Common methodological flaws in climate change denial

[maryjane48]

Because of all the water on earth, it just can't become like Venus. Also the earth's atmosphere is less than 0.04% CO2 while Venus is 95% CO2. Even if we burned all the oil, we'd still be under 5%, let alone 95%.

but the part you leave out is that it wont take big change to cause huge affect

Current [atmospheric] CO2 values are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years (and maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years). This new record represents an increase of 85 ppm in the 55 years since David Keeling began making measurements at Mauna Loa. Even more disturbing than the magnitude of this change is the fact that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the last few decades, meaning that future increases will happen faster. When averaged over 55 years, the increase has been about 1.55 ppm CO2 per year. However, the most recent data suggest that the annual increase is more than 2.75 ppm CO2 per year.

These increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing real, significant changes in the Earth system now, not in some distant future climate, and will continue to be felt for centuries to come. We can study these impacts to better understand the way the Earth will respond to future changes, but unless serious actions are taken immediately, we risk the next threshold being a point of no return in mankind's unintended global-scale geoengineering experiment.

– Dr. Charles Miller

Researcher specializing in the remote sensing of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; Principal investigator, Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) mission



http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

[Glacier]

[maryjane48]

Air-sea gas exchange is a physio-chemical process, primarily controlled by the air-sea difference in gas concentrations and the exchange coefficient, which determines how quickly a molecule of gas can move across the ocean-atmosphere boundary. It takes about one year to equilibrate CO2 in the surface ocean with atmospheric CO2, so it is not unusual to observe large air-sea differences in CO2 concentrations. Most of the differences are caused by variability in the oceans due to biology and ocean circulation. The oceans contain a very large reservoir of carbon that can be exchanged with the atmosphere because the CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the interaction with the surface ocean will change the chemistry of the seawater resulting in ocean acidification.

Evidence suggests that the past and current ocean uptake of human-derived (anthropogenic) CO2 is primarily a physical response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Whenever the partial pressure of a gas is increased in the atmosphere over a body of water, the gas will diffuse into that water until the partial pressures across the air-water interface are equilibrated. However, because the global carbon cycle is intimately embedded in the physical climate system there exist several feedback loops between the two systems. For example, increasing CO2 modifies the climate which in turn impacts ocean circulation and therefore ocean CO2 uptake. Changes in marine ecosystems resulting from rising CO2 and/or changing climate can also result in changes in air-sea CO2 exchange. These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future.

MISSION STATEMENT

The PMEL carbon group is committed to documenting the patterns of air-sea CO2 exchange, how they vary over a range of timescales, and what processes control gas exchange in the ocean. Our goal is to better understand ocean carbon system feedbacks and how the role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle is changing.

The PMEL carbon group is involved in several research projects to help us better understand ocean carbon uptake.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake



according to this article , the understanding of ocean atmosphere co2 exchange is very limited , but it does say the ocean taking in more co2 is direct result of co2 levels rising since humans started releasing more and the ocean can put co2 its self into the air , it is not just a co2 sink , it releases to

[maryjane48]

wheres the link ? oh wait i can google mike huckabee myself or ted cruz lol

[Glacier]

wheres the link ? oh wait i can google mike huckabee myself or ted cruz lol

No need, just google CO2 concentration over the past 500 million years.

[maryjane48]

lol . i will trust known scientists over rightwing fearmongers any day all day . im not impressed by cheap street tricks , i never play 3 card monty , unlike some

[I Think]

Perhaps his agenda is the belief that god would not allow us to destroy the planet.

This is a commonly held right wing belief especially in the southern US. Leads to senators tossing snowballs to "prove" there is no global warming.

[Glacier]

lol . i will trust known scientists over rightwing fearmongers any day all day . im not impressed by cheap street tricks , i never play 3 card monty , unlike some

How about Skeptical Science:

[maryjane48]

i hardly doubt nasa and noaa will knowingly engage in skeptical science

[Glacier]

Well you have linked to their website before as evidence to support your position: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=58670&p=1724247&hilit=skepticalscience#p1724247

[maryjane48]

yes and i still stand by doing it

[highway001]

Glacier can you post the link to the skeptical science page that contains the graph you posted. Just to put it into context, thanks.

I'd like to see how they used it.

[Glacier]

Glacier can you post the link to the skeptical science page that contains the graph you posted. Just to put it into context, thanks.

I'd like to see how they used it.

Like I know how to find that. You guys are hilarious. I post the data straight from the source showing not one but two satellite records, and still that's not enough. I get the impression that no matter what I post you will only believe it if it aligns with your preconceived notions of reality. Who are the deniers now?

[LtZerge]

The statement "CO2 concentrations are the highest they've been in 25 millions years" is not even incorrect, according to glacier's graph. I'm not even sure what his point was presenting it like that. If you want to post data, show the full context of the data if possible. Skeptical Science used the graphs in a run-down of CO2 vs temperatures present over a long time, concluding with the fact that CO2 is only one of many variables contributing to climate shifts.

Reverse google image search is your friend btw

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-hig ... ediate.htm

[highway001]

Hey thanks for the tip LtZerge...I didnt know that, very useful!

Lol...oh so Glacier you didn't want to share the link because...it completely explains that forming a conclusion bssed on the graph alone is a massive incorrect leap in logic .

When but into context it makes sense.
Yes C02 was super high...no one disputes that its just irrelevant since when combined with other variables it makes it a moot point (as a stand alone graph)

Do you disagree with the following?