Climate denial memes debunked on Youtube

Puppycow · 14th September 2009, 06:46 AM

Found this via the Little Green Footballs weblog, which has lately become one of my favorite blogs.
Is climate change really happening on other planets?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I liked this enough to subscribe to his Youtube channel

Puppycow · 14th September 2009, 06:55 AM

Another good one: 1998 revisited

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Safe-Keeper · 14th September 2009, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Is climate change really happening on other planets?

The tragic thing is, and pardon my high-horse arrogance, that idiocy like this shouldn't need debunking. It's one of those arguments so devoid of logic that they insult me. It's akin to saying that the Germans can't have started WWII, because wars also happen in countries without Germans.

ETA: strike that, I spoke too soon. The argument in this case was that every planet in the solar system was warming, and thus the Sun seems a likely culprit, which is of course far more logical than my accidental strawman above.

Safe-Keeper · 14th September 2009, 07:41 AM

But yes, it's a great -and long!- series of videos.

Beerina · 14th September 2009, 11:10 AM

The science of this fascinates me, even if it be used one way or the other in politics.

One odd exchange went like this:

Person 1: Well, the sun's energy output varies!

Person 2: Yeah, but it's only 5%.

And that was that. But 5% (aside from sounding scary rather than calming, but that's my math mind speaking) translates to about 13 extra degrees' worth of energy at around Earth's temperature.

There are lots of other factors, of course. For example, is this "extra 5%" of the same distribution, so to speak, as the first 273 K worth, w.r.t. the fractions of it reflected or absorbed? That kind of thing. The "13 degrees" above suggests it's roughly equivalent, which may not be the case.

In other words, if 99% of the additional 5% got reflected, whereas, say, 50% of the "first 273 K worth" was reflected, it wouldn't make much difference. But if the additional 5% was 99% absorbed, with the same fraction for the "first 273", it could be far more significant than "only" a 5% increase.

Puppycow · 14th September 2009, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

ETA: strike that, I spoke too soon. The argument in this case was that every planet in the solar system was warming, and thus the Sun seems a likely culprit, which is of course far more logical than my accidental strawman above.

No, I think your "strawman" wasn't too far off the mark. There's also a claim that every planet is warming, but I've heard the claim just based on the report that climate change may be happening on Mars. In the video, some of those comments seem to be based only on that headline.

Puppycow · 14th September 2009, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

The science of this fascinates me, even if it be used one way or the other in politics.

One odd exchange went like this:

Person 1: Well, the sun's energy output varies!

Person 2: Yeah, but it's only 5%.

And that was that. But 5% (aside from sounding scary rather than calming, but that's my math mind speaking) translates to about 13 extra degrees' worth of energy at around Earth's temperature.

There are lots of other factors, of course. For example, is this "extra 5%" of the same distribution, so to speak, as the first 273 K worth, w.r.t. the fractions of it reflected or absorbed? That kind of thing. The "13 degrees" above suggests it's roughly equivalent, which may not be the case.

In other words, if 99% of the additional 5% got reflected, whereas, say, 50% of the "first 273 K worth" was reflected, it wouldn't make much difference. But if the additional 5% was 99% absorbed, with the same fraction for the "first 273", it could be far more significant than "only" a 5% increase.

I'm at work now and I can't watch the video right now, but I thought he said they considered variations in the sun's output and were able to rule that out.

I matters if the 5% variation is a secular variation or not. If the average output changes by 5% for a long period of time, it would make a big difference, but if it constantly varies within a 5% range it would not. I assume that "the additional 5%" would be reflected and absorbed at approximately the same ratio as the other energy.

lomiller · 15th September 2009, 09:39 AM

Umm the Sun’s energy output doesn’t vary anywhere close to 5%, unless were are talking about timeframe of nearly 1 billion years.

Normal solar variation though a sunspot cycle is on the order of +/- 0.05% on a scale of a couple centuries is could be as much as +/- 0.1%

Puppycow · 18th September 2009, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

One odd exchange went like this:

Person 1: Well, the sun's energy output varies!

Person 2: Yeah, but it's only 5%.

I watched those videos again, I didn't see this.

