Here’s my exchange with one of the resident anthropogenic climate change deniers on the Quora site. I think it shows just how brainwashed and locked into their views some of these people are. It didn’t matter what I put to this guy, he just kept coming back with more nonsense. He just isn’t into facts or evidence. We’re lucky that the climate denial political movement, started by the fossil fuel companies in the 1980s, is no more than an amusing sideshow and the world is getting on with its transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. Only about 7% of people in the US remain dismissive of climate change, down from 15% in 2010, according to Yale polls. It tends to be lower still elsewhere.

The question on the Quora site was this: Why are warming temperatures causing a vicious cycle that leads to more warming? Here’s the exchange starting with this guy’s initial answer to the question. (My answer is at bottom of page.)

Him: well if your fire is set to high the heat in your home will continue to increase as it can’t escape, fortunately where there is nothing to hold the heat it can escape, the so called greenhouse gases only work in enclosed spaces.

Me: Heat will stay in a house or a car or a greenhouse or garden shed etc as the structure will keep the heat in. But this is nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases. Outside in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and water vapour absorb and reemit radiation in all directions including back to the Earth’s surface, thereby slowing the cooling. Thus the higher levels of gases such as CO2 are keeping more of the warmth in than when the level was much lower.

Him: Co2 is at ground level so if it was doing that you would notice your feet were hotter than the rest of you.

Me: CO2 is spread throughout the atmosphere. Even 100km up, its ppm is still over half that near the surface. At 5km, it’s still only a few % less than at a few hundred metres. It blows here, there and everywhere with the wind.

Him: Great that is why it is so hot at night and not in the day then as co2 is much higher at night.

Me: CO2 is only higher at night inside. That will happen due to people exhaling CO2, and especially when the windows are shut. Outside, CO2 isn’t higher at night and lower by day. Outside, it’s warmer by day and night than decades ago due to anthropogenic global warming.

Him: Well of course, it wouldn’t want to get cold would it? you really are getting desperate now. What exactly is the difference between co2 we breath out and co2 plants emit?

Me: Air exhaled is about 35°C or a couple of degrees lower than body temperature. If you put a bunch of people in a room and close the windows and doors, the temperature will obviously go up due to us exhaling and our body heat. The heat is trapped just as it is in any inside area, including a car and a greenhouse. This has nothing to do with any greenhouse effect; this occurs outside in the atmosphere.

All animals and plants are part of the system. Humans breathe in oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, etc (anything that’s in the air). It will use much of this oxygen but still exhale some of it. We exhale more CO2 than we inhale as what we exhale includes carbon from the food we eat. Plants use CO2 and then release about half of it back into the atmosphere. They also release oxygen. We exhale the carbon used by plants we consume. When we eat meat, the carbon passes through plants to the animals before we eat the meat. This is all part of the natural cycle and doesn’t add to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But when we extract fossil fuels and use them, a huge amount of carbon comes out of the ground where it’s been stored for millions of years, thus transferring the carbon from under the ground to the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It always has been and always will be. Our huge volume of emissions is what’s pushing temperatures up rapidly and causing accelerating ice melt, sea level rise, more and worse weather extremes, adverse effects on the food chain, and increases in species vulnerability and extinction.

Him: We eat plants as well,are you saying we shouldn’t eat at all, because it might,there is no evidence to support it, have an effect on the climate?

Me: No. As I said, we’re part of the natural environment. Our breathing and eating doesn’t add to the stock of CO2. It’s our activities of extracting fossil fuels and using them that adds to CO2 levels, as I also said.

Him: well your assertion has no actual reality the amount of co2 that is produced by burning fossil fuels is less than 1 % of the total co2 in the atmosphere. Carbon is the building block of all life. And co2 is vital to all life to control respiration, it is time that the irrational demonisation of a vital gas ceased.

Me: We release about 4% of total CO2 emissions and the other 96% is natural. Thing is the natural environment adds and takes out CO2 in roughly equal amounts. We only add it. This is why we have rapidly increasing CO2 levels and consequently rapidly increasing temperatures.

Yes, CO2 is essential but we are releasing so much of it that the natural environment is only absorbing about half of what we put out, thus it builds up rapidly.

