The solar output peak around 2003 can be easily observed in the ACRIM satellite data. Since then, solar cooling has created record cold events around the world.
ACRIM Satellite data shows recent solar cooling
acrim*com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (2009)
No year since 2005 has been warmer than 2005. The immediate preceding years were among the warmest on record. The ones following were not. We understand why - the Sun's energy output stopped increasing in 2003.
[@6:15] The "arctic" is closely correlated with the sun, at that graph shows, yes. On the other hand, most of the warming around the planet happens at the tropics. The tropics is where we get most of the heat excesses caused by the increased levels of CO2. Global warming is about warming "globally".
As for global cooling, that is *not* what most climate scientists were publishing in the 70s, even if it was what captured the imagination of the BBC and some others.
@hozelda Unlike what I said earlier (I'm not a climate scientist so bear with me), it seems the graph at 6:15 has the solar irradiance portion faked (as was the case with other graphs in the video). More CO2 in the atmosphere might serve to equalize temperatures a bit more all over the planet perhaps by allowing a greater portion of bouncing back radiation from the tropics to make their way into the arctic.
One problem. The sun matches ..but not into the second half of the 20th century. At that point, it is when CO2 is large enough to make a different. The models that use CO2 explain that divergence accurately. The sun graphs, on the other hand, do not. You can see from this very video [@4:16] how the last 50 years has the sun activity going down while the land temp keeps rising (coinciding with CO2 levels not seen in the last million years). [@6:15] they show arctic temp not global average temp.
Carbon dioxide makes up .0039% of our atmosphere.. our coal powerplants inject .000000001948% more per year... that accounts for HALF of human C02 pollution. The total amount is .000000003496% . the trees in the continental US ALONE absorb that much and turn it back into oxegen. Dont believe me? watch this- watch?v=A4sg8uwzOVE . I did the math you can do it too. Find the answers on your own. I did, and was surprised at the outcome.
@Ravalat Well we could stop pumping the additional what was it you said ".000000001948% " in the atmosphere each year (FYI percentage is not a very good measurement in this instance as the total changes daily try PPM instead). You know that would stop it, or at least slow it down.
@yellowkrux we inject 3ppm a year. 3 parts per million. take a yard of air, cut it into 1000 squares, then cut one of those into another 1000 squares, fill 3 of those squares with C02. theres how much we pollute. I used weight rather than PPm to get an accurate pull of the trees and %. 1 tropical tree uses 50 pounds of Co2 per year. Our indigenous trees in the north each use 30. Our trees ALONE easily handle what we output. Nature produces a shit ton more than we do. basically you cant stop it.
@Ravalat I like how you're trying to say 3 PPM a year is somehow a small amount. & What exactly are you including in your calculations there, because unless you're also including that which is produced by respiration, your claim our trees alone can handle it maybe false, for that matter if it were true we would be seeing a decrease in CO2 or at least would have before heavy industrialization.
You can use pounds to best determine the amount we inject.. You take how much coal you burn, find its co2 output per short ton. find out how many tons you've burnt all year, and get a pretty accurate weight. I don't know why people don't understand this. Your measuring from the source itself, rather than catching some air and testing it which you really cant do accurately for the entire world. The winds keep it dynamic.
@yellowkrux Bah.. w/e dude. if you don't understand the mathematics above then don't bother talking to me. Are you going to argue that burning 1 short ton can't be measured with an oxegen/carbon combination rate to get a weight per ton output of co2?
@Ravalat I understand the math, & I also understand that you're purposely leaving out about 75% of the equation, & I am left to assume the reason you are leaving out this information is because you realize the statement you made is false.
@yellowkrux Dude, are you fucking retarded? My very first statement was about the coal powerplants. My whole argument is ABOUT coal powerplants. did you even read the first comments? That aside, the trees DO pull enough to absorb it all (EVERYTHING WE PRODUCE).. however the earth produces Co2 as well MUCH more.. we add just a miniscule fraction to that. we always look at the little shit stain that we produce and freak out about it, while the earth produces MANY times more on its own.
@Ravalat Are you fucking retarded? Your very first statement didn't even have the words coal nor powerplants in it. & Character limits exist for a reason, If your point was that nature produces more CO2 then I have to ask what the point behind that point was. So what was it?
@yellowkrux here dumbass , appearantly you didnt read it.. this was my first comment that YOU built off of. "Carbon dioxide makes up .0039% of our atmosphere.. our coal powerplants inject .000000001948% more per year... that accounts for HALF of human C02 pollution... blah blah blah.. L2 read. Do you see the words, COAL/POWERPLANT Go fucking bury your head in the sand.
@yellowkrux The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce
@yellowkrux Take the total amount of Co2 produced per year IN WEIGHT. Measure it against the total weight of the atmosphere.. get percentage.. easy mathematics. Its like taking a quart of oil and pouring it into a gallon of water. You take amount of oil/total *100= % of oil in water. same concept.....in this case it would be 5 quarts total. so 1/5*100= 20% get it? only you use Carbon output/total weight of atmosphere*100= X.. simple math
Heads up people. This programme was shown to be a load of crap a few years back
watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM&feature=related
watch?v=MYgX7tSGbmQ
watch?v=JwhfsqfMcmk
watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
Both proponents and sceptics agree that the CO2 caused by man's activities is warming the planet. Their argument is wether we have to do anything about it. Oh and by sceptics I mean the qualified one's.
Hahaha!! Three quarters of people are using their own brains, this is devastating news for those who wish to control us even more. Fight these bastards with everything you got. (scientific facts)
I posted this 10 months ago "Global Warming is the worlds largest ponzi scam that has ever been placed on man. It was done to grab power and wealth under the disguise of saving mankind. The e-mails prove it was a lie. The information from Russia that said its temp recordings were 75% disregarded or even faked in the report from the ICCP report. The ICCP backing away from their own past claims of Global Warming as being tainted."
@ConsertiveDemocrat What I do with these liberal whackjobs is I ask them to look at the sun. They I ask them how long can they stare at it. When they wonder why I want them to do that. I always say: "Well, If you stared at it too long it would burn your eyes out of your head. That immense ball of energy is what controls global temperatures not a mere human like you. We couldn't even produce the technology to get within 1,000,000 miles of it without being turned into crispy critters."
3. Calder is talking nonsense. Prophecies of a coming Ice Age in the 70s never were supported by serious science, it actually was a media hype only.
Between 1966 and 1979, merely 7 scientific publications mentioned a possible global cooling (not a single one predicted a new Ice Age), while already 42 papers predicted a global warming due to increasing CO2.
Otherwise nowadays, >95% of all climate researchers say that AGW is real.
(I'll give references to the points above on demand)
2. The idea that cosmic rays (GCR) may have an effect on the the cloud cover still remains an unproven hypothesis. Recent NASA/GISS data and studies from Krivova, Laut and Sloan show that there is no significant correlation.
However, more important is the fact that cloud cover was found out to be a neutral factor, since it reflects sun rays (->cooling) but also traps IR-radiation (->warming), equally.
(Ref.: "Cosmic Rays and Global Warming", Sloan and Wolfendale, 2007)
1. It is correct that solar activity is a driver of the earth's climate, and until ~1975 it correlated well with the g. temperature. But in the last decades, solar activity remained constant or even dropped slightly, while the g. temperature steadily rised, which shows that the sun output is not the trigger of the current global warming.
(Ref.: "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings[...]", Meehl et al., 2004; "Trends in solar climate forcings", Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007)
OF course the sun is the one that affects the most to earth.....but lets be more eco friendly....lets use eco fuel.....let eco culture grow. Of course the sun is the source of heat....nothing new on that.
