Deception by Science

[RenaissanceMan]

At first glance, the following graph may appear to be reasonable, rational, scientific, and informative. It is also terribly misleading, and intentionally so.

The entire range spans only 70 parts per million. Why? Because those who promote it have an ax to grind, about which more later.

I will reduce the scale to include the zero baseline.

Unfortunately this entire increase in carbon dioxide concentration is implicitly assumed to be anthropogenic, or man-made wherever the graph is displayed, to the gasps of frightened audiences.

Since anthropogenic carbon dioxide is estimated at only ~3.4% of the total,
that component would be shown as increasing from 11 ppm to 13 ppm, seen here:

To be concluded in following post.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Finally, I will include just one other greenhouse gas, viz. water vapor, estimated to compose ~1.5% of the atmosphere, exclusive of ice and clouds.
Note that atmospheric composition by element or compound is typically given by percentage of mass. But the original graph is shown in parts per million volume, or number of molecules/atoms. Water vapor, being much lighter than nitrogen, oxygen, or carbon dioxide, therefore constitutes nearly 2.1% by number, so the graph of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as a component of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere looks very different from the original Scary Graph:

In closing, I will quote a portion of Hal Lewis' letter of resignation from the American Physical Society:

For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

 

[Stoniphi]

*golf clap*

I note that you have done an excellent job of doing exactly what you are purportedly railing against.

Great amateur trolling. Bravo!

 

[jmpet]

Ten thousand scientists say one thing but I am sure glad to get the real truth from an Internet forum.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Ten thousand scientists say one thing but I am sure glad to get the real truth from an Internet forum.

For our younger members, this is an excellent opportunity to see the Peer Review process in action, one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method.

In action at two levels, actually. One is the local level, right here on this website. R-Man is one of our lovable pet crackpots and the members will be able to see how his faux science is demolished by peer review, earning the "crackpot" label.

The other is the real-world level, as climate change denialism undergoes the same peer review and suffers the same fate.

"ClimateGate" was a landmark in the evolution of science, because it forced scientists to face the fact that--in the age of universal literacy and digital communication--their discipline is no longer the arcane medieval guild craft that it was in the 19th century. Scientists have to learn several things:

• How to communicate better with laymen. The example I always present is their terribly unfortunate use of the word "theory" to mean something completely different from what it means in mathematics, psychology, or police work.
• How to deal with the media. Dry lectures that put viewers and readers to sleep cannot compete for air time and print space with the carefully crafted sound bites of the antiscientists and others with their own agendas.
• And most importantly, according to an emerging group of science communication specialists, how to respond to the concerns of laymen in order to engage them and to show them that science is not their enemy. The evolution "controversy," for example, is not really about fossils and DNA and abiogenesis, but rather about the perfectly normal human desire to find meaning in life and the rejection of a philosophy that we allow to give the impression of insisting that there is none.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Ten thousand scientists say one thing but I am sure glad to get the real truth from an Internet forum.

There is no "scientific consensus," as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the earth revolved around the sun, but he was right! - Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery

Science advances one funeral at a time. - Max Planck

 

[RenaissanceMan]

For our younger members, this is an excellent opportunity to see the Peer Review process in action, one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method.

Yes, let's pursue Fraggle Rocker's enlightened theme, shall we?

The "Peer Review" (SIC) process being "one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method (SIC), however did Copernicus advance science, the word derived from "scientia," which is Latin for "knowledge"?

The fatuous pretense that the "Peer Review (SIC) process is fundamental to the attainment of knowledge is as flawed and irrational as Fraggle Rocker's attempt to create proper nouns to suit his fancy.

In action at two levels, actually. One is the local level, right here on this website. R-Man is one of our lovable pet crackpots and the members will be able to see how his faux science is demolished by peer review, earning the "crackpot" label.

1. I presented a graph, and then explained how misleading it is - how intentionally misleading. Now if you wish to take issue with any of the data I presented, feel free to do so. Merely calling something "faux science" does not make it so. You really should know that, but clearly you do not.

2. Your comments HARDLY constitute "peer review" when you completely avoided the subject I addressed.

The other is the real-world level, as climate change denialism undergoes the same peer review and suffers the same fate.

"ClimateGate" was a landmark in the evolution of science, because it forced scientists to face the fact that--in the age of universal literacy and digital communication--their discipline is no longer the arcane medieval guild craft that it was in the 19th century.

You continue to stray further and further from the simplest of subjects, viz.
misleading people with a graph. Your fear is terribly anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. Rather than discuss the ORIGINAL SUBJECT, in the typical style of a raging Leftist, you focus on ME. Bad form, sir. Very, very bad form.

[/quote]Scientists have to learn several things:

• How to communicate better with laymen. [/quote]
  
  Whether or not either of us is a "scientist" is quite immaterial. You Leftists continue to resort to the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority.
  
  You further confound the subject by your unwarranted pretensions of being universal authorities in every discipline.
  
  It's a GRAPH. DEAL WITH THE GRAPH. Can't you EVEN do that?

 

[spidergoat]

Why is the graph misleading? Greenhouse gasses have a large scale effect on the atmosphere even at seemingly small changes in concentration.