This is why the world is taking measures to reduce our emissions, such as shifting away from fossil fuels.

Him: 4% is a very generous overestimation on your part, Even the most ardent of war mists only claims 2%, although that is highly improbable.

Me: I’m not sure where 2% comes from or your “less than 1%”. 4% is the figure used by scientists and deniers although it’s a bit of an old figure now. Our emissions are about 37 Gt a year (2019). The natural environment emits about 750 Gt a year. So that’s 4.7%. The 4% figure is actually about a decade old, back when our emissions were about 30 Gt a year. But the point is that the natural environment adds and takes out CO2 in roughly equal amounts. We only add CO2, we don’t take any out (which is the bit deniers don’t mention), thus the rapid increase in CO2 levels and therefore the rapid increase in temperatures.

Him: Warmists, no 9dea where you plucked 4% from.

Me: Divide human emissions by total emissions. Read my previous post. There’s an abundance of stuff on all this online, for example:

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Natural CO2 Emissions vs. Human CO2 Emissions

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Geo explainer: carbon emissions – Geographical Magazine

Him: I have no reason to doubt there is an abundance of incorrect information on line, after all there are people who are making a fortune out of peddling this stuff. There is no scientific evidence in any of those links that supports your assertion.

Me: Perhaps you can tell me who is making a fortune out of this. The big money is still in fossil fuels. These figures on CO2 emissions are simply the quantity emitted by humans and the quantity emitted naturally. They have been around for ages and are accepted by scientists and generally by deniers. As I’ve said, the natural environment is responsible for releasing nearly all the emissions. Thing is a roughly equal amount is taken out of the system. We only add CO2; we don’t take any out. There is an abundance of evidence for this; you just don’t want to know about it. Perhaps you can tell me what you reckon the numbers are and perhaps show a reference, such as your less than 1% figure. But even if the figure was 1%, we would still be the cause of the increase in CO2 levels.

Him: People who get funded in universities to peddle it, frequently by those wanting to sell their less than green green solutions, that generally need fossil fuels to build.

Me: No, research funds aren’t allocated on the basis of what the research finds. Funds are allocated before the research starts or quite early in the process. Most funds come from government rather than companies and go to the institutions doing the research rather than directly to individuals who are usually on a fixed salary. Research findings are always checked very thoroughly via peer reviews. Errors in research methods or findings would be found, if not by the peer review process, then by many other academics, government scientists, students, interested readers, etc, even deniers who rarely if ever find anything although they claim they do. Where you do get dodgy research findings is from the research funded by those right wing think tanks funded by fossil fuel companies.

Companies in the renewables industry get quite a few subsidies from government although fossil fuels get a lot more. Subsidies to both are needed due to large capital outlays and also to ensure a smooth transition to renewables over a few decades. “Green solutions” do need power and this is usually through the network which still mainly uses fossil fuels. But renewables use less power, are cheaper and cleaner, have shorter lead times for construction, and don’t take a day to fire up.

Him: Who funds it, who benefits from the funding, what peer review process is in place?

Me: I’m sure you know the answers to these things. As I said, most funding is from government. Obviously the universities and science organisations and departments “benefit”, just like health, education, transport, police etc departments benefit from government funding which enables them to employ staff and provide a service. Peer review is common to any professional/academic journal whether to do with climate, other aspects of science, engineering, humanities, etc. Or do you regard the research and findings of studies in professional/academic journals in general to be fudged or nonsense or whatever?

Him: So you accept it is in the universities benefit to keep saying there is global warming then.

Me: No. If you read my posts, you will see that I said: “… research funds aren’t allocated on the basis of what the research finds. Funds are allocated before the research starts or quite early in the process.” (Jan 19). Besides, hardly any of the research these days sets out to show whether we’ve got anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a given. The research currently looks at various aspects of the warming, its effects, what we can do, etc.

Him: Anthropolgical global warming is far from a given, if you are saying that there is no research into it, that would explain why the incorrect assumptions made in the climate field are not being addressed. It’s as well we didn’t just say the earth is flat that is settled isn’t it?