These are clearly inconvenient truths for the likes of Gore and his punch drinking followers. No doubt this will severely irritate all these politically correct cult worshipers that will not stand to have their dear global warming mythology marred in any way. I expect they will all level complaints at anyone associated with promulgating real science to prevent more information like this from surfacing. Some people simply cannot tolerate any actual facts that prove how stupid they are.
@aerobique do you even know how much Co2 is boiling up from the oceans, and how much Co2 is blown in the atmosphere by the rotting of leave's every autumn??? The fact that youy use the 40% rise shows how litlle you know.....all the peaople in the world with all the industry are just a drop in the co2...oh and learn this : co2 is not a toxic...its the stuff plants and trees breath...and transform it to oxygen...the stuff you and i breath.......
I´m not in the mood to rip that old, silly fox news like "argument" in pieces and treat you like a fool...
Hard choice now:
[ ] ww w .rush-limbaugh . us / co2-is-nature/evidance
[ ] ww w .glenn-beck-university .fox / nwo/ climate-gate
[X] ww w .climate . nasa .g o v / evidence
Check on my site, i have some ..quite reliable sources about this important (and widely misunderstood) issue listed on my profile and a big playlist about AGW. peaCe
Pardon you said "co2 is not a toxic" and not "pollutant" ... but dude...thats even wronger...and everyone (who is not mental rightwing ideologue without any knowledge) knows that.
Try it for yourself before spreading the anti-environmental convinient PR-lies publicly.. Go in a room and increase co2 in it. Have fun... But again...toxicity is not what it´s about. (confusion tactic #4629.. yaawn..) It´s about the "greenhouse effect" of co2. Also thats all known since 100+ years.
@aerobique the greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth. plants use CO2 like mammals use oxygen. also the hole in the ozone is caused by a magnetic tunnel between the sun and the earth's south pole, which is why its there.
It is just more effective in keeping the waves in the atmosphere. Low concentration, but high effectivity. For god's sake it is, without the natural (!) greenhouse effect, it would be -27.4 °F.
2:58 "Clouds have a cooling effect" Well yes they do. And they also have a warming effect.
Usoskin 2004 found no long term statistically significant correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Krivova 2003, and Lockwood 2007 have found the connection between cosmic radiation and temperature has broken down over the past 2 to 3 decades.
It seems CO2 isn't irrelevant after all. Not that anyone with half a brain ever thought it was.
At 1:49 we get Durkin's infamous solar activity vs temperature graph. Note that it stops at 1975. Why? It isn't like we run out of data. The reason is because at that point the correlation falls apart. The solar activity declines but the temperature increases rapidly.
Unlike the phony e-mail accusation this is where Durkin deliberately "hides the decline."
@rugbyguy59 I hope global warming is real, because Winter is freaking cold! You know co2 is GOOD for the environment? /watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
Plants grow bigger, and CONSUME co2. As they grow bigger, they will consume more co2 and produce more oxygen.
30 years ago it was global cooling. Now it's global warming. But that's bullshit so now they're calling it climate change. OH SHIT, CLIMATE CHANGE. THE SEASONS ARE TO BLAME.
pht. They only want to trick you so you don't worry about their CORRUPTION
@ZeoDyce CO2 has positive and negative effects. The plants can grow more but they also have less nutritional value and are more susceptible to disease. Either way water availability and temperature will have a much bigger effect on plant performance. Many food crops will likely not do well.
If the plants will do so well, why is CO2 concentration rising and O2 dropping?
There never was a global cooling consensus only a media report. Most scientists were talking about warming back then too.
@ZeoDyce Try watching "The "CO2 is Plant Food" Crock" on Youtube.
Maosheng Zhao et al. showed from 2000-2009 global net food productivity decreased by 0.55 petagrams of carbon. In other words we're producing less food.
New paper out from the Univ of Guelph showing declining tree growth over recent decades.
National Academy of Science showed rice is particularly vulnerable to warming.
NAS also showed phytoplankton (key O2 producer) down by 40%.
jpa23245: It appears that you missed basic high school science classes. One of the experiments demonstrated how plant growth is effected by the amount of CO2 in the air...double it and plants grow faster. Again, I state that CO2 makes up only 0.038% of the air, a very , very small amount. It is generated by several means: decomposition of plants, digestive processes from all animals, forest fires, volcanic processes, etc. plus us of course. You can see CO2 in the air? Wow. Keep this Youtube
Watch greenman3610's video on climate change. It methodically destroys man made climate denier points video by video.
For instance, at 1:50 the graph conveniently stops around 1970. If the graph keeps going you find that while warming increases exponentially, the line for solar activity falls away.
This is why that graph is no longer used, obviously the makers of this documentary are not aware of bunk science.
I was linked here by an Exxon web page that was trying to argue that CO2 is good for your health .... this is Propaganda paid for by the dirty money from the fossil fuel industry. Coal and oil pollutes the air, you can see it in the black smoke, you can smell the nasty pollution, they can't hide it. We are breathing that air and they don't care.
@duck24x It's all a big scam. The big corporations are spoon-feeding us, and getting people like Al Gore to be a puppet for them to help spread the word of Global Warming as fearful, and it seems to be getting to you. It's all a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling us out of fear, getting us to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag." Sure, they might cost us $5 or $10 dollars more than the usual, but they're "Green" items, arent they?
"Come on! Now, as you are sitting down watching a bunch of lies about that Global Warming not existing, our planet is falling apart! I mean, we started this mess, so we have to clean it up, don't we? How about we start shopping green? Next time we go down to the supermarket, instead of getting a plastic bag, let's get a green bag. And instead of getting non-green lights, let's get a "Green" one. They might cost $5 to $10 dollars more, but they're green, arent they?
@duck24x It's all a big scam. The big corporations are spoon-feeding us, and getting people like Al Gore to be a puppet for them to help spread the word of Global Warming as fearful, and it seems to be getting to you. It's all a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling us out of fear, getting us to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag." Sure, they might cost us $5 or $10 dollars more than the usual, but they're "Green" items, arent they?
@Zachdudeio2 Parts 2 & 3 were apparently deleted by YouTube, considering they were exposing the truth about Global Warming that the big corporations don't want us to know about. It's all a big scam. Global Warming movements have come together as one, and are now like a religion. G.W is a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling them out of fear, getting them to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag"- The green bags aren't even biodegradable!
Please keep this video up and running. People must see the real reason for earth temperatures changes, not the "CO2 stuff." Not many people realize that CO2 makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere...a very, very small amount, way less than the amount of Argon, and far, far less than water vapor, which varies from 1% to 4%. If CO2 was much less than it is now, plants would most likely not grow! CO2 is NOT a poison gas; plants use it to grow and make the O2 we need to survive.
@cmonsenc god that is such a half assed explanation of the role of CO2 and the carbon atom in our world. We are taking all organic matter and the diverse amount CARBOhydrates and lipids (carbon and hydrogen) and burning in releasing CO2 and other carbon compounds into the air. All the oil in the ground is actually the carbon compounds of atleast millions of years of organic build up of hundreds of millions of years before mammals even evolved. If you look a picture of Los Angeles from the air...
@uwmbigb Parts 2 & 3 were apparently deleted by YouTube, considering they were exposing the truth about Global Warming that the big corporations don't want us to know about. It's all a big scam. Global Warming movements have come together as one, and are now like a religion. G.W is a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling them out of fear, getting them to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag"- The green bags aren't even biodegradable!
Here's a great expose of what the GATT expansion to the WTO (orchestrated by Clinton/Gore) has produced in terms of environmental damage by moving manufacturing in the West that had Environmental laws to pollute with impunity in the Socialists/Limousine Liberals current favorite failed utopia, China
GW scientists and researchers at NASA and USGS and elsewhere are endlessly silenced and harrassed by the denialists, who hate free speech and oppose all intelligent analysis. Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh are their only lead "scientists" - pure evil ranters who never did a day of work in their lives, who know nothing of loyalty, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pure selfish crybaby cowards.