 

[arfa brane]

Since anthropogenic carbon dioxide is estimated at only ~3.4% of the total,
that component would be shown as increasing from 11 ppm to 13 ppm, seen here:

Do you know what the current level of CO2 is? Isn't it more than 13 ppm?

Finally, I will include just one other greenhouse gas, viz. water vapor, estimated to compose ~1.5% of the atmosphere, exclusive of ice and clouds.

Do you know how much water vapor contributes to atmospheric warming? Is it proportional to the ~1.5% you quoted, and does this extend to the percentage of CO2? The warming from CO2 is proportional to the total percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Is the warming effect an immediate consequence of H2O and CO2 levels, or is there a time factor?

 

[jmpet]

Your discounting me and God forbid Fraggle's comments proves with no doubt that YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG. Now can I get an amen?

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Do you know what the current level of CO2 is? Isn't it more than 13 ppm?

The first graph indicates the atmospheric level of CO2, ~380 ppm.
Since it is estimated that the anthropogenic COMPONENT of this number is ~3.4%, you multiply 380 x .034 = 12.92 or 13 to two significant figures.

Let's stipulate that the 3.4% figure is off by a factor of 10. Redraw the red lines from 11 ---13 to 110---130. The difference between 11-13 and 110-130 is trivial in comparison to the original graph, shown to the world day in and day out.

Do you know how much water vapor contributes to atmospheric warming? Is it proportional to the ~1.5% you quoted, and does this extend to the percentage of CO2? The warming from CO2 is proportional to the total percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

You are the FIRST person smart enough to ask such questions.

The very FIRST. Kudos.

The infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and water vapor differ considerably, but they appear to be comparable in magnitude. Nevertheless, let's attribute carbon dioxide TEN times the absorptive capacity of water vapor.

The final graph changes very little. Look back on it again and multiply the values for anthropogenic CO2 by ten. Use the ones we already multiplied by 10, viz. 110 and 130. Now we have 1100 and 1300. The top of the greenhouse gas is at 21,000. We're at the 5% level even after adjusting the Scary Component by 100x.

Is the warming effect an immediate consequence of H2O and CO2 levels, or is there a time factor?

Brilliant, sir. You should change your name to Brananna Half.

Not a few climate scientists have pointed out that CO2 concentrations lag temperature changes by about 700 years. Such contentions, particularly when bolstered by data, make Global Warming Fearmongers go arrogantly ballistic.

 

[Emil]

It is quite enough, Global cooling , Global warming , Bird flu pandemic , Swine flu pandemic , Mad cows.
Give me a break!!

 

[RenaissanceMan]

It is quite enough,
//// Mad cows.

Give me a break!!

Please, leave the feminists out of this.

Speaking of which, do you know why sumo wrestlers don't shave their
legs and armpits?

They don't want to be mistaken for feminists.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Your (SIC) discounting me and God forbid Fraggle's comments proves with no doubt that YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG. Now can I get an amen?

Please learn how to spell the contraction of "You are."

It is NOT "Your."

 

[brucep]

Please learn how to spell the contraction of "You are."

It is NOT "Your."

Toss this goofball ideologue for stooping to the your, you are, you're nonsense. The nonsense this goofball spewed is far worse than some posting error in grammar.

 

[arfa brane]

The first graph indicates the atmospheric level of CO2, ~380 ppm.
Since it is estimated that the anthropogenic COMPONENT of this number is ~3.4%, you multiply 380 x .034 = 12.92 or 13 to two significant figures.

I think you made a mistake, the first graph goes up to 2001 and the highest CO2 level is around 370ppm. The lowest is about 315ppm, in 1958.

The change in ppm, from the graph, is about 55 up until 12/12 2001, about 9 years ago. So it's probably more than 380 by now.
Anyway, the percentage increase is then 55/315 say, which is about 17.5%. You can't get this by dividing 55ppm increase by 370ppm in 2001, come on, that's basic statistics.

The infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and water vapor differ considerably, but they appear to be comparable in magnitude.

Ok, but is there a difference between how much heat is stored in the atmosphere over time by individual gases? Doesn't water vapor act over a period of days, whereas CO2 is active for longer, since it takes years to be absorbed by the oceans?
That is, CO2 is a more potent contributor over long periods of time, despite the comparable "magnitude" to water vapor?

Edit: can you also explain the ~3.4% estimate, or where it came from?

I can't see how this figure was arrived at, given the graph is accurate.

 

[jmpet]

Your discounting me and God forbid Fraggle's comments proves with no doubt that YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG. Now can I get an amen?

No- I stand by "your" as gramatically correct. I did not mean "you are" or "you're"... I meant "your". Read it again.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

No- I stand by "your" as gramatically correct. I did not mean "you are" or "you're"... I meant "your". Read it again.

Priceless!

 

[GeoffP]

Well, I admit the peer review process is often fucked (my last two reviewers seem to be unfamiliar with that pesky "evolution" thing, and one seemingly has no idea how gene mapping works...ffs) but the evidence seems broadly behind at least some changes in temperature etc.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

(my last two reviewers seem to be unfamiliar with that pesky "evolution" thing, )

Maybe they were American. They don't teach evolution at school there I heard.