Me: There has been an abundance of research into anthropogenic global warming. The findings are absolutely clear. The basics are extremely obvious. We are emitting a very large amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which build up rapidly in the atmosphere because only about half of our emissions are absorbed by the natural environment. There is nothing else causing the warming. Scientists are not still trying to prove that our emissions are the problem because this has been shown to be the case in a vast amount of research. These days, the research concentrates on various aspects of the warming, its effects, what we can do, etc. There will always be those who don’t want to accept the science.

Him: There is an abundance of research that says the opposite. Why pick on one gas and not the others, it’s not as if C)2 is the highest proportional gas in the atmosphere, which keeps us from frying and freezing which is what the sun would do with out it, like e the moon that has a 500 degree variance between the light and dark side side.

Me: There is an abundance of pseudoscience that says the opposite, pushed by assorted folk with various backgrounds usually not related to climate science and who got into climate science as a career change or partial career change or in retirement. These people are often funded by the fossil fuel industry. Their ‘research’ usually appears on blogs rather than in academic journals because their work doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Give me the names of 1 or 2 of these people or articles and I’ll explain where the work falls down.

All gases are looked at. Greenhouse gases are the ones responsible for warming/cooling when their level increases/decreases. And it’s our emissions, mainly of CO2 and methane, that are causing the problems as we only add these to the system and don’t take any out. The natural environment adds and takes out in roughly equal amounts. The warmer temperatures caused by higher levels of CO2 means more evaporation and more condensation, therefore more water vapour which is also a greenhouse gas. For every degree increase caused by CO2, temperatures rise about another degree due to the extra water vapour. The man-made addition to these gas levels has been increasing very rapidly indeed and that’s the problem. CO2 levels are increasing about 100 times faster than coming out of the last glacial period, causing temperatures to increase about 40 times faster. This is much too quick for the natural environment to adapt, especially fauna, thus the large increase in extinctions and vulnerable species, which will upset the food chain. It’s also causing accelerating ice melt which will send sea levels way up in coming centuries and mean abandonment of coastal cities and low lying agricultural land. There are health issues and other problems. This is why the world is shifting away from fossil fuels.

Him: There is an abundance of science that shows the reason the sun doesn’t fry us is due to what you dub greenhouse gases, dispose of co2 the earth will warm up not that we would notice because we like every other organic life form require co2 to live.

Me: No one is talking about getting rid of CO2. It’s essential to life. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth’s surface would average -18°C instead of 15°C with the natural greenhouse effect. It’s a matter of getting rid of the man-made component of CO2. Right now, CO2 should be around 280 ppm but it’s shot up to 415 ppm due to our emissions, and most of the increase has been in recent decades. We are releasing about twice as much CO2 as the natural environment can absorb, thus the rapid build up of CO2 (100 times faster than coming out of the last glacial period), thus the rapid increase in temperatures (40 times faster than in that period).

Him: That is pseudo science at its height, the figures are literally plucked from the air.

Me: I’ve plucked nothing from the air. You’re simply declaring things you don’t agree with or don’t like as pseudoscience, which can be seen in endless amounts on denier sites. But we’re talking science.

Google greenhouse gases 33 degrees and you will find any number of scientific, education and government sites, and even denier sites, explaining how temperatures would be 33 degrees (the difference between –18 degrees and 15 degrees) lower without greenhouse gases.

Google CO2 glacial interglacial cycles and you will find any number of scientific, education and government sites, and even denier sites, explaining how CO2 fluctuates between about 180 ppm and 280 ppm over the cycle (see first graph). We reached the interglacial peak 5000–10,000 years ago and CO2 should now be very gradually falling. But it’s shot up to 415 ppm. Again Google something like CO2 levels 100 years and you will find all sorts of things on it. The second graph shows accelerating CO2 levels directly in line with our growing emissions (see third graph). Most deniers accept this data too although some argue that the increase in CO2 levels somehow isn’t due to us but something natural. Perhaps they think our emissions just magically disappear.

Google CO2 plants oceans atmosphere and again you’ll find a heap of studies and sites explaining where our CO2 emissions go. They have to go somewhere. This NOAA site sums up the situation well: Ocean-Atmosphere CO2 Exchange. It says: “When carbon dioxide CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere, while 25% is absorbed by land plants and trees, and the other 25% is absorbed into certain areas of the ocean.”

