Lies and misinformation of the deniers

Yes I did actually and you are completely wrong.

Your source - and you haven't provided any other citations to refute this - shows an on going increasing accumulation of CO2.

Your source - and you haven't provided any other citations to refute this - shows that while natural variability of course happens it is not enough to stop the increasing accumulation of CO2.

It is apparent that you don't understand the science you seek to attack and are pathological in your refusal to accept that you are wrong.

Unless you acknowledge that you are wrong on this very basic concept here you are confirming that accuracy and being factual in the assertions you make is not a consideration. In other words you are lying.

 

What proof do you have it is not enough?



Humans do add not enough green house gas to do what GW claims


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKtyKDdb7mI"]Man Made CO2 and Global Warming Myth is exposed - YouTube[/ame]

 

Folks, watch this video instead: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

 

Great more GW scientists that lie. I showed how small co2 is so it is not causing the warming .

Imagine that a GW scientists defending his wrong thinking.

 

All climate scientists, including the skeptics/deniers Spencer, Pielke, Lindzen, Christy, Motl, accept that climate sensitivity of CO2 only, ie no feedback, is 1C.

In other words, effect of CO2, even though only 388ppm by volume, is a significant influence on temperature.

Let me repeat your post from another thread:

 

Thank you for the video. Very informative.

 

17 minutes later:

Folks, the video is an hour long. Do you think that ptif219 even attempted to watch (or understand) any of it?

 

Why don't you actually post any science?

Any why do all your posts seemingly rely on violating the known laws of physics? We've known since the mid-1800 that CO2 is an importance climate forcer.

"Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere."

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

 

Thats crap. So somthing so minute is affecting temp HAHAHA tell that to school kids.

That is like saying we should shut down power plants because windmills are producing. Like CO2 windmills do not produce enough to affect change

 

Yeah now GW is like finance what a joke. The guy was a bias hypocrite that will never look at what others prove

 

No it is not water vapor is more of a climate forcer than co2 but you ignore that


http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24079/

 

So you know more than all the climate scientists, including the skeptics/deniers?

 

And when the planet warms more water vapor is evaporated into the atmosphere.

Warm air holds more water than cool air.

 

Yeah HA HA HA...that is like saying that CFCs, whose atmospheric concentrations are measures in parts per trillion could affect the amount of UV radiation reaching the planet. Tell that to school kids.


....Oh wait... most school kids already know that, don't they.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html

 

Climate change deniers are dependent on making logically false arguments, most commonly a straw man argument.

Strawman;

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

ptif219 - your argument is a classic straw man. Climate science has never said that CO2 acts alone. For your argument not to be a straw man you need to show thousands of references form climate science that all state that CO2 is acting alone - good luck with that.

If you can not produce the references then you have confirmed you are simply making stuff up.

 

it's not in reality...water vapour because of it's short cycle time in and out of the atmosphere about 2 weeks is relatively constant, where as CO2 has an extremely long cycle time, it accumultes faster than it can cycle out...but you ignore that, or as more likely you just didn't know....

 

CO2 uptake takes centuries. Which is why stopping MMGW requires CO2 production has to slow to less than safe uptake levels. Being the oceans are turning acidic, that rate is lower than what is occurring now.

To save the oceans requires dropping CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels immediately, so all sources of CO2 must be stopped.

The primary problem with that is we have no alternative sources of energy to run the farms, and ship the food. To run the economy required to justify shipping the food.

The methane given off from the 5+ billion people that starve to death will spike temperature. That methane converts to CO2, pushing temperatures high long enough to warm the oceans, triggering the methane hydrates to melt (2000 gigatons 55M years ago), pushing yet another temperature spike, followed by long term CO2 heating.

Yeah, lets stop all sources of MMGW now, humanity has too much to lose...

Meanwhile, the MMGW crowd is ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room. That methane blow off 55 million years ago, has happend several times in the past, with catastrophic results for life on the planet. 250M years ago, 5% survived.

Just like an asteroid strike is a certainty, the sun will heat the planet enough to start the methane hydrate positive feedback loop.

All, without the help of man.

 

incorrect this uptake of CO2 is extremely quick in geological time, speed of uptake is only limited by our ability to produce it......the increase of methane of the PT extinction event was preceded by a rise in CO2, without CO2 rise and accompanying temp rise methane stays locked away frozen...

 

Are you confusing output (increase in atmospheric CO2) with uptake (reduction in atmospheric CO2 by recombination into nature).

Methane hydrates reach a point of stability to whatever the ocean temp is. All that is required is an increase in temps long enough to raise ocean temps ~5F above where they were.

I would expect methane hydrates to be more a factor when the earth is colder as cold water supports more oxygen, thus more life (which dies to create the methane hydrate).

However, all this hoopla about how fast CO2 is increasing and that it could trigger a methane release is missing an important point. There are two conditions required - heat and time. You can't boil water instantly, and you can't heat the oceans quickly. Oceans have the added feature of stratification, same mechanisim as dual pane windows. I doubt we have enough fossil fuel to trigger a methane melt.

250M years ago, part of the heat came from volcanism, part from the CO2 the volcanos threw off. Just like 55M years ago, it took a long time for methane to join the party.

Now, an increase in solar output providing heat could make things exciting. We have been in an atypically stable period of solar output.

 

a poor explanation on your part..

we should gamble the potential extinction of complex life on the planet on your doubts?

ironically volcanism causes cooling not heating...CO2 is a relatively minor part of volcanism



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7064/full/nature04237.html

the cooling effect of volcanism is well known...only through extreme extended volcanism such as that of the PT event does CO2 accumulate to levels that will warm the planet and even then after the volcanism has diminished or ceased...

stable? solar events have been lower than normal recently...

 

Common sense tells you that the very small part of the atmosphere does not drive climate.

Believe the doom and gloom scare tactics if you like but that tells me it is all hype

 

So the warm air is kept warm by water vapor

 

So you have no proof it is false

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

 

Tell that to NASA

 

Wrong yet again - we've know since the 1800 that CO2 causes warming.

Are you really bragging that you know that less than people living in the 1800s?

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/