Start saving the environment by torturing and executing those who have sucked off most from the planet and the labor of others, while giving practically nothing in return: corporate welfarists, CEOs with unlimited salaries & benefits, & anyone who votes for Republicrats. Double torture for anti-vegans.
@duck24x ooh dear it seems we have a misiformed little girl. You may want to torture and kill me because the fact is this. Animals are dumb but also tasty and make quite good pets and global warming is not a thing. Ejit.
The GW denialists don't even attack Al Gore - who IS a hypocritical bastard -
for the right reasons. They never point out that Gore didn't do anything for the environment while he COULD have, when it was hardest to do so, when GW was not nearly as proven and accepted by such a large majority of scientists as it is now. Gore supported the evil LD50 test on animals in 1999 by the EPA. The USA would be on the right track if Ralph Nader were president 2000-2008 and Cynthia McKinney 2009-2016.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
The money is insignificant, just a way to make those interested in protecting it realize the cost of doing business, make the fuckers pay, make em weep dollars, they spoil all they touch and poison like minds, they run propaganda campaigns to support their self serving attitudes, then as evidence mounts they claim the science is purposely attacking them, their time is coming to an end and they feel it, they fear it.
Gore has set up carbon trading companies & clean & green companies with Goldman Sachs shysters all set to corner the market if Cap & Trade legislation is passed. Gore & pals created & promoted Global Warming to make a bundle. With the climategate emails, & malfeasance of the IPCC, you are showing a criminal intent to create the results you want. Add in $300+ million dollar ad campaign to promote it
GW is a racketeering operation that needs a congressional/criminal investigation
I have challenged you over and over to post one thing that links me to any clone on here and you have FAILED to do so....I suggest you stop your childish mud throwing and address real issues...your infantile spamming of the videos on here is the joke of the community...ie:- nil credibility....your multi-faceted posting as Nightversionn and goog2k to name just one of your accounts is a thinly veiled attempt at conning newbies here that you have support it really is laughable..Prat
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
@aerobique It's all a big scam. The big corporations are spoon-feeding us, and getting people like Al Gore to be a puppet for them to help spread the word of Global Warming as fearful, and it seems to be getting to you. It's all a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling us out of fear, getting us to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag." Sure, they might cost us $5 or $10 dollars more than the usual, but they're "Green" items, arent they?
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
9 of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST ever recorded. Only 1998 was hotter than 2000 or any year since.
Search:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
Sun spots and the Net TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, have not increased since 1975. We have satellite data to prove it. Last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
Please check the data. Search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?
I think it's fucking hilarious that 'those in charge' have convinced half the planet that 'man-made climate change' actually exists. What is this, the fucking Dark Ages? - What next, a vote for a resurgence in the Flat Earth Society, the burning of witches and round 2 of the bubonic plague - it's a scandalous, shame-faced, disgrace and all those who believe and or support it should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves.
@straightedgearsonist I think you are witnessing the power of marketing, say it enough and it becomes plausable, say it some more and it becomes a fact....
Global Warming is the worlds largest ponzi scam that has ever been placed on man. It was done to grab power and wealth under the disguise of saving mankind. The e-mails prove it was a lie. The information from Russia that said its temp recordings were 75% disregarded or even faked in the report from the ICCP report. The ICCP backing away from their own past claims of Global Warming as being tainted.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with developing and using cleaner and more efficient technologies. An example being the hybrid cars we are seeing these days. But I along with the leading global warming alarmist climate scientist James Hansen do NOT want cap and trade to pass. It is a scam and it will not help lower our Co2 levels all the whilst people like gore make billions off it. But as i said i have no problem with being more eco friendly, as long as it doesn't send us to the dark ages.
And there are many ways to make sure we do not have to revert back to the dark ages like some of these environmental maniacs want us to do. We have the technology to do it so i foresee us moving on with cleaner, better, more efficient technology and getting off of fossil fuels. But hey good response, it doesn't hurt at all to be more ecologically friendly.
Al Gore helped engineer the economically & environmentally devastating NAFTA & GATT expansion into the WTO. We now have the environmental & Human Rights monster China, abusing workers, the environment, & now shipping their slave labor made junk back West that contain toxic chemicals that are making us & our children sick & dying. I know Gore was in thick with the monsters from the People's Democracy of China
So that did not help reduce Global Warming did it?
9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects are all migrating north. Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
CO2 was some 20 times higher in the Triassic and Jurassic where life thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved, WITHOUT a tipping point or runaway greenhouse. Many ice ages also had very high CO2.
Global manmade CO2 is about 30Bn tons. To reduce temp by 1C and using the IPCC's intentionally bloated figures, that would mean not emitting 1Tn tons of CO2, which means no cars, trains, industry or campfires for 30 YEARS!! Back to the stone age.
So many stupid people with science degrees. Went to college, got drunk, answered a few questions, got a degree. Then thought they were smart enough to analyze a complex system such as the earth's atmosphere. Dealt with lots of these smartasses, wouldn't hire any of them. Too cocky, immature, live on a computer, most would be lucky enough to identify the direction in which the sun rises each day, and now are here to tell us how to avoid a crisis which doesn't exist. CrackerJack awards worth more
Roarshash? From Watchmen? YOU post on YouTube? Wooooow.
Oh boy, you sure hit the nail on the head with your comment though. I mean a degree is only 3 years of intense study, sometimes 4 or 5 depending, and then several MORE years of study in a specified field, analysing the data, convening in public forums, going through a lengthy and difficult peer review process before being eligable to GIVE their oppinion.
Right? A test is just a series of complex examination papers where you have to show the entirity of your knowledge, oh and its not just that. Its also essay papers, showing your study and research, and if you do a PHD or a Masters then you have to do your OWN research and write your OWN paper in a particular field which FURTHERS our knowledge in that field that much more.
Pff, your exactly right, bunch of jackasses. Think they can do just THAT and KNOW something. Students are so dumb.
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in our galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, explains it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere (the Ice Ages). It is regulated by our Sun's fluctuating magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN's world control...educational, watch all 6 parts (52 min)...on YT.
Where's the proof?? There is proof that the Global Warming Swindle was a DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD AND LIE!!! Go to you tube and search videos under "Climate denier crock of the week." There are several short videos. Get back when you actually say something truthful.
Yeah, I'm sure the National Academy of Sciences and EVERY LEGITIMATE SCIENCE BODY agrees! Go to realclimate. Even a hopeless dumbass like you could be helped.
Go to realclimate and express your ideas. I'm sure they will agree with you. Don't listen to Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and the other lying hate radio liars. These guys will turn people into hopeless dumbasses.
Radiative physics experiments show that increasing CO2 levels trap more heat which increases Earth's total heat content. C12/C13 isotope ratios agree with the idea that increased CO2 is from fossil fuels. So, human causes have a lot to do with the warming of the planet. Any other questions?
The AR4 report(IPCC) states the forcing values for CH4 and H2O vapor. Solar variance has been very small over the last 50 years as reported by scientists like Lockwood. Cosmic rays are only speculative, considering solar energy measured values have been flat, cosmic ray climate effects are only speculative . I only follow the climate issues, I am not a climate scientist. I also used to be more skeptical about the possible effects of increased CO2. I am much less skeptical now.
Climate models are reasonably accurate predictors at present. They are always susceptible to other climate factors, but the CO2 forcing value has been more or less within 30% of today's value over the past ten or more years. More data will produce a more accurate value, but so far, models have UNDERESTIMATED the observed climate trends.
"OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniformdata integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."
