Hey climate deniers - are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Here is what I would like to know, how are the co2 levels in comparison to the demands for co2 our plant life has currently.

reply to post by okdon


Two things...

1: Solar radiation heats the ocean, and the heat from the oceans escapes into the atmosphere. However, the heat from the ocean escapes more readily into a cold atmosphere than a warm one. So if CO2 is warming the atmosphere more than normal, then the ocean will retain heat more than normal. Meaning increased temperatures in the ocean.

2: If CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere melts the ice. If the white ice melts, it stops reflecting sunlight, and the sunlight is absorbed into the ocean and land. Increasing temperatures of ocean and land in areas that once had ice protecting it from solar radiation.

reply to post by 0ne10


The ice has melted before, hundreds of years ago.
Was that man made CO2 also??

There is absolutely no doubt man contributes to global warming.
Every time I drive my car, light a fire or turn on a power point.
The question is by what percentage does man contribute as opposed to nature?
I say it's miniscule but still there.

The deniers should concentrate on that because there is as I said, no denying we contribute.

Originally posted by zerologic
The ice has melted before, hundreds of years ago.
Was that man made CO2 also??

Considering that hundreds of years ago there didn't exist more than 750 million motor vehicles, 1000's of coal powered plants, etc., I'd say no, it wasn't man-made CO2 that caused whatever you are talking about.

Originally posted by zerologic
There is absolutely no doubt man contributes to global warming.
Every time I drive my car, light a fire or turn on a power point.
The question is by what percentage does man contribute as opposed to nature?
I say it's miniscule but still there.

The deniers should concentrate on that because there is as I said, no denying we contribute.

The deniers should concentrate on how much we will contribute in the future so they can understand the concern.

meh

How could anyone deny the CLIMATE?

Surely you people see the politics in the question.

Originally posted by mc_squared
There's been a lot of global warming rhetoric popping up again on ATS lately, and every time it does - the same old one-line myths start rearing their ugly heads: it's just a natural cycle", "all the planets are warming" , "it's actually cooling" ...

They aren't myths. They are facts.

Hey climate deniers - are you smarter than a 5th grader?,

I don't know about a fifth grader, but I know I'm smarter in this area than someone who uses the 'rhetoric' of 'climate denier'. Trying to put the faux man made climate change scam on the same level as the holocaust? Yep .... Sounds like you've swallowed the climate change religion that Rev. Al Gore has been pumping out. Ya'd best go take a look at his investments and what the money and investments are all doing in the church of climate change. It's a scam no different than those pulled off by the megachurches that are on TV. Do yourself a favor .. stop worshipping at the high altar of faux-man-made-climate-change and take a look around. It's a scam.

I'll leave you with a new mantra to get you started on the path to enlightenment ...

"HIDE THE DECLINE"

(remember that ?? If not .. google it. It'll change your life I'm sure. )

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by BobbinHood

 

Those more complicated factors can all be addressed quite satisfactorily in a longer thread - but nobody around here seems to care is the thing...

Hey mc_squared, just thought I'd say that there are many people that do care. I haven't been coming here much lately, but pop in occasionaly. The OP video experiments were great at showing the properties of CO2, I particularly enjoyed the IR video footage. What they don't explain though, is the extent of CO2 induced warming in the atmosphere, and the various effects this will have on our weather/climate. Obviously, the amount of CO2 in these experiments far exceed that of our climate. It's not as simple as assigning a value to a forcing in a jar and pronouncing that this is how the atmosphere will behave.

My point of this thread was to just highlight the outright absurdity of some of the rampant one-line myths that spread like wildfire in these sort of situations. And no - not all the planets are warming up and no this isn't a natural cycle (or at least there is absolutely no evidence of that) - read the links I left in the OP!

I'm glad you at least admitted that there is no evidence that there is a natural cycle. Stating that it certainly isn't is just as bad as the people you criticise who say there is certainly no AGW. The fact is we cannot truly recreate our climate in a model, as we simply do not know all the variables, as others have already pointed out. If we don't fully understand past climate variations, we can't expect to fully understand present climate variations (I must admit though, I haven't yet been able to view the videos you linked regarding natural variations).

To what extent we are contributing to current warming is well and truly up for debate. This is what most of the rational "climate deniers" (had to chuckle at that :lol are actually saying. There are very few, although sadly still some, who say that we are having absolutely no effect. But I commend your efforts to eradicate these notions.