CO2 levels have increased about 100 ppm over the last 100 years from around 320 ppm in 1920 to around 410 ppm now. They increased by about 100 ppm over about 10,000 years coming out of the last glacial period. So that’s 100 times faster in the recent period. Current rate of increase in CO2 levels is about 2.5 ppm a year which is 250 times the rate. Again, any number of science and government sites will say CO2 in increasing 100 times faster than the last deglaciation period, for example, Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

Temperatures are up 40 times faster. They’re up a degree since the 1970s compared with five degrees during deglaciation over 10,000 years. Studies indicate that global warming was about 5 degrees coming out of the last glacial period and about 10 degrees at the poles (see ice core graph above). So using the global figure, temperatures are increasing 40 times faster. A lot of studies use the polar temperatures and come to a figure of 20 times faster. At least one study says 50 times faster as it’s looking down the track when CO2 levels will be quite a bit higher than now. If you take the conservative end, this 2010 NASA article says temperatures are up 10 times faster: Global Warming, but that’s looking at an 0.7 degree increase over the last 100 years (although nearly all the warming has been since the 1970s and temperatures are up at least 0.3 of a degree since 2010). Scientific American sums up a lot of the research here: Today’s Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years and concludes that temperatures will increase 10–100 times faster, depending on assumptions for temperatures over the next hundred years. But whether it’s 10, 20, 40, 50 or 100 times faster, it’s a whole lot quicker than anything that would be happening naturally.

Him: You have not done anything to substantiate your claims.

Me: You might need to actually read my posts, look at the evidence, and perhaps Google a few things and read the science sites rather than the denier stuff. I have tried to explain the science to you, but you keep coming back with more nonsense such as:

“greenhouse gases only work in enclosed spaces”

“Co2 is at ground level so if it was doing that you would notice your feet were hotter than the rest of you.”

“Great that is why it is so hot at night and not in the day then as co2 is much higher at night.”

“We eat plants as well,are you saying we shouldn’t eat at all, because it might,there is no evidence to support it, have an effect on the climate?”

“the amount of co2 that is produced by burning fossil fuels is less than 1 % of the total co2 in the atmosphere.”

“4% is a very generous overestimation on your part, Even the most ardent of war mists only claims 2%, although that is highly improbable.”

“Warmists, no 9dea where you plucked 4% from.”

“There is no scientific evidence in any of those links that supports your assertion.”

“People who get funded in universities to peddle it”

“So you accept it is in the universities benefit to keep saying there is global warming then.”

“Anthropolgical global warming is far from a given”

“dispose of co2 the earth will warm up”

“That is pseudo science at its height, the figures are literally plucked from the air.”

“You have not done anything to substantiate your claims.”

But if you disagree with the science and agree with the pseudoscience despite it being nonsense, there’s no more I can do.

Him: I have read, that’s why I don’t fall for emotional claptrap.

And that’s where we’re up to. His most recent post was yesterday. I’ll probably reply with a one liner next week wishing him good luck with his views, or something. haha

I answered this question too (Why are warming temperatures causing a vicious cycle that leads to more warming?). I wrote: Lots of reasons. There are various feedback loops accelerating the anthropogenic global warming. Droughts are worse, as are storms. There are water shortages. Fisheries are affected. Plant and animal extinctions have increased. Plant respiration increases, which will increase CO2 emissions. Melting permafrost results in more CO2 and methane.

Warmer water temperatures mean the oceans and plankton won’t absorb as much CO2. Warmer water near the surface is stifling water circulation, blocking flows of heat as well as carbon and oxygen, which is adversely affecting marine life and the food chain. The warm water means less CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which means more CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Water within a few hundred feet of the surface is what fuels tropical storms; warmer water means storms will build up and maintain their intensity.

A warmer atmosphere means more evaporation and therefore more water vapour in the air. It’s a greenhouse gas and more of it will result in still higher temperatures. And of course CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, up to hundreds or even thousands of years, all the time acting as a greenhouse gas. This causes the atmosphere to keep getting warmer for a long time after the extra CO2 is emitted, exacerbated by the extra water vapour.