Humans have raised CO2 levels. CO2 traps heat which has been verified by satellite measurements of outgoing radiation and surface measurements of downward radiation(from Skeptical science). The C13/C12 isotope ratio indicates that the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels. Get your head out of yor denier arse and start investigating. Stop acting like a hopeless dumbass!
Proof is : increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels TRAPS outgoing heat, resulting in Earth's atmosphere heating up. Other gases like CH4 also act as greenhouse gases. Other factors like albedo affect the heat loss of the planet. CO2 is an important forcing according to IPCC reports.
Volcanoes are the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and volcanic activity has increased 500% since 1970. Greenhouse gases "trap heat", that's why the Earth stays warm and we all don't freeze to death. Humans contribute to 3.4% of all global CO2 emissions and 0.24% of total GH emissions as of 2007. What 'increase' in human emissions has we seen and how much emission affects the world's average temperature by one degree? You don't know and there is no way for you TO know. continued.
coninued... Lastly, your IPCC report is no longer a viable source for climate information. They have been caught up in a scandal which involved the manipulation of information with the intent to support your religion and, therefore, is no longer able to legitimately represent the "scientific concensus" on global warming. Start using facts and legitimate resources that don't affilliate themselves with the IPCC's findings.
The "volcanoes" comment is refuted by information from the USGS. In fact, according to the USGS, man contributes 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Although CO2 is a fraction of all greenhouse gases, it has an accumulative effect. Excess CO2 persists in the atmosphere, even as 99+% of it is recycled through the carbon cycle. The small difference has created a potential catastrophe over the following decades. I like to have insurance, even if I don't use it.
Four of the USGS 'scientists' were fired over the climate gate emails. CO2 makes up less of a fraction, 3.4% of all greenhouse gases to be more correct. Exactly how much CO2 are we supposed to have in the atmosphere today? You can't answer this because it is impossible to know. You don't have insurance, you spent our wealth on the Global Warming Religion! That money is gone and never coming back.
"You can shear the Sheep many times (reasonable profits), you can only 'Skin Them; once"... After the massive 'Skinning', the flocks population plummets.... That, my friends, is apparently the ultimate Goal, is it not?
Sep of 1833, Krakatoa tiny url com/c585gm Big Pollution, emissions, CO2, GHG's by the inestimable (of course many Think they know) amounts more than the entire Industrial age. The result?.... Cooling.... for years? and thats only one 'biggie bang'. Using the present CRU 'modeling' computers, earth should have gone super GW. Wattsupwiththat?
Yeah made a pop did that one, but hey, just recycling some plastic bags and going vegan oh and stopping cows from farting and breathing and blaming co2 would have stopped it.....not.
Greens.
Green on the outside but too yellow to say theyre red.
Please cite ANY science paper that says that CO2 concentration does not trap heat. Deniers have zero scientific credibility but they do worship their Gods like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Hannity, none of whom know jack sh#* about climate science(or anything else)
The issue is not the extent that CO2 traps heat provided by the day time sun; the issue is that you do not want to recognize that the CO2 for any period of time has had nill affect on climate. Not then, not now and never will. Feel free to give up all your freedom and wealth on your AGW doctrine.
Two plastic jars with "some" co2 trapped inside and a heat source?
Or are you going to accurately model proportions of ALL gases and factors such as starting temperature, solar irradiance, cosmic ray influences etc etc?
If its the first then you know what that means- Bogus.
Once again you ignore the science. CO2 does trap heat at a declining logarithmic scale. Therefore, only a fraction of heating from CO2 remains possible. And as I stated, I am the one with science degrees, where you obviously glued to the people who lied and used deceptive claims to lead you astray. Hope you recover from your poor understanding of scientific methodology. Cheers
I also have a science degree, BS in chemistry. So what. I am no climate scientist and neither are you, obviously. Also, don't forget the distinct possiblity that increased temperatures can increase other forcings like methane, many times more energy absorbent than CO2. The blog, Open Mind, shows how scientists have correctly predicted trend lines for temperatures. These"lies" have been vetted and shown as much ado about nothing(except to deniers)
You may have slept through solar physics, astronomical effects on climate, atmospheric ionization cosmic rays and cloud formation, aerosols, and how to sharpen your pencil.
...speaking of pencil sharpening. The claims you call proof are nothing more than hypothesis. So maybe you can read:
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
CO2 concentration is just one factor that affects climate. Volcanic eruptions, ENSO and other factors also affect the climate. Do deniers have insurance??? Thionk of action to lower CO2 in the air as insurance. The potential harm from non action is too risky.
...actually, many of us so called deniers do have science degrees. I only see the AGW's on the labeling attack on those they disagree with. You are the champion of demonizing.
As someone may have said once " Its the SUN, stupid".
Besetho 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when alex jones and fox news are saying the same thing what does that tell you? climategate is a cia mossad deception
how obvious does it have to be that the common thread is OIL and imperialism
climate gate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
why is alex jones against avatar when the movie points directly to 911 truth
why is alex jones against the environment and pro oil when exxon and shell and haliburton are the biggest part of the NWO
MrTranscend1 1 month ago
The solar output peak around 2003 can be easily observed in the ACRIM satellite data. Since then, solar cooling has created record cold events around the world.
ACRIM Satellite data shows recent solar cooling
acrim*com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (2009)
nasa*gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
No year since 2005 has been warmer than 2005. The immediate preceding years were among the warmest on record. The ones following were not. We understand why - the Sun's energy output stopped increasing in 2003.
Warmest years in descending order:
1998
2005
2003
2002
2004
2006
2007
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
Solar activity can now be directly tied to recent warming and cooling trends, thanks to expensive satellites monitoring solar energy reaching Earth.
The ACRIM and SORCE satellites show why there has been no global warming since 2005. That's about when solar energy output stopped increasing.
Solar output reduction can be directly credited for the last six years of global cooling. Rising CO2... not so much.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
[@6:15] The "arctic" is closely correlated with the sun, at that graph shows, yes. On the other hand, most of the warming around the planet happens at the tropics. The tropics is where we get most of the heat excesses caused by the increased levels of CO2. Global warming is about warming "globally".
As for global cooling, that is *not* what most climate scientists were publishing in the 70s, even if it was what captured the imagination of the BBC and some others.
hozelda 2 months ago
@hozelda Unlike what I said earlier (I'm not a climate scientist so bear with me), it seems the graph at 6:15 has the solar irradiance portion faked (as was the case with other graphs in the video). More CO2 in the atmosphere might serve to equalize temperatures a bit more all over the planet perhaps by allowing a greater portion of bouncing back radiation from the tropics to make their way into the arctic.
hozelda 2 months ago
One problem. The sun matches ..but not into the second half of the 20th century. At that point, it is when CO2 is large enough to make a different. The models that use CO2 explain that divergence accurately. The sun graphs, on the other hand, do not. You can see from this very video [@4:16] how the last 50 years has the sun activity going down while the land temp keeps rising (coinciding with CO2 levels not seen in the last million years). [@6:15] they show arctic temp not global average temp.
hozelda 2 months ago
IT'S THE FUCKING SUN!!!
Megadeathsherald 4 months ago
Comment removed
oynx0 4 months ago
no matter how you look at it.. the graphs here are pretty convincing....
Ravalat 5 months ago
Check out Android Widget "Skeptical Science" for info on this
dmlt12 5 months ago
Carbon dioxide makes up .0039% of our atmosphere.. our coal powerplants inject .000000001948% more per year... that accounts for HALF of human C02 pollution. The total amount is .000000003496% . the trees in the continental US ALONE absorb that much and turn it back into oxegen. Dont believe me? watch this- watch?v=A4sg8uwzOVE . I did the math you can do it too. Find the answers on your own. I did, and was surprised at the outcome.
