Fake News Reporting Thread

[Kidlicious]

The role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is very well understood.
And regarding CO2 levels, here 2 graphics:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

https://cleanet.org/clean/literacy/principle_6.html

I know that it won't persuade you, as no argument, whatsoever will ... nevertheless, for completeness sake ... the graphics well show how over the top mankind has pushed CO2 levels´and how huge the increase was, especially during the last ~50 years

You aren't going to persuade me of what? Don't play games. I already agree that CO2 is a factor. I disagree that it is a determanent. If you compare the graph that you just presented with the graph that JT presented you can clearly see that CO2 is not a determanent of temperatures.

[Proteus_MST]

You aren't going to persuade me of what? Don't play games. I already agree that CO2 is a factor. I disagree that it is a determanent. If you compare the graph that you just presented with the graph that JT presented you can clearly see that CO2 is not a determanent of temperatures.

Thed graph that JT presented was a graph about deforestation.
I never claimed that CO2 level is linkied to deforestation.

Regarding the link between global temperature and the CO2 level however:
Your own quote regarding NASA, where it was said that, since 1975 the gloibal temperature has risen by ~0.6 °C (compared to just a 0.2 °C rise during the whole 100 years before ... which very well coincides with the enormous rise in CO2 levels after 1950 ... already tells me enough.

But to complete the picture:
The other thing that rises (thanks to the rampant greenhouse efect) is the temperature of the oceans. They are an enormous heatsink (due to the huge amount of water) and their temperature also rises ... which is the most dangerous thing, considering that this not only contributes to the change of the sea currents and the melting of the polar caps, but also to the melting of methan ice on the sea floors (which can increase the greenhosue effect by even more)

Here is a nice graphics that shows the rise in heat content of the oceans over the last few decades

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/03/12/the-temperature-of-the-ocean-is-rising

[Kidlicious]

Do what caused the low temperature of the oceans in 1968?

[Proteus_MST]

Do what caused the low temperature of the oceans in 1968?

The authors’ analysis suggests that the most likely drivers were
1) the “Great Salinity Anomaly” of the late 1960s;
2) an earlier warming of the subpolar North Atlantic, which may have led to a slowdown in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and
3) an increase in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions.

Hodson et al., 2014

[Kidlicious]

Very good. Now what are the factors contributing to the INCREASE in temperatures, and don't say just CO2.

[Proteus_MST]

Very good. Now what are the factors contributing to the INCREASE in temperatures, and don't say just CO2.

Of the ocean temperature?
Warming by radiation (like the IR radiation that gets transferred back to earths surface by the greenhouse effect, but also solar radiation)
direct thermic transfer between air and water
partially most probably also volcanic activity ... but they can also contribute to cooling, due to an increase in cloud cover
oh and not to forget, the influx of fluids into the oceans, for example by rivers, but also industries or sewages

[Kidlicious]

Of the ocean temperature?
Warming by radiation (like the IR radiation that gets transferred back to earths surface by the greenhouse effect, but also solar radiation)
direct thermic transfer between air and water
partially most probably also volcanic activity ... but they can also contribute to cooling, due to an increase in cloud cover
oh and not to forget, the influx of fluids into the oceans, for example by rivers, but also industries or sewages

Right. So you need to show that CO2 is the determining factor. The temperatures fall when CO2 increases. So how can you say how much CO2 increases temperatures. The graph is not sufficient.

[Kidlicious]

The other thing is, according to your graph, only 1/4 of CO2 in atmosphere is created by man. Correct?

[Aeson]

I'm not down playing anything. I'm saying that there are more trees now than there were in 1975, and yet we have higher temperatures. You are downplaying the effect that trees have.

So then the question is why do environmentalist oppose cutting down trees, even in areas that have been forested previously. Double-talk.

This is why people don't believe what you say.

You don’t understand what deforestation rate means. While deforestation rate was highest in the timeframe you cherry picked, deforestation has continued to the present ... thus the sum total area of land deforested is now larger than it was in 1975.

Other things you don’t understand appear to be: the difference between area and tree count, the effects trees have, and the difference in those effects of small and large trees. I’m sure there is much more ...

[rah]

Has he ever understood anything?????

[Kidlicious]

You don’t understand what deforestation rate means. While deforestation rate was highest in the timeframe you cherry picked, deforestation has continued to the present ... thus the sum total area of land deforested is now larger than it was in 1975.

Other things you don’t understand appear to be: the difference between area and tree count, the effects trees have, and the difference in those effects of small and large trees. I’m sure there is much more ...

This explains perfectly how we have more trees and also higher temperatures. Thanks.

[Aeson]

No it's not the same thing. This is a ridiculous accusation. I didn't cherry pick anything. Maybe you don't know what cherry picking is or maybe you want people to believe a bunch of crap without providing a reasonable argument.

You keep picking out time segments that appear to support your argument (if everything else is ignored) to focus on instead of looking at the longer term trends in the same graphs that prove you wrong. That is cherry picking. You’ve done it in regard to deforestation, ocean temps, and job creation.

The thing you don’t seem to understand is that year to year variations can fluxuate due to many factors ... El Nino years which we can’t yet predict ... sun cycles which we can predict pretty well ... and others result in year to year variations. You keep looking for dips and peaks that align to your argument, rather than to tailor your argument to the full set of data available.

[Aeson]

This explains perfectly how we have more trees and also higher temperatures. Thanks.

It would be helpful if you could point out a source that supports your claim. The counts I can find for trees is that worldwide we’re still net losing in tree count as well by about 10 billion per year.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366

But ignoring that ... even if there were more trees in nominal terms there are many ways in which other factors could override the difference ... or even that the larger number of young trees are not replacing the lost effect of older trees that are lost.

[Aeson]

My argument is

1) We don't know how much we have contributed to climate change.

2) We can't control temperatures.

1. We have a pretty good idea. All the data we have suggests close to all the warming since the start of the Industrial era is due to human activity.

2. You say you accept that CO2 is a factor in climate change. We definitely can control our CO2 output (and other factors such as land use, particulate emissions) as a species. Thus even you must admit that we have some level of control over climate.

[Kidlicious]

You keep picking out time segments that appear to support your argument (if everything else is ignored) to focus on instead of looking at the longer term trends in the same graphs that prove you wrong. That is cherry picking. You’ve done it in regard to deforestation, ocean temps, and job creation.

The thing you don’t seem to understand is that year to year variations can fluxuate due to many factors ... El Nino years which we can’t yet predict ... sun cycles which we can predict pretty well ... and others result in year to year variations. You keep looking for dips and peaks that align to your argument, rather than to tailor your argument to the full set of data available.

1945-1980 is a long trend. That's why your theory was not so popular in 1980. But now the data fits your theory. Ten years down the line, if temps decrease you will have no more graph to use.

The reason for using specific sets of data is important. I didn't do so to mislead. Proteus did. I'm making a valid point. I'm not even arguing that CO2 doesn't increase temps.