Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

Sorry - did not see the question



You know for me the question is not - how much is man contributing but "How the hell can we expect to burn 83 million barrels of oil PER DAY and not expect there to be a change in the atmosphere?

IT does not matter that it is only a fraction of the carbon cycle - what matters is that that fraction is in excess of the carbon cycle so there is a build up - like getting interest at the bank.

Don't forget the other side of CO2 - deforestation. They cycle only works if there are enough trees to make it work

 

My response was intended for bomac who wrote the post quoted.

I'm afraid a picture of the carbon cycle doesn't respond to the question either. There is a huge question related to persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere. There have been many studies of that question but the range of answers make the results highly questionable. What is the measured percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is manmade? It's only like interest in the bank if the CO2 is not absorbed, or not compensated for by some feedback (clouds?), or some other processs we made not understand.

I do not doubt that burning fossil fuels can affect the atmosphere. But given the immense complexity of the earth's sea/land/atmosphere and the hundreds of variables impacting on the entire system, I cannot see how anyone can point to one source of CO2 and say, "See, THAT's the cause of the climate changes we're seeing!" There are so many feedback loops in the system that are poorly understood - or not understood at all - that there has not been an identified "human fingerprint" anywhere in the climate.

 

Onus Probandi Fallacy

 

I am obviously way, way out of my depth here.

However, I still point to Sanicola's reference to 9-13 microns as the wavelength most associated with surface temperatures. I also note in your second graph that CO2 absorbtion is given as about 13 to 17 microns. So I still see no conflict. And I admit to not seeing any proof that "there's still sufficient energy absorbed and emitted to account for warming". I do see a massive drop in intensity around 15 microns, but that tells me nothing about how much is "sufficient".

I would be very interested in hearing about a communication between you and Sanicola. You obviously have very different views and I'd like to see a more in-depth discussion of this subject between you.

 

I don't believe it is. If "97% of climate scientists" believe it and proponents are asking everyone on the planet to change their energy mix at the cost hundreds of $billions of dollars, a very high standard of proof is a reasonable thing to ask. If it's a "fact" ("the discussion is over" - "the science is proven") then surely there is some evidence of a human fingerprint. If there is not, then pray tell, on what is the belief based? Other than computer simulations, that is.

 

My response was intended to elicit proof of your statements

Oh! and arguing with Mannie D about the IR signatures is futile - the science is so solid it is brilliant. Went there a couple of days ago researched it myself and had to re-read several pages of a text to ensure I had it right - it is quite complex! But the science is very solid

 

Sorry - the burden of proof rests squarely on the backs of those who proclaim man's burning of fossil fuels is causing global temperatures to rise at a rate that will cause all manner of catastrophes; who demand very rapid reduction in CO2; who proclaim skeptics are "anti-science"; and who want to increase the costs of energy worldwide to combat a "potential" threat which even they admit cannot be demonstrated outside a computer simulation.

I'm not arguing with Mannie D. I have asked questions and offered observations of the data he presented. I'm not qualified to argue with anyone on the subject. But I am qualified to ask questions.

I don't intend to put your scientific knowledge down, but your next to last sentence isn't all that reassuring.

 

Internet climate catastrophists aren't privy to the inner sanctum of the climatology they worship, they're only fed snippets of minimal information to keep them hungry for more.

 

Yes, it does. Fossil fuels only adds and does not subtract. Vegetation and land, as long as we have enough forests, eats more than in puts out. Same with the ocean. Fossil fuels are putting more out than the other two can absorb.

We ARE seeing the oceans absorbing more and that affects the jet streams.

 

Even then, they evidently don't all understand what those snippets mean.

 

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies.[3][4][5][6] The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and has a full-time staff of 31,[7] including editors and senior fellows,[8] as well as 222 unpaid policy advisors.[9] Heartland's 990 form in 2011[10] reported revenues of $4.7 million. The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing[11] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[12][13][14] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[15] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[16] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Why would the opinions of a clearly biased and non-subjective RW organization be grounds for "totally exposing" anything?

 

Wow, maybe you should refer them to the Obama IRS.

 

Maybe. But showing the bias of the OP was sufficient for my purposes here.

 

Sorry - nope.

I asked for the measured percentage of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere. The picture of the carbon cycle merely shows the estimated amounts of CO2 from various sources and how much is estimated to be taken up by various sources.

Because you aren't using any observational data in your defense, I won't use any in my assertions either. The implication of the picture provided is that manmade CO2 enteres the atmosphere, but is never taken up by any source. Yet natural CO2 is taken up. How is that possible? Isn't CO2 just CO2? And if it isn't then where are the measurements that show how much manmade CO2 is in the atmosphere? Good heavens, climate scientists expect us to believe they can predict global temperatures 100 years in advance as well know how much sea level will rise at the same time, yet don't bother (or know how to) measure atmospheric manmade CO2?

Have you ever seen the level of uncertainty in the numbers in that picture? If it's anything like global temperatures or CO2 sensitivity, then the error bars overwhelm the changes in measurement values.

If there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and I'll grant you there is, and oceans are taking up more of it, aren't forests and the soil also absorbing more? Are not plants reacting favorably to more CO2 by growing faster and bigger? I believe they are. And if that is so, where are the data that says they will not increase their uptake sufficient to minimize the additional CO2?