As far as I'm aware, we do not have models that can accurately model past climate variations (such as MWP, LIA), and eventually get to our present day climate. If someone knows of such models, please point them out. What many question is the extent of the claimed forcings and feedbacks, and especially, the doomsday type predictions. The claims of major increases in disasters such as drought, floods and storms are thrown around regularly, with little or no evidence to back them up. Easily disproved "facts" are spoken as if gospel, by both sides of the argument. It is for these reasons, many people at least question the extent of such claims, especially when the proposed solutions are driven by politics and economics, as opposed to genuine efforts to reduce pollution.

But to ask questions doesn't mean we are willing to carry on polluting, as some people seem to assume. Many people are making genuine efforts to curb pollution, without fully subscribing to climate doomsdayers. Of course we need to change our current lifestyle and energy usage, but making erroneous claims and exagerations is not the only way to do this. Of course there is genuine reason to be concerned about climate variations, but we should still be able to question the "consensus" without being ridiculed and vilified.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
"HIDE THE DECLINE"

Let me tell you something you didn't understand...

"Hide the decline" was talking about tree-ring data. They had two sets of data; Temperature data from tree-rings, and temperature data from actual thermometers. From the 1850's to the 1980's the tree-ring data matched the thermometer data pretty closely. After the 1980's, the tree-ring data started to show lower temperatures (the decline) than were recorded by thermometers.

For some reason, tree's don't grow the same anymore after the 1980's so using them to obtain temperature data is no longer accurate. We don't even need to use tree-ring data because we have thermometer data. We have actual temperature data instead of relying on the way the trees grow to give use temperature data.

The declining tree-ring data is what they wanted to "hide" from the graph because it is essentially useless when you have actual temperature data from thermometers. The trees just are not the same, and this issue was talked about back in 1998.

So what you are doing is supporting a rumor. Climate change deniers saw those three words "hide the decline" then just about lost their mind thinking they finally had something to use against climate change supporters (because they don't use science), and they ignored all context and or probably didn't even understand what they were talking about in the e-mails. The e-mails were a non-event, but the deniers and conspiracy theorists didn't even understand. They spun it into a giant lie, a giant rumor.

If instead of using Google for your brain you actually did some thinking for yourself, you might have understood everything I just said.

The title of this video demonstrates the arrogance among AGW zealots.

reply to post by mc_squared

it's just a natural cycle.

Now you should explain why global temperatures have not increased significantly since 1995 (according to Phil Jones), thereby demonstrating a divergence between CO2 increase and temperatures. Why did the temperature increase at exactly the same rate between 1910 and the 1940's as it did between the 1975's and 2000? According to the CO2 hypothesis - it should have accelerated as our production of CO2 increased - it did not. Since we are obviously not smarter than a 5th grader, please explain it.

volcanoes release more CO2 than people.

What about the thousands of hydrothermal volcanoes that we can't monitor?

there is no proof that CO2 causes warming.

No-one denies that CO2 causes warming. The question is, how much? A more important question would be the magnitude of the feedbacks, since they cause most of the warming in the climate models and that matter is still very controversial, and we do have empirical evidence (again, which is open to debate) suggesting they are strongly negative.

Negative feedbacks inherently keep systems in balance, while positive feedbacks will lead to wild swings and it makes sense intuitively for negative feedbacks to largely dominate positive feedbacks because within each relatively stable state negative feedback must predominate or else stability would not be maintained.

Instead of making churlish, provocative threads like this, why don't you make one about feedbacks and present an argument showing us silly deniers why they are mainly positive? Otherwise all you are doing is wasting our time by evangelising a belief - a sincere one, perhaps but nothing based on real evidence.

You're so ideologically motivated you've left all objectiveness at the front door.

Originally posted by 0ne10
Let me tell you something you didn't understand...

No sweetie ... I understand perfectly.
Hide the decline .... corruption of data and manipulation of the public.
Al Gore and his carbon credit $$$ scheme.
Well intentioned useful idiots who go along with it and don't question the science or the money trail.
Pure and simple.

If instead of using Google for your brain you actually did some thinking for yourself,

So says those who can't see the fact that there is no evidence supporting man-made global warming and that High Priest Al Gore and his brethren are scamming you. I know it's tough, when you belong to a cult, to see the truth. They brainwash their followers. We'll try to be gentle as we deprogram ya'll ...

manbearpig lives on ... so sad.
Telegraph UK

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Examiner - Columbia

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline (in global temps)."

