What is Normal? Climate Video Part 1

[gadionson1]

the video seems so annoying, but content is quite good

[JonThm]

Biology converts carbon dioxide into more life

[pburto]

You are NOT getting enough views for a video series of this quality!

[foustone]

It was Interesting seeing the other side of the argument.

However, please take the quarters out of your nostrils, and remove the mic from your throat.

[sadaeus]

This however does not mean that CO2 cannot initiate the process its part of. Quite the opposite. It seems to be able to, because we can see that it is linked. And since it's something that works two ways, it would only be sound and logical that CO2 can influence it as well. Wich is, as a matter of fact, the case with the Venus, which due to clouds blocking 80% of the sunlight, gains a significant amount of heating by the 96% CO2. Otherwise, Venus would be colder then earth.

[sadaeus]

Also you might be interested in the following:

The heater and cooler of our planet is a complex system, since it has to take into account countless possible areas it has to react to. And it has to fit its method to the situation at hand. So while CO2 might start a climate change, something else can also start it and, as he explained, just cause CO2 to increase over time. It just wasn't started by CO2, but accelerated until it turned into the other direction, and created effects that cooled.

[sadaeus]

What is really creepy about this video is with what a sleepy voice you get put to slumber and have all those small truthes packed with misinformation trickle into your ear. This doesn't sound so bad, sounds quite right, so that and that probably are true too. And this is very dangerous. Don't let this video fool you and provide the only explanation. There are countless people out there who don't emit other important factors and don't mix lies and half-truths into it. You have to look yourself.

[sadaeus]

The greenhouse effect is like a thermostat or a heater and cooler at the same time. If it would get too cold, it keeps the temperatures hot enough, if it gets too hot, it makes it colder.

Imagine your heater would not be powerful and just increase the temperature by 2 degree. My, what cold winters you might have to go through.

It is never clever to just look at a small part of things if countless parts play a big role together.

[sadaeus]

So there is no "thin layer" and a "bit of absorbing", but a constant and powerful process that governs our temperatures.

The small field of temperature where the life can grow as we know it is difficult to maintain. So the greenhouseeffect takes care of fine adjusting, making sure that the temperatures remain about the same over a long time by continually balancing the temperature. And every time it tips too far, some reaction causes it at some point to tip into the other direction.

[sadaeus]

Well, aside from CO2, there are quite a few others. Nitrous oxide for example, which is 150 times as powerful as CO2, or methane which is 30 times as powerful, but has only a short duration in our atmosphere.

So it is no "small amount" that absorbs the radiation that changed it frequency after it was reemitted from the earth.

And what he does not say is that the radiation is not just "absorbed" which indeed is the correct phrase, but also remitted towards the earth.

[tHoM0r]

How can the alarmist explanation for the temperature/CO2 lag even be plausible. If one assumes thats CO2 is the primary driver of the earth's climate, and natural variability initiates the warming, and then the increased CO2 amplifies the warming. Well then, it should be obvious to anyone, that this scenario presents itself as an infinite feedback loop. If this were true, any big change in temperature would then be accelerated. Yet, the data clearly shows that these periods of warming end. Fail.

[gufpott]

tHoMor

" Yet, the data clearly shows that these periods of warming end. Fail."

Absolutely correct.

One of the serious contradictions of the evidence for AGW is the shaft of the "Hockey Stick". The flatness of the shaft suggests the climate is extremely stable. But then it is argued that the climate is unstable through positive feedback.

To summaries - it is argued that the climate is a finely balanced system just waiting for us to push it over.

Fail!

[Silentsam7532]

I live on the coast. The ocean is not rising. Its not hard for me to go look. When you ask the old people around here they say nope, no ocean rising.

The temperature have not been getting warmer, colder if anything. David Suzuki tried to say you cant play winter hockey on the pond in Wayne Gretzky's old town, but that was flat wrong. The only times you cant is when it snows too much.

Global warming is a joke.

[greendayrulesomuch]

I know this is kind of vague and immature.

But Al Gore's a dick.

[raptoredge]

Humans are not that different from dinosaurs in the evolutionary race. If a natural (or even man-made) disaster is bound to affect our species, blame evolution. After all, evolution is the only reason why we are here, and the only reason we won't be in sometime.

Please, read some books!!!! Gain some knowledge! Don't take a politician's word for granted! It's the worst thing you can do!

[raptoredge]

Look, guys. Global Warming IS true. There's not denial about it. But the truth is too that humans are only a small part contributing to it and, even if humans were a big part as all the global warming paranoids say, there's little humans can or will do anyway against it. There are bigger problems humans can fight with all the money and efforts they spend or want to spend in anti-global warming activities.

[TRUMPHENT]

How is the ocean going to release CO2 to the atmosphere when the atmosphere is already laden with historically high levels? Never has the level of CO2 been where it is, regardless of temperature. There are other greenhouse gases that are increased by man's activities as well.