Ravalat 6 months ago
@Ravalat Do you have a point?
yellowkrux 5 months ago
@yellowkrux The point is, The C02 building up is nature based. There is nothing you can do to stop it.
Ravalat 5 months ago
@Ravalat Well we could stop pumping the additional what was it you said ".000000001948% " in the atmosphere each year (FYI percentage is not a very good measurement in this instance as the total changes daily try PPM instead). You know that would stop it, or at least slow it down.
yellowkrux 5 months ago
@yellowkrux we inject 3ppm a year. 3 parts per million. take a yard of air, cut it into 1000 squares, then cut one of those into another 1000 squares, fill 3 of those squares with C02. theres how much we pollute. I used weight rather than PPm to get an accurate pull of the trees and %. 1 tropical tree uses 50 pounds of Co2 per year. Our indigenous trees in the north each use 30. Our trees ALONE easily handle what we output. Nature produces a shit ton more than we do. basically you cant stop it.
Ravalat 5 months ago
@Ravalat I like how you're trying to say 3 PPM a year is somehow a small amount. & What exactly are you including in your calculations there, because unless you're also including that which is produced by respiration, your claim our trees alone can handle it maybe false, for that matter if it were true we would be seeing a decrease in CO2 or at least would have before heavy industrialization.
yellowkrux 5 months ago
@yellowkrux I didnt say we see a decrease.. i said nature produces MORE than we do. are you debating that?
Ravalat 5 months ago
You can use pounds to best determine the amount we inject.. You take how much coal you burn, find its co2 output per short ton. find out how many tons you've burnt all year, and get a pretty accurate weight. I don't know why people don't understand this. Your measuring from the source itself, rather than catching some air and testing it which you really cant do accurately for the entire world. The winds keep it dynamic.
Ravalat 5 months ago
@Ravalat So in other words you didn't take into account respiration? Yeah, do that next time cause you just invalidated your whole argument.
yellowkrux 5 months ago
@yellowkrux Bah.. w/e dude. if you don't understand the mathematics above then don't bother talking to me. Are you going to argue that burning 1 short ton can't be measured with an oxegen/carbon combination rate to get a weight per ton output of co2?
Ravalat 5 months ago
@Ravalat I understand the math, & I also understand that you're purposely leaving out about 75% of the equation, & I am left to assume the reason you are leaving out this information is because you realize the statement you made is false.
yellowkrux 5 months ago
@yellowkrux Exactly what 75% are you talking about? You do realize I was only doing "coal power plants" not lignite, or any of the others.. right?
Ravalat 5 months ago
@Ravalat Are you fucking serious? If you want to claim that indigenous trees can absorb the CO2 output you have to include ALL CO2 output.
yellowkrux 5 months ago
@yellowkrux Dude, are you fucking retarded? My very first statement was about the coal powerplants. My whole argument is ABOUT coal powerplants. did you even read the first comments? That aside, the trees DO pull enough to absorb it all (EVERYTHING WE PRODUCE).. however the earth produces Co2 as well MUCH more.. we add just a miniscule fraction to that. we always look at the little shit stain that we produce and freak out about it, while the earth produces MANY times more on its own.
Ravalat 5 months ago
@Ravalat Are you fucking retarded? Your very first statement didn't even have the words coal nor powerplants in it. & Character limits exist for a reason, If your point was that nature produces more CO2 then I have to ask what the point behind that point was. So what was it?
yellowkrux 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yellowkrux here dumbass , appearantly you didnt read it.. this was my first comment that YOU built off of. "Carbon dioxide makes up .0039% of our atmosphere.. our coal powerplants inject .000000001948% more per year... that accounts for HALF of human C02 pollution... blah blah blah.. L2 read. Do you see the words, COAL/POWERPLANT Go fucking bury your head in the sand.
Ravalat 5 months ago
@yellowkrux The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce
Ravalat 5 months ago
@yellowkrux Take the total amount of Co2 produced per year IN WEIGHT. Measure it against the total weight of the atmosphere.. get percentage.. easy mathematics. Its like taking a quart of oil and pouring it into a gallon of water. You take amount of oil/total *100= % of oil in water. same concept.....in this case it would be 5 quarts total. so 1/5*100= 20% get it? only you use Carbon output/total weight of atmosphere*100= X.. simple math
Ravalat 5 months ago
@Ravalat on top of that, this big argument I see alot of "catching air" is it even logical? lol
Ravalat 5 months ago
Heads up people. This programme was shown to be a load of crap a few years back
watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM&feature=related
watch?v=MYgX7tSGbmQ
watch?v=JwhfsqfMcmk
watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
Both proponents and sceptics agree that the CO2 caused by man's activities is warming the planet. Their argument is wether we have to do anything about it. Oh and by sceptics I mean the qualified one's.
watch?v=FBMDwwTdMfs&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 6 months ago 4
Where is part 2 and 3... dont be afraid.
ciarandots77 7 months ago
could not find 2 and 3..
chiledoug 9 months ago
Hahaha!! Three quarters of people are using their own brains, this is devastating news for those who wish to control us even more. Fight these bastards with everything you got. (scientific facts)
kaderoder 9 months ago
yamflak made 45 accounts to like this video
68spaceman 10 months ago
Al Gore made 45 accounts to dislike this video
yamflak 11 months ago 5
i like but where is 5? ah
pennykrs1 11 months ago
It's amazing how strongly people want to be fooled and enslaved by the government over a lie!
There are STILL people that believe in AGW!
Despite the scammers being exposed over and over again and again.
Haven't they heard of Climategate? The 4500 temp gathering station being closed down when they didn't show warming?
...not to mention science shows that its a hoax...
co2isgoodal 11 months ago
@co2isgoodal
well you are talking BS.
"The 4500 temp gathering station being closed down when they didn't show warming"
making stuff up much?
cthulhu11111111 10 months ago
where is part 2 an 3?
dimitris1453 1 year ago
@dimitris1453 search Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5) instead.
E1itetube 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ConsertiveDemocrat I agree with you finally finding someone I can agree with.
VVV221 1 year ago
@ConservativeDemocrat I finally found someone I can agree with.
VVV221 1 year ago
I posted this 10 months ago "Global Warming is the worlds largest ponzi scam that has ever been placed on man. It was done to grab power and wealth under the disguise of saving mankind. The e-mails prove it was a lie. The information from Russia that said its temp recordings were 75% disregarded or even faked in the report from the ICCP report. The ICCP backing away from their own past claims of Global Warming as being tainted."
Every word was true then as it is today.
ConsertiveDemocrat 1 year ago 2
@ConsertiveDemocrat What I do with these liberal whackjobs is I ask them to look at the sun. They I ask them how long can they stare at it. When they wonder why I want them to do that. I always say: "Well, If you stared at it too long it would burn your eyes out of your head. That immense ball of energy is what controls global temperatures not a mere human like you. We couldn't even produce the technology to get within 1,000,000 miles of it without being turned into crispy critters."
HaggenPagan26 1 year ago
[3]
3. Calder is talking nonsense. Prophecies of a coming Ice Age in the 70s never were supported by serious science, it actually was a media hype only.
Between 1966 and 1979, merely 7 scientific publications mentioned a possible global cooling (not a single one predicted a new Ice Age), while already 42 papers predicted a global warming due to increasing CO2.
Otherwise nowadays, >95% of all climate researchers say that AGW is real.
(I'll give references to the points above on demand)
Tervinger 1 year ago
[2]
2. The idea that cosmic rays (GCR) may have an effect on the the cloud cover still remains an unproven hypothesis. Recent NASA/GISS data and studies from Krivova, Laut and Sloan show that there is no significant correlation.
However, more important is the fact that cloud cover was found out to be a neutral factor, since it reflects sun rays (->cooling) but also traps IR-radiation (->warming), equally.
