt, do. That is a very real phenomenon that seems to be ignored. Or, worse yet, some of the temperature sensors that have been set up to monitor this alleged "global warming' are in close proximity to such man-made surfaces that do cause locally higher temps. You will get vastly different temp readings near or in a city than in the middle of a forested area or a farm.