Greenland is already melting at faster and faster rates. Scientists can't keep up with it.

[Gwynne66]

The oceans contain far more CO2 than is found in the atmosphere. Most estimates put the ocean's CO2 content at about 50x that of the atmosphere. The ability of CO2 to dissolve in water is strongly affected by the temperature of that water - as anyone who's opened a warm bottle of a carbonated beverage can tell you. Temperature goes up... CO2 is released.

Also, your statement that CO2 levels are at historic highs is flatly wrong.

[TRUMPHENT]

Warming the oceans would only reduce the rate of absorption. of CO2. You don't want to be around a world with fizzing ocean water.

When have CO2 atmospheric concentrations been higher in the last 400K years? That's 2X the length of human existence.

[Gwynne66]

I don't know when CO2 levels have been higher than now during the last 400k years. But, I do know that global temperatures aren't especially high right now. Some scientists say that current temperatures are about on par with the Medieval Warm Period. Not all of them agree, but there is no seriously dispute of the fact that global temperatures were much higher during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Both of those events occurred in the recent past - by climate standards. CO2 is not a big deal.

[TRUMPHENT]

During the Holocene, temperatures were warmer. But, they were only warmer during summer and only in the northern hemisphere. Source: NOAA Paleoclimatology page.

Hey, you can book a cruise in the Arctic that you couldn't just a few years ago.

CO2 isn't going away. It's going to grow as an issue that can't be ignored.

[Gwynne66]

The global average was warmer during the HCO and the arctic was considerably warmer than today - something on the order of 8C warmer. The polar ice caps were nonexistant. The idea that just because the polar ice caps have been present for recent history they must necessarily be some sort of permanent fixture is nonsense. Imagine what a creature with a three-month lifespan must think of the spring thaw. He might conclude that if things continue warming as they are, life will become impossible

[Gwynne66]

CO2 "isn't going away" as an issue? If you want to try to pretend that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 250 years is some sort of looming catastrophe, then you're welcome to your doom-mongering... just don't expect anyone with scientific knowledge or even common sense to share your view.

Is the Earth warming? Yes. Is CO2 responsible for some portion of the warming? Probably. Will life as we know come to an end because of a projected 1.0C increase in temperature? No.

[TRUMPHENT]

NASA doesn't share my view of CO2. That's why it attempted to launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 24 Feb 2009. It failed to reach orbit. Hopefully, there is a backup plan.

I presume that you are familiar with NOAA. It's an organization that is intensely interested in atmospheric CO2 and oceanic CO2. It's rumored that at least 3 scientists are employed by NOAA.

Department of Energy is another scientist infested entity that has devoted significant resources to the study of CO2 GW.

[Gwynne66]

That doesn't change the fact that we've seen a 0.6C increase in temperatures this century and there's no good reason to believe that the increase is entirely due to human activity. A doubling of CO2 can be expected to increase global temperature by, at most, about 1.0C and most of that warming will occur in the initial stages of the doubling.

[TRUMPHENT]

Steven Chu is about to chew you up. His Nobel Prize enabled intruments such as the amazing GRACE. Einstein's space time is allowing scientific measurement of the loss of ice on Greenland and Antarctica.

You have some just plain obnoxiously stupid and weird concepts.

[Gwynne66]

Sorry, but the facts are on my side. The fact that you have to resort to lame insults to try to make your point doesn't cover up the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

[russell7771181]

check out billy meier info. regarding the real scoop on climate change - and yes - 2/3's of it is now do to man pressing on the environment thru overpopulation - tho the remaining one third is natural process.

[po3a8]

Seriously this is the greatest thing ever.

[dmathew1024]

What is normal? Extinction is normal. All of humankind's ancestors are already extinct.

So no one should complain about the future extinction of humankind as if it were an abnormal event.

[myleftnutts]

well matt why are they extinct???.because they were "KILLED OFF" and yes "Mass Murder" is normal isn't???.

[tooner123456789]

I will be really pissed if freaks destroy my dreams for American muscle.

[prouddenier]

I have watched your excellent exposure of the HOAX

As a grandfather I worry about the large debt we maybe leaving to my grandchildren chasing this folly.

I watched the con job of Y2K and on the lack of nobody saying sorry and here is your money back

AL -- "count the darn polar bears"

Since the 60"s they have increased from 5000 to 25000 in 20 distinct populations. Two groups are larger (area becoming warmer), two groups are declining (area becoming colder) and the rest are stable

[pindakaas102]

i never take science too seriously anyway, esp. as long as scientist disagree with one antoher. Medieval scientists said the world is flat. What will they say about us 200 years from now? They'll probably laugh at us, dark-age 21st century people.

But I just don't like environmental problems being played down this way.

[1crow]

You mean, "I just don't like my unexamined preconceptions challenged in a way that might require me to learn some new inconvenient facts..."