(Ref.: "Cosmic Rays and Global Warming", Sloan and Wolfendale, 2007)
Tervinger 1 year ago
[1]
1. It is correct that solar activity is a driver of the earth's climate, and until ~1975 it correlated well with the g. temperature. But in the last decades, solar activity remained constant or even dropped slightly, while the g. temperature steadily rised, which shows that the sun output is not the trigger of the current global warming.
(Ref.: "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings[...]", Meehl et al., 2004; "Trends in solar climate forcings", Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007)
Tervinger 1 year ago
DUDE, wher are parts 2&3???????????????
pattisimmons67 1 year ago
@pattisimmons67 go to southeastasianewsDOTorg/climategate/ you will it all there
cheers :)
oynx0 4 months ago
Comment removed
oynx0 4 months ago
OF course the sun is the one that affects the most to earth.....but lets be more eco friendly....lets use eco fuel.....let eco culture grow. Of course the sun is the source of heat....nothing new on that.
raulahuatl 1 year ago
These are clearly inconvenient truths for the likes of Gore and his punch drinking followers. No doubt this will severely irritate all these politically correct cult worshipers that will not stand to have their dear global warming mythology marred in any way. I expect they will all level complaints at anyone associated with promulgating real science to prevent more information like this from surfacing. Some people simply cannot tolerate any actual facts that prove how stupid they are.
nunatheart 1 year ago
@aerobique do you even know how much Co2 is boiling up from the oceans, and how much Co2 is blown in the atmosphere by the rotting of leave's every autumn??? The fact that youy use the 40% rise shows how litlle you know.....all the peaople in the world with all the industry are just a drop in the co2...oh and learn this : co2 is not a toxic...its the stuff plants and trees breath...and transform it to oxygen...the stuff you and i breath.......
basmikiemike 1 year ago
@basmikiemike
CO2 is "not a pollutant" ?
I´m not in the mood to rip that old, silly fox news like "argument" in pieces and treat you like a fool...
Hard choice now:
[ ] ww w .rush-limbaugh . us / co2-is-nature/evidance
[ ] ww w .glenn-beck-university .fox / nwo/ climate-gate
[X] ww w .climate . nasa .g o v / evidence
Check on my site, i have some ..quite reliable sources about this important (and widely misunderstood) issue listed on my profile and a big playlist about AGW. peaCe
aerobique 1 year ago
@basmikiemike
Pardon you said "co2 is not a toxic" and not "pollutant" ... but dude...thats even wronger...and everyone (who is not mental rightwing ideologue without any knowledge) knows that.
Try it for yourself before spreading the anti-environmental convinient PR-lies publicly.. Go in a room and increase co2 in it. Have fun... But again...toxicity is not what it´s about. (confusion tactic #4629.. yaawn..) It´s about the "greenhouse effect" of co2. Also thats all known since 100+ years.
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique the greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth. plants use CO2 like mammals use oxygen. also the hole in the ozone is caused by a magnetic tunnel between the sun and the earth's south pole, which is why its there.
Vykkdraygo713 1 year ago
@aerobique By that logic everything is a pollutant and toxic.
Khyrid 1 year ago
@aerobique
CO2 makes up less than 1% of green house gases, so how the hell is CO2 the problem?
BTek4 1 year ago
@BTek4
It is just more effective in keeping the waves in the atmosphere. Low concentration, but high effectivity. For god's sake it is, without the natural (!) greenhouse effect, it would be -27.4 °F.
StJohnGercoe 1 year ago
put the rest of the documentary, lazy ass
slutypet 1 year ago
2:58 "Clouds have a cooling effect" Well yes they do. And they also have a warming effect.
Usoskin 2004 found no long term statistically significant correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation. Krivova 2003, and Lockwood 2007 have found the connection between cosmic radiation and temperature has broken down over the past 2 to 3 decades.
It seems CO2 isn't irrelevant after all. Not that anyone with half a brain ever thought it was.
Durkin is a fraud.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
At 1:49 we get Durkin's infamous solar activity vs temperature graph. Note that it stops at 1975. Why? It isn't like we run out of data. The reason is because at that point the correlation falls apart. The solar activity declines but the temperature increases rapidly.
Unlike the phony e-mail accusation this is where Durkin deliberately "hides the decline."
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I hope global warming is real, because Winter is freaking cold! You know co2 is GOOD for the environment? /watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
Plants grow bigger, and CONSUME co2. As they grow bigger, they will consume more co2 and produce more oxygen.
30 years ago it was global cooling. Now it's global warming. But that's bullshit so now they're calling it climate change. OH SHIT, CLIMATE CHANGE. THE SEASONS ARE TO BLAME.
pht. They only want to trick you so you don't worry about their CORRUPTION
ZeoDyce 1 year ago
@ZeoDyce CO2 has positive and negative effects. The plants can grow more but they also have less nutritional value and are more susceptible to disease. Either way water availability and temperature will have a much bigger effect on plant performance. Many food crops will likely not do well.
If the plants will do so well, why is CO2 concentration rising and O2 dropping?
There never was a global cooling consensus only a media report. Most scientists were talking about warming back then too.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@ZeoDyce Try watching "The "CO2 is Plant Food" Crock" on Youtube.
Maosheng Zhao et al. showed from 2000-2009 global net food productivity decreased by 0.55 petagrams of carbon. In other words we're producing less food.
New paper out from the Univ of Guelph showing declining tree growth over recent decades.
National Academy of Science showed rice is particularly vulnerable to warming.
NAS also showed phytoplankton (key O2 producer) down by 40%.
You've bought a myth.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
jpa23245: It appears that you missed basic high school science classes. One of the experiments demonstrated how plant growth is effected by the amount of CO2 in the air...double it and plants grow faster. Again, I state that CO2 makes up only 0.038% of the air, a very , very small amount. It is generated by several means: decomposition of plants, digestive processes from all animals, forest fires, volcanic processes, etc. plus us of course. You can see CO2 in the air? Wow. Keep this Youtube
cmonsenc 1 year ago
Watch greenman3610's video on climate change. It methodically destroys man made climate denier points video by video.
For instance, at 1:50 the graph conveniently stops around 1970. If the graph keeps going you find that while warming increases exponentially, the line for solar activity falls away.
This is why that graph is no longer used, obviously the makers of this documentary are not aware of bunk science.
Omthiest 1 year ago
I was linked here by an Exxon web page that was trying to argue that CO2 is good for your health .... this is Propaganda paid for by the dirty money from the fossil fuel industry. Coal and oil pollutes the air, you can see it in the black smoke, you can smell the nasty pollution, they can't hide it. We are breathing that air and they don't care.
KyleLacio 1 year ago
And this nonsence goes on and on!
From the great global warming swindle.
Maybe you should watch the greenman videos!
haolmink 1 year ago
climate. nasa. gov / evidence /
cool site
aerobique 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@duck24x It's all a big scam. The big corporations are spoon-feeding us, and getting people like Al Gore to be a puppet for them to help spread the word of Global Warming as fearful, and it seems to be getting to you. It's all a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling us out of fear, getting us to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag." Sure, they might cost us $5 or $10 dollars more than the usual, but they're "Green" items, arent they?
Dimipoke1 1 year ago
"Come on! Now, as you are sitting down watching a bunch of lies about that Global Warming not existing, our planet is falling apart! I mean, we started this mess, so we have to clean it up, don't we? How about we start shopping green? Next time we go down to the supermarket, instead of getting a plastic bag, let's get a green bag. And instead of getting non-green lights, let's get a "Green" one. They might cost $5 to $10 dollars more, but they're green, arent they?