Oh yes ... a trustworthy bunch ... .... definately selfless and wouldn't lie to make a $$ or two (*sarcasim)

News Busters - Carbon Credit Scam by Al Gore

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

Definately something every worshipper of man-made global warming should read ....
Al Gore's Inconvenient Loot

How about this for an equation...

IF higher CO2 levels create a warmer planet, then a warmer planet = More water evaporation, which = More clouds, which = A Cooler planet, which = A natural cycle.

You don't think our planet got to be 4.5 billion years old without having safety valves in place..........Did you ?

Originally posted by ken10
How about this for an equation...

IF higher CO2 levels create a warmer planet, then a warmer planet = More water evaporation, which = More clouds, which = A Cooler planet, which = A natural cycle.

You don't think our planet got to be 4.5 billion years old without having safety valves in place..........Did you ?

well the evaporation increase is at least correct,.
Notice all the flooding going on around the planet?
Massive rainfall amounts,..

reply to post by mc_squared


Climate denier is a useless title. It's like calling someone who isn't a communist a "hater of the poor."

Very Soviet of you OP, good job.

Nobody denies climate change. Climates do change, this is obvious to any thinking person. Is it all man-made? That's what people have a problem with.

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

Notice all the flooding going on around the planet? Massive rainfall amounts,..

Are you saying this is unprecedented ?

I hope you'll post some links if you are.

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

 

Notice all the flooding going on around the planet? Massive rainfall amounts,..

Are you saying this is unprecedented ?

I hope you'll post some links if you are.

I do not need to post info that has been in the world news for the last 4 years,.
the flooding in China
Pakistan
India
all across the united states
Look it up your self.
Yes there have been floods in the past,.
however not as much and frequent.
The rainfall amounts have been up to 8 inches an hour.

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

I do not need to post info that has been in the world news for the last 4 years,. the flooding in China Pakistan India all across the united states Look it up your self. Yes there have been floods in the past,. however not as much and frequent. The rainfall amounts have been up to 8 inches an hour.

I did and look....

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by ken10
Gosh,..
I guess I have it all wrong then

reply to post by lifeform11

neither is sitting around on the internet complaining about non believers, that was my point if you actually read my 'whole' post.

Well for one thing - I'm not complaining about the non-believers, I'm merely complaining about ignorance. I'm complaining about all the one-line myths that get bandied about around here like they're some kind of fact when they're nothing but propaganda. This is a result of laziness - no one bothers to fact check, and pretty soon everyone starts repeating these things so commonly that it just becomes self reinforcing disinformation. This is also why I chose the somewhat provocative title for this thread too - because maybe next time it'll make some of those people think twice about spreading these lazy rumors for fear of looking dumber than a 9 year old.

its not a lazy response just because you say it is, its a valid question

Sorry - I didn't mean your response was lazy, it was indeed a valid question, which is why I responded to it. I was talking about the general attitude people have to complicated issues like this. They just choose the quickest way out - "oh it's just a scam, follow the money, etc", they only read the headlines and not the fine print (climategate), and then they just stick to their convictions no matter what information comes to light after. And in the process they completely allow themselves to be exploited by other malicious forces and agendas in this game that they are pretty much sucking up to because they're so convinced they've already got everything so figured out.

^^^ So this I guess is also what bothers me, because it's just more evidence of what total utter sheep people are.

And as for why I think it's important - it's like what LoneGunMan said: because we need a collective paradigm shift if anything's going to change. This is the only way it's going to happen - the powers that be are not going to do this for us.

You sound like you feel you really have no choice - but think about this statement:

its stupid to start at the consume end first, when industry/factories etc cause far more damage to earth than somebody living in a house.

It ALL starts at the consume end. Because our consumer decisions dictate what industry does about it, we only allow it to be the other way around because we're such apathetic cattle. If everybody started installing solar panels on their roof, or even just demanding them, the market would naturally gravitate towards this option. But here's the thing - that word "everybody". It needs a collective response. To get that response - you need some sort of universal lightning rod to galvanize the public altogether. Here is one sitting right in front of everybody's face - global warming. But instead of recognizing these opportunities people are now being conditioned to ignore them because of all the political rhetoric about taxes and the bullsh** myths the denial industry is pumping out into the public sector. So you might see it as complaining, but I see it as trying to get people to wake the hell up

reply to post by 0ne10


Thanks One10

I think it's all pretty self explanatory too when you really look into it, but unfortunately there are manipulative conspirators out there who are making it very complicated by offering people easier to swallow, but totally superficial and misleading answers. Too many people are getting lost in the plot as a result.