[pindakaas102]

Inconvenient facts and unexamened preconceptions can be in the eye of the beholder, which is centainly also true of science in general. Please don't you put any words into my mouth as I can speak for myself.

[guffpot]

Pindaka, I don't like a the scaremongering we are routinely treated to on the back of unproven catastrophe theories.

I understand your sentiments about environmental problems. But nobody has convincingly shown that our CO2 emissions are catastrophic.

This "issue" crowds out other issues, and that's not good for environmentalism more generally.

And if (when) AGW falls out of favour, there will be other - real - problems which will have a mountain to climb to get onto the agenda.

[jffryfnt]

Thanks, now I'm dumber for have watching such a video as this.

[minilemur]

What an excellent discussion of the scientific evidence!

[sydneydoc]

Ice core CH4 measurements show a similar trend. There is no reason that these should be caused by CO2 increases.

I would have loved to ask Al Gore what he thinks caused the CO2 increases in the past, if not temperature increases !!!! Perhaps it was cave man camp fires ?

[Imhotepintheflesh]

Hey Syd,  The senate hearing on global warming rip

al's movie apart and called him a lyer !

[geminihunter]

@sydneydoc volcanic eruptions caused increase in CO2 levels leading to the end of the ice age. tectonic shifts which exposed deep earth rocks (Himalayas) and the formation of forest cover all around the globe absorbed most of the CO2 further lowering the terrestrial temperature. it appears we are eager to begin the process once again, only this time there is no guarantee the temperatures will drop again.

[sydneydoc]

Very good.

In relation to the 800 year CO2 lag graph, some areas of ocean absorb CO2 while others (mainly near the tropics) release CO2. CO2 release also happens in some areas in winter (surprisingly) due to upwelling of deep ocean CO2 rich water.

The detailed science of these changes is poorly understood.

[opchidexio]

Does cold water SINK? I mean, for example, if ocean water near the Earth's poles lost some of it's heat, what would happen to that water? Where would that cold water go?

How long would it take for that cold water to flow along the ocean FLOOR (hypothetically) until it reached, say, the equator? In other words, HOW FAST would it MOVE (if it happened)?

[opchidexio]

Problem. (Hello! Me again) Does CO2 dissolve in cold water? If so, what might happen if the water (or, say, the OCEANS, for exampe) heated up?

I'm not as smart as Al Gore. But I have opened a can of soda pop. This might explain why CO2 levels TRAIL temperture fluxuations. That is all.

[EasyEs]

This is great. This is what is needed. No personal attacks just a good look at the science, I should note I have spent about a month on real climate posting questions raised here/ looking for preexisting answers. Nothing so far.

[ColdBloodedCarl]

Great video, very well explained. Wish everyone would see this instead of that hideous Al Gore movie.

[Weiun]

Ooooh I feel "normal"...

Brilliant, it should be reccommended for every school...

Many, many thanks, at last some sense on such an important, topic.

Great web site as well, BTW. (I'm a frequent visitor.)

[valcat9]

"I think that those people [greenhouse deniers] are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view [that] they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, and those who believe the EARTH IS FLAT. That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off."

-- Al Gore, Nobel Laureate

interviewed by Lesley Stahl

[valcat9]

What's most amusing about AGW denialists?

They're like the libertarian frat boys I met in college who were carrying a torch for tobacco companies. ("You can't prove smoking causes cancer! Liberals are just attacking tobacco companies because they have a successful product!") These guys didn't smoke; they didn't own tobacco stock; they were just being contrarian lackeys.

Maybe they thought siding with big business would earn them a place at Ayn Rand's side.

[Weiun]

What IS NOT amusing about AGW believers,

The people they quote...

October 2007 UK High Court Ruling.

The learned Judge's finding about Gore's claim that sea level would imminently rise by 20 ft was blunt:

" It is common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so

that the Armageddon scenario he depicts is not based on any scientific view."

Who's the contrarian lackey....

[gabenovotny]

When the contrarian lackeys say, "You can't prove smoking causes cancer!" who are they talking about, the people that smoke, or everyone that is around them?

There is a lot of evidence pointing to the notion that second hand smoke worries are overrated.

[myleftnutts]

yeah gabe according,to smokers second hand smoke clearly does not affect them.

[kevin050780]

i think AL Gore ate the ozone and isnt he being put through it now for not being as green as he preaches please stay away from people as ignorant as Al and leave his quotes for someone who will believe them we need to be green huh Al why not practice what you so definitely preach dont quote hippocrits and dont rely on someone elses perspective like a sheep.

[myleftnutts]

So it must be so,because a ex-bureaucrat and a pair of corporate media "talkin tits" say it's so??.there is no tiny minority who know the "Truth". u just say there isn't. moon landing was a "Hoax".go ask all the known and "Unknown  Radiation" in the "Van Allen Belt". bet u thought everybody forget that little scientific fact.global warming is"Man Made"

using "ElectroMagnetic Pulse" technology.got anymore "Official Lies" for us.