That is not REMOTELY true. The graph is perfectly clear with a zero base, and including water vapor.
The MS Paint drawing above that puts water vapour and carbon dioxide on the same graph is the opposite of "perfectly clear". the scale flattens the curve completely. For the purposes of analysis, it is useless; it does not show that carbon dioxide levels are rising and it does not show that the increase is accelerating.
But it's not SCARY, and frightening people is the only thing that matters to Global Warming Zealots intent on fleecing public and private
coffers worldwide. Property drawing this graph is crucial to perspective, which is something you do not wish the public to see.
The blogger's water vapour/carbon dioxide graph serves only to illustrate a point that deniers frequently bring up, that atmospheric water vapour exists in much greater quantities than atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Obviously, climatologists are all aware of the presence of water vapour and its function as a greenhouse gas; it is incorporated into every model, including those published by bodies such as the IPCC. Their models predict that atmospheric carbon dioxide elicits climate change even at very small concentrations compared to that of water vapour. The presence of water vapour in the air, and its role as a greenhouse gas, is well understood and has accounted for.
The question in the thread title -- "1.36 Parts out of `16,000 Drives Climate?'' -- suggests that you believe that the relatively small concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (compared to atmospheric water vapour) is too small to cause global warming. This is contrary to the findings of climate scientists, whose evidence I'm inclined to accept before I agree with your own incredulous opinion, or your notions of "perspective".
Except for one more comment you made, I shan't bother with dissembling the remainder of your remarks, most of which constitute ad hominem attacks and appeals
to authority.
The ad homs you refer to are presumably the references to the scientifically-illiterate and the politically-motivated.
Do you disagree with my statement that it is common practice, even in high school, to start the y-axis at a value other than zero to better fit the data to the graph? If it's not something you were taught in high school physics, chem, or biology, then at least say so so that I am not making incorrect assumptions.
Do you disagree with my statement that scientists, science journalists, and scientifically-literate laypersons are all familiar with this method of representing data? Once again, I'm willing to stand corrected if there are people out there with the appropriate credentials who aren't familiar with this graphing technique.
The 'warmers to deniers' insult was in direct response to your poor choice of words regarding guilt and suffering. If you choose to write polemics then expect to read polemics in response.
Do you disagree that the Keeling curve is not intended to differentiate between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic carbon dioxide? If so then what makes you think that the Keeling Curve should have shown the components?
Do you disagree that the accelerating increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide has a positive correlation with increasing industrial activity and fuel consumption?
Lord Kelvin stated in 1895 that "Heavier-than-air flight is impossible." Within a decade, two humble bicycle mechanics flew that "heavier-than-air" contraption.
That is not a quotation from Kelvin. Kelvin's knew that heavier-than-air flight was possible as it had already been done with both balloon and steam-powered aeroplanes; he simply doubted the commercial practicality of airships and aeroplanes.
Kelvin's letter to the Aeronautical Society:
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/letters.html#baden-powell
An interview with Kelvin:
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/interview_aeronautics_and_wireless.html
Unfortunately for your argument, Kelvin's hubris, regarding flight and also scientific advancement in general, has absolutely no bearing on climate science. No-one is claiming that scientists are infallible, and climate science does not hinge on the infallibility of scientists. Rather, one only needs to look the scientific literature regarding climate change to see that the
evidence, not the word of some famous scientist, is irrefutable.
It's quite clear from the above that carbon dioxide contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect, trapping radiation not absorbed by water vapour, oxygen or ozone. The fact the water vapour absorbs more radiation than carbon dioxide does is irrelevant, as the greenhouse effect of water vapour is not disputed.....
You admit that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, and then call that fact "irrelevant." What more misleading statement can be said than yours.
How were you misled by my statement? As I have discussed above, the presence of atmospheric water vapour is trivial; it is absurd to cite its existence as evidence that climatologists are wrong, and doing so is a red herring tactic, designed to confuse those who aren't familiar with the science.
September 27, 2013 Former UN IPCC Lead Author Richard Lindzen: “In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about”.
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”
This is an appeal to authority. You are appealing to Lindzen's authority, as an atmospheric physicist and former lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, to support your attempt to discredit the IPCC. Immediately above this, you admonished me for making appeals to authority. That is hypocrisy. If you're willing to make appeals to authority, then you have no grounds for dismissing appeals to authority made by others.
In his comments to Climate Depot that you have quoted, Lindzen doesn't provide the rationale behind his claim that warming is nothing to be alarmed about. The IPCC report in question quite clearly shows a decades-long trend of warming that is predicted to continue into the future.
It also isn't clear whether Lindzen is referring to the mythical warming pause, or whether he accepts the IPCC's projections and considers the warming to be unthreatening despite evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps you should cite something more substantial from Lindzen where he presents a thesis rather than merely giving a short, uninformative opinion to his fanbase.
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” – Climate scientist Stephen Schneider, interview with Discover magazine, October, 1989
Whoever your source is, they are parroting Julian Simon's mistake of quoting Schneider out of context, and therefore reversing the meaning of his statement. Here is the full version of the statement from the Discover interview:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/APS.pdf
In context, it is clear that Schneider was objecting to "soundbite science" and the lack of sufficient airtime to explain the science.
Your source has either fucked-up by not going back to the original source, or has deliberately quote-mined Schneider to misrepresent his statement.
British environmental expert James Lovelock now admits he was an “alarmist” regarding global warming. Lovelock previously worked for NASA and became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism.In 2007, Time magazine named Lovelock one of its “Heroes of the Environment,” and he won the Geological Society of London’s W0llaston Medal in 2006 for his writings on the Gaia theory. That year he wrote an article in a British newspaper asserting that “before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” (Independent.co.uk, 16 January 2006)
Considering that James Lovelock isn't a climate expert, his opinions aren't particularly important.
“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.
Kenneth Watt, the zoologist? Most definitely not a climate expert, or anything approaching one. Are you getting that desperate for soundbites?