(Sarcasm, BTW)
Dimipoke1 1 year ago
@duck24x It's all a big scam. The big corporations are spoon-feeding us, and getting people like Al Gore to be a puppet for them to help spread the word of Global Warming as fearful, and it seems to be getting to you. It's all a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling us out of fear, getting us to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag." Sure, they might cost us $5 or $10 dollars more than the usual, but they're "Green" items, arent they?
Dimipoke1 1 year ago
1-4 is fine, the proof against there being such thing as global warming is awesome.
MsTheresaKelly1 1 year ago
Ascar, I wanted to know the same thing?
MsTheresaKelly1 1 year ago
Where is part 2 and 3?
4SCARECROWS 1 year ago
@duck24x Moron alert. Even with the facts staring you in the face, you still want to drink the Gore flavored koolaid.
tomperanteau 1 year ago
The Lies Of Global Warming pt2 was delete by youtube to protect illuminati proyect business. thank you youtube for the freedom of speech...
migu9999 1 year ago
2 and 3 dude c'mon
Zachdudeio2 1 year ago
@Zachdudeio2 Parts 2 & 3 were apparently deleted by YouTube, considering they were exposing the truth about Global Warming that the big corporations don't want us to know about. It's all a big scam. Global Warming movements have come together as one, and are now like a religion. G.W is a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling them out of fear, getting them to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag"- The green bags aren't even biodegradable!
Dimipoke1 1 year ago
Mmm thats some good biased pseudo-science.
Pahssione 1 year ago
Please keep this video up and running. People must see the real reason for earth temperatures changes, not the "CO2 stuff." Not many people realize that CO2 makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere...a very, very small amount, way less than the amount of Argon, and far, far less than water vapor, which varies from 1% to 4%. If CO2 was much less than it is now, plants would most likely not grow! CO2 is NOT a poison gas; plants use it to grow and make the O2 we need to survive.
cmonsenc 1 year ago
@cmonsenc god that is such a half assed explanation of the role of CO2 and the carbon atom in our world. We are taking all organic matter and the diverse amount CARBOhydrates and lipids (carbon and hydrogen) and burning in releasing CO2 and other carbon compounds into the air. All the oil in the ground is actually the carbon compounds of atleast millions of years of organic build up of hundreds of millions of years before mammals even evolved. If you look a picture of Los Angeles from the air...
jpa23245 1 year ago
where is part 2 and 3?
uwmbigb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uwmbigb Parts 2 & 3 were apparently deleted by YouTube, considering they were exposing the truth about Global Warming that the big corporations don't want us to know about. It's all a big scam. Global Warming movements have come together as one, and are now like a religion. G.W is a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling them out of fear, getting them to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag"- The green bags aren't even biodegradable!
Dimipoke1 1 year ago
In a nutshell it's all BULLSHIT.
rhinojizz 1 year ago
..so where is "The Lies Of Global Warming pt 2" and "The Lies Of Global Warming pt 3"? Does anyone have a link?
daNorse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here's a great expose of what the GATT expansion to the WTO (orchestrated by Clinton/Gore) has produced in terms of environmental damage by moving manufacturing in the West that had Environmental laws to pollute with impunity in the Socialists/Limousine Liberals current favorite failed utopia, China
Graphic pictures of the environmental horrors
chinahush(dot)com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china
Thisawareness 1 year ago
Comment removed
ybmurb51 1 year ago
GW scientists and researchers at NASA and USGS and elsewhere are endlessly silenced and harrassed by the denialists, who hate free speech and oppose all intelligent analysis. Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh are their only lead "scientists" - pure evil ranters who never did a day of work in their lives, who know nothing of loyalty, patriotism, or sacrifice. Pure selfish crybaby cowards.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x "GW scientists and researchers at NASA and USGS and elsewhere are endlessly silenced and harrassed by the denialists, "
that is a propaganda technique called turnspeak
w ww. eretzyisroel. org/~jkatz/turnspeak. html
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
Start saving the environment by torturing and executing those who have sucked off most from the planet and the labor of others, while giving practically nothing in return: corporate welfarists, CEOs with unlimited salaries & benefits, & anyone who votes for Republicrats. Double torture for anti-vegans.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x ooh dear it seems we have a misiformed little girl. You may want to torture and kill me because the fact is this. Animals are dumb but also tasty and make quite good pets and global warming is not a thing. Ejit.
cybercheeseburger 1 year ago
The GW denialists don't even attack Al Gore - who IS a hypocritical bastard -
for the right reasons. They never point out that Gore didn't do anything for the environment while he COULD have, when it was hardest to do so, when GW was not nearly as proven and accepted by such a large majority of scientists as it is now. Gore supported the evil LD50 test on animals in 1999 by the EPA. The USA would be on the right track if Ralph Nader were president 2000-2008 and Cynthia McKinney 2009-2016.
duck24x 1 year ago
aaand im in atmospheric sciences and thats not how clouds are formed. at most maybe thats how a minute amount of them are formed.
sublimeisdope 1 year ago
wheres part 2 and 3?
sublimeisdope 1 year ago 34
@sublimeisdope search: Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5) ; that will give you the full vid.
E1itetube 1 year ago
@sublimeisdope I would like to know the same thing....
gloryx17 1 year ago
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
The money is insignificant, just a way to make those interested in protecting it realize the cost of doing business, make the fuckers pay, make em weep dollars, they spoil all they touch and poison like minds, they run propaganda campaigns to support their self serving attitudes, then as evidence mounts they claim the science is purposely attacking them, their time is coming to an end and they feel it, they fear it.
BraniusBalki 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gore has set up carbon trading companies & clean & green companies with Goldman Sachs shysters all set to corner the market if Cap & Trade legislation is passed. Gore & pals created & promoted Global Warming to make a bundle. With the climategate emails, & malfeasance of the IPCC, you are showing a criminal intent to create the results you want. Add in $300+ million dollar ad campaign to promote it
GW is a racketeering operation that needs a congressional/criminal investigation
"RICO"
Thisawareness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nightversionn
I have challenged you over and over to post one thing that links me to any clone on here and you have FAILED to do so....I suggest you stop your childish mud throwing and address real issues...your infantile spamming of the videos on here is the joke of the community...ie:- nil credibility....your multi-faceted posting as Nightversionn and goog2k to name just one of your accounts is a thinly veiled attempt at conning newbies here that you have support it really is laughable..Prat
Spitfiremacx 1 year ago
Al Gores head is flat. but his bank accounts depend on global warming, you can bank on that.....
markmartin6sc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
aerobique 2 years ago
@aerobique It's all a big scam. The big corporations are spoon-feeding us, and getting people like Al Gore to be a puppet for them to help spread the word of Global Warming as fearful, and it seems to be getting to you. It's all a bunch of bullshit that spreads fear throughout humans, controlling us out of fear, getting us to buy that "Environmentally friendly" light bulb, or that "Green bag." Sure, they might cost us $5 or $10 dollars more than the usual, but they're "Green" items, arent they?
Dimipoke1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Duh??
goog2k 2 years ago
my big disapointment in this is the BBC it really needs to get back to reporting news!
Opinionating and hooking into weird science is not what I pay my taxes for ..Sorry BBC !
klnine 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record.
Temps. spiked over 0.5C since 1975
9 of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST ever recorded. Only 1998 was hotter than 2000 or any year since.
Search:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
Sun spots and the Net TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, have not increased since 1975. We have satellite data to prove it. Last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
Please check the data. Search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?
goog2k 2 years ago
Isn't the world flat??!!
bintanggg 2 years ago
I think it's fucking hilarious that 'those in charge' have convinced half the planet that 'man-made climate change' actually exists. What is this, the fucking Dark Ages? - What next, a vote for a resurgence in the Flat Earth Society, the burning of witches and round 2 of the bubonic plague - it's a scandalous, shame-faced, disgrace and all those who believe and or support it should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves.
straightedgearsonist 2 years ago 5
@straightedgearsonist I think you are witnessing the power of marketing, say it enough and it becomes plausable, say it some more and it becomes a fact....
nem2010 1 year ago
Global Warming is the worlds largest ponzi scam that has ever been placed on man. It was done to grab power and wealth under the disguise of saving mankind. The e-mails prove it was a lie. The information from Russia that said its temp recordings were 75% disregarded or even faked in the report from the ICCP report. The ICCP backing away from their own past claims of Global Warming as being tainted.
