Deniers, can you find a flaw in this argument?

Question

less than 1% of the atmosphere is greenhouse gas

Nature has slowly adapted to uptake roughly the same amount of CO2 that it gives off. This is a steady state known as the carbon cycle. Nature cannot adapt fast enough to uptake the amount (4% of all co2 emissions) that human activity produces. Every second this amount builds up in the atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect - fact
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - fact

CO2 is believed to be responsible for roughly 1/2 of enhanced
greenhouse effect.

CH4 - absorbs 20 times more IR light than CO2- human activity accounts for more than 50% of all methane emissions
HFC's - absorbs hundreds of times more IR light than CO2- Human activity responsible for nearly 100% of HFC emissions, HFC's have no natural sink.
-Countless other greenhouse gases emitted by human activity.

We can argue about doom and gloom scenarios, but
how can you make a logical argument that human activity does change the climate at all?

wasn't aware people would need sources for this, it seems like this is common knowledge. But here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~rlucci/Spectroscopic_Analysis.html

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/global_warming_potential/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

my question simply said find the flaw in the basic concept: more greenhouse gases = more trapped heat

it didn't say anything about weather patterns, exact temperature change, or predicting the future.

since heat is transferred to thousands of different mediums on earth, each with it's own heat capacity, we would need computer technology far more advanced than the current to "predict the future"

not to mention ocean currents, cloud cover, and numurous other factors.

Answer 1

Can you find the flaw in this logic?

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2093816,00.html

if you don't have the desire to read the entire article, just scroll down to the 13th paragraph where they talk about replacing CO2 emissions with the emissions of HFC's.

This is called legal pollution and legislation will allow more of this to happen because they are going to control only one greenhouse gas, CO2, at the cost of the environment.

Answer 2

Great. Since you know how much energy these greenhouse gases collect, and you know how much greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere every year, then you should be able to tell us what temperature the climate is going to be 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years from now.

Please enlighten us and give us your facts on future climate. When you get the figures right, you will convert more people to your side.

But somehow I doubt you will take me up on this challenge. You will just say that "the consensus" says it's getting warmer, so it is. But you have know knowledge on how much or even IF it will be warmer 5 years from now. For all we know it could be 10 deg cooler on average. Who knows? No one can predict the future.

Answer 3

You say you got this off wiki?
Well I got this..
"Such models typically show that there is a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. For example, Zeng et al. (GRL, 2004 [2]) find that in their model, including a coupled carbon cycle increases atmospheric CO2 by about 90 ppmv at 2100 (over that predicted in models with non-interactive carbon cycles), leading to an extra 0.6°C of warming (which, in turn, may lead to even greater atmospheric CO2)."

Meaning the more carbon in the atmosphere, more warmth.
This makes sense to me because if there's more carbon in the air that means we lack plants to carry out photosynthesis. Due to loads of deforestation that we see today, this is the case.

Answer 4

There really isn't any debate. Hasn't been for a decade at least. The idea that there is is based on the same idea as the one about how learned men sit around every night discussing whetehr Creationism is the correct explanation for the existence of the solar syatem. No they don't!