Let me try another way....The picture shows that 800 units are entering the atmosphere. It also shows that 788 units are being taken up. So the residual, 12 units, is what is being added to the atmosphere. That is 1 1/2% of the total being produced. Do you really think that those data are accurate to within 1 1/2%? What if the ocean is giving up 350 units? Then it is giving up almost as much additional CO2 as fossil fuels. So the additional CO2 in the atmosphere that everyone agrees is there, could be as much due to the oceans as fossil fuel burning. How do we know if we do not measure? And if that were true, how effective is attacking only part of the problem going to be?

I find it hard to believe that someone, somewhere isn't measuring manmade CO2 percentages. If there is a difference in manmade and natural CO2, I would think such a number would be really important to climate scientists, particularly to those who believe manmade CO2 is causing all manner of problems with the climate.

 

More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[15] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[16] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[17]

So we have an organization with a total budget of less than $5 miilion (about 1/50th Greenpeace's budget) engaged in "issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing[11] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism." That suggests pretty small funding for "climate change skepticism" doesn't it? Particularly for a "primary" organization. And I believe that is a mistatement. The Heartland Institute has never, to my knowledge, expressed skepticism about the climate changing. If does, however, express skepticism about manmade global warming and the predicted catastrophes.

Those annual meetings for skeptics? They always invite AGW proponents to address the conferences - by personal invitation. I recall that one - and only one - has ever responded. He reported that he was treated with respect - not shouted down or called names. It's a shame that the AGW proponents calling for serious debate seldom seem to show up where such debates can occur. These conferences would seem to be a good venue for one to express opinion and present supporting data.

 

It has become painfully obvious that anthropogenic climate change denial is not quack science, but a tenet of ideological dogma that eschews science, one manifestation in what is a derangement package deal.

The world's climatologists reach overwhelming consensus based upon sound analytical processes based upon the level of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, but a blusterous radio entertainer rails that it's a hoax. His abject stooges nod like bobble head dolls with Parkinson's in an 8+ magnitude earthquake. For them, it's a hoax!

So, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell undertook a

When berserkers choose media entertainers over politicians to lead them, what's so surprising about their fantasizing that they're scientists as well?

​

 

I don't give a damn what you asked. From that link, I saw fossil fuels generating 29 of CO2 with no absorption. Vegetation&Land emits 439 and absorbs 450. Ocean emits 332 and absorbs 338. So V&L and Ocean can take in 16. That leaves 13 either still in the air or increasing the acidification of the Ocean. We also know that deforestation is going on especially in the Amazon and southeast Asia.

I have no idea what the numbers represent but I can easily read them. I am not an expert on climate but common sense says that, if there is more CO2 emitting than is being absorbed, we have a problem that could get worse with deforestation.

Sometimes "experts" get hung up on the science details and can't see the big picture. I saw a chart where CO2 was rising quickly in the oceans. When you see abnormal things happening, you assume that is not good. And I have seen nothing from the deniers explaining the abnormalities.

 

If my last post is out of your depth, the "proof" that "there's still sufficient energy absorbed and emitted to account for warming" probably won't make any sense. The "proof" is in the math and is based on The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part Three
He does a much better and more thorough job than I could ever do.
Look at this image again

According to the math, the energy associated with the above image is the area under the curve. As you can see the CO2 blocks a considerable chunk of energy from radiating back to space.

 

In other words, you bought the Kool-Aid. Nothing of what you said is true. Consensus is a political term and it has been so bastardized that it is meaningless in terms of scientific endeavor. Yes, most everyone agrees that man has something to do with some warming but there is no consensus, much less proof, that any majority of warming is anthropogenic, in fact, the percentage keeps getting less as more is understood about natural variability, which is only now being considered after the ton of money (most of it) has been spent on computer modelling that has come to naught.

Oh, and quoting from Skeptical Science is pretty lame which had their own volunteers review the papers that other scientists wrote and take a poll to come up with the "overwhelming consensus" of climate scientists. You should read some of the actual authors comments about the poll, of course you will not be able to find their comments on Skeptical Science because it does not allow anything on it that would question it's bias.

 

But that is the point - the proof is there. The scientists have met the challenge of the "burden of proof" what is NOT required is that they teach every closed minded uneducated individual on the planet

Especially when those individuals will not do the basic homework and find out for themselves - I did. I do not have a background in "hard" science (chem and physics) so it has taken me a few years to wrap my mind around some of the harder aspects but that is not really required because the general outline is actually simple and usually is understood well by pre-schoolers e.g.

Man burns millions of tonnes of fossil fuel per day = burning fossil fuels makes CO2. Co2 is normally absorbed by plants and particularly forests. Man is cutting down the forests. Co2 is rising. Co2 acts like a reflective blanket around the planet so the bad heat cannot escape and makes the planet too warm

A warmer planet means that the climate will change and that will make growing food harder - which means we will be stuffed if we cannot adapt

- - - Updated - - -

Typical example of opinion versus research

Sorry but opinion is not worth the bandwidth is is broadcast on

 

I suggest you carefully read the following quotes and attempt to rebut them at your leisure:

 

Then why do you quote from Skeptical Science?

 

I have yet to see you (or, as a matter of fact, any "skeptic") address any article on Skeptical Science. All I've seen is "skeptics" attack the source and call Cook a Nazi or cartoonist.
I've pointed out the "mistakes" of Watts, CO2Science and recently Sanicola. How about a little intellectual honesty by explaining why you think the science of an article on SS is wrong?

 

Why don't you start by addressing what Cook does, which is exactly what you claim others are doing. For one, there is a reason he is in "communications" and there is another reason why his site does not allow anyone to question his articles on his site.

 

I suggest you read my post carefully and identify why your response does not match my post