14th September 2009, 07:21 AM	#3
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,118	Originally Posted by Puppycow Is climate change really happening on other planets? The tragic thing is, and pardon my high-horse arrogance, that idiocy like this shouldn't need debunking. It's one of those arguments so devoid of logic that they insult me. It's akin to saying that the Germans can't have started WWII, because wars also happen in countries without Germans. ETA: strike that, I spoke too soon. The argument in this case was that every planet in the solar system was warming, and thus the Sun seems a likely culprit, which is of course far more logical than my accidental strawman above.
	Last edited by Safe-Keeper; 14th September 2009 at 07:24 AM.

14th September 2009, 11:10 AM	#5
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	The science of this fascinates me, even if it be used one way or the other in politics. One odd exchange went like this: Person 1: Well, the sun's energy output varies! Person 2: Yeah, but it's only 5%. And that was that. But 5% (aside from sounding scary rather than calming, but that's my math mind speaking) translates to about 13 extra degrees' worth of energy at around Earth's temperature. There are lots of other factors, of course. For example, is this "extra 5%" of the same distribution, so to speak, as the first 273 K worth, w.r.t. the fractions of it reflected or absorbed? That kind of thing. The "13 degrees" above suggests it's roughly equivalent, which may not be the case. In other words, if 99% of the additional 5% got reflected, whereas, say, 50% of the "first 273 K worth" was reflected, it wouldn't make much difference. But if the additional 5% was 99% absorbed, with the same fraction for the "first 273", it could be far more significant than "only" a 5% increase.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 14th September 2009 at 11:16 AM.

14th September 2009, 10:10 PM	#6
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,788	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper ETA: strike that, I spoke too soon. The argument in this case was that every planet in the solar system was warming, and thus the Sun seems a likely culprit, which is of course far more logical than my accidental strawman above. No, I think your "strawman" wasn't too far off the mark. There's also a claim that every planet is warming, but I've heard the claim just based on the report that climate change may be happening on Mars. In the video, some of those comments seem to be based only on that headline.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Last edited by Puppycow; 14th September 2009 at 10:11 PM.

14th September 2009, 10:35 PM	#7
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,788	Originally Posted by Beerina The science of this fascinates me, even if it be used one way or the other in politics. One odd exchange went like this: Person 1: Well, the sun's energy output varies! Person 2: Yeah, but it's only 5%. And that was that. But 5% (aside from sounding scary rather than calming, but that's my math mind speaking) translates to about 13 extra degrees' worth of energy at around Earth's temperature. There are lots of other factors, of course. For example, is this "extra 5%" of the same distribution, so to speak, as the first 273 K worth, w.r.t. the fractions of it reflected or absorbed? That kind of thing. The "13 degrees" above suggests it's roughly equivalent, which may not be the case. In other words, if 99% of the additional 5% got reflected, whereas, say, 50% of the "first 273 K worth" was reflected, it wouldn't make much difference. But if the additional 5% was 99% absorbed, with the same fraction for the "first 273", it could be far more significant than "only" a 5% increase. I'm at work now and I can't watch the video right now, but I thought he said they considered variations in the sun's output and were able to rule that out. I matters if the 5% variation is a secular variation or not. If the average output changes by 5% for a long period of time, it would make a big difference, but if it constantly varies within a 5% range it would not. I assume that "the additional 5%" would be reflected and absorbed at approximately the same ratio as the other energy.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

15th September 2009, 09:39 AM	#8
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,872	Umm the Sun’s energy output doesn’t vary anywhere close to 5%, unless were are talking about timeframe of nearly 1 billion years. Normal solar variation though a sunspot cycle is on the order of +/- 0.05% on a scale of a couple centuries is could be as much as +/- 0.1%
lomiller Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,872	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

14th September 2009, 07:41 AM	#4
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,118	But yes, it's a great -and long!- series of videos.

18th September 2009, 06:17 AM	#9
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,788	Originally Posted by Beerina One odd exchange went like this: Person 1: Well, the sun's energy output varies! Person 2: Yeah, but it's only 5%. I watched those videos again, I didn't see this.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22