ConsertiveDemocrat 2 years ago
whats so bad about being ecologically friendly though?
woahmax 1 year ago
There is absolutely nothing wrong with developing and using cleaner and more efficient technologies. An example being the hybrid cars we are seeing these days. But I along with the leading global warming alarmist climate scientist James Hansen do NOT want cap and trade to pass. It is a scam and it will not help lower our Co2 levels all the whilst people like gore make billions off it. But as i said i have no problem with being more eco friendly, as long as it doesn't send us to the dark ages.
RepublicanNatio 1 year ago
And there are many ways to make sure we do not have to revert back to the dark ages like some of these environmental maniacs want us to do. We have the technology to do it so i foresee us moving on with cleaner, better, more efficient technology and getting off of fossil fuels. But hey good response, it doesn't hurt at all to be more ecologically friendly.
RepublicanNatio 1 year ago
Sorry Marxist warm-mongers..
But..
Al Gore helped engineer the economically & environmentally devastating NAFTA & GATT expansion into the WTO. We now have the environmental & Human Rights monster China, abusing workers, the environment, & now shipping their slave labor made junk back West that contain toxic chemicals that are making us & our children sick & dying. I know Gore was in thick with the monsters from the People's Democracy of China
So that did not help reduce Global Warming did it?
Thisawareness 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CO2 was some 20 times higher in the Triassic and Jurassic where life thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved, WITHOUT a tipping point or runaway greenhouse. Many ice ages also had very high CO2.
Global manmade CO2 is about 30Bn tons. To reduce temp by 1C and using the IPCC's intentionally bloated figures, that would mean not emitting 1Tn tons of CO2, which means no cars, trains, industry or campfires for 30 YEARS!! Back to the stone age.
Mitigation is impossible and irresponsible.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
In 1975 is split, and the high line is temperature, not solar activity. They directly lie in the video. Just ridiculous.
TacticusPrime 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A great site, with references to studies.
w. appinsys. com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal . htm
w. appinsys. com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Glaci ers. htm
w. appinsys. com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Hurri canes. htm
w. appinsys. com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_SeaLe vel. htm
w. appinsys. com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_Sol arEvidence. htm
MrOllyK 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global Warming is a pseudo-science like they had in the Soviet Union. The top three gurus for the Global Warming Cult are
A flake, who has a load of character, credibility & possible mental issues
A Railroad Engineer (Choo Choo Charlie) who is the chief quack of the quacks of the IPCC
Head of the CUEI is an economist with ties to the IMF
Yeah Global warming is a pseudo-science
These bums are more qualified working at an amusement park train ride
1984 Choo Choo!
Thisawareness 2 years ago
So many stupid people with science degrees. Went to college, got drunk, answered a few questions, got a degree. Then thought they were smart enough to analyze a complex system such as the earth's atmosphere. Dealt with lots of these smartasses, wouldn't hire any of them. Too cocky, immature, live on a computer, most would be lucky enough to identify the direction in which the sun rises each day, and now are here to tell us how to avoid a crisis which doesn't exist. CrackerJack awards worth more
patioperson 2 years ago
Roarshash? From Watchmen? YOU post on YouTube? Wooooow.
Oh boy, you sure hit the nail on the head with your comment though. I mean a degree is only 3 years of intense study, sometimes 4 or 5 depending, and then several MORE years of study in a specified field, analysing the data, convening in public forums, going through a lengthy and difficult peer review process before being eligable to GIVE their oppinion.
Yup, your right. Uneducated, drunken jackasses.
I mean, whats a test, right?
Grysham 2 years ago
Right? A test is just a series of complex examination papers where you have to show the entirity of your knowledge, oh and its not just that. Its also essay papers, showing your study and research, and if you do a PHD or a Masters then you have to do your OWN research and write your OWN paper in a particular field which FURTHERS our knowledge in that field that much more.
Pff, your exactly right, bunch of jackasses. Think they can do just THAT and KNOW something. Students are so dumb.
Grysham 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ref Svensmark'... our solar system's position in our galaxy's 'spiral arms' throughout earth's history, explains it's cosmic radiation effect on earth's atmosphere (the Ice Ages). It is regulated by our Sun's fluctuating magnetosphere. How relevant is the more recent ERBE data in correlation? No wonder the IPCC blocked Svensmark's scientific team's 'paper'. It is revolutionary. It is Threatening to the UN's world control...educational, watch all 6 parts (52 min)...on YT.
Blogengezer 2 years ago
The fact remains, the Global warmers have been proven liars and are back in their holes. Both are good things. lol
DD826 2 years ago
Where's the proof?? There is proof that the Global Warming Swindle was a DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD AND LIE!!! Go to you tube and search videos under "Climate denier crock of the week." There are several short videos. Get back when you actually say something truthful.
wankervon 2 years ago
@wanker,
Give it a rest. You're the only one that still belives that shit.
Even your hero Al Gore is in hiding! lol
Get a clue and find some other wacko idea to support.
DD826 2 years ago
Yeah, I'm sure the National Academy of Sciences and EVERY LEGITIMATE SCIENCE BODY agrees! Go to realclimate. Even a hopeless dumbass like you could be helped.
wankervon 2 years ago
No. We have more urgent business. Like proving the Moon isn't made of cheese and there is always bigfoot! lol
Good luck with your "Global Warming" agenda now. lol
DD826 2 years ago
Hey wanker,
Have you ever heard the old saying, "you're beating a dead horse"? lol
Global Warming is like baggy pants and spiked hair. Get a clue, pal.
DD826 2 years ago
@DD826, you've FINALLY spoken a truth. Go to realclimate and get some education.
wankervon 2 years ago
Hey wanker,
At least with you dwelling on this dead issue. We won't have to worry about you anywhere else. lol
DD826 2 years ago
I wouldnt deny ( theres a first) that there are problems with datasets from both sides.
But the fact remains, theories MUST be proven against a background of fact.
The facts can NEVER be altered to fit the theory as has happened with so called "climate science".
Vested interests ( on both sides of the divide) are going to do their best to sway opinion.
All we should be doing is considering both sides.
Why is that such an issue?
If i had a sure thing id fucking bet on it!
Why wont you?
Tacair1 2 years ago
Youtubes Peer reviewed?
Fuckin ell!
Theyll accept anything in their science journals these days.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Go to realclimate and express your ideas. I'm sure they will agree with you. Don't listen to Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and the other lying hate radio liars. These guys will turn people into hopeless dumbasses.
wankervon 2 years ago
@wankervon
Glenn Beck? Who?
Instead of being a complete peenarse, why dont you just prove your theory?
Is that so hard to do?
You have the "settled " science so whats preventing you?
Can anyone take a big guess why Wankervon and his UnRealClimate buddies cannot nail it shut?
Hmmmm....let me see now.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Radiative physics experiments show that increasing CO2 levels trap more heat which increases Earth's total heat content. C12/C13 isotope ratios agree with the idea that increased CO2 is from fossil fuels. So, human causes have a lot to do with the warming of the planet. Any other questions?
wankervon 2 years ago
@wankervon
Yeah, did everything else stay the same?
Water vapour levels?
PPM methane?
Solar irradiances?
Cosmic ray fluxes?
If you dont know that then measuring one aspect only and concluding global warming means you concluded wrong.
You cant take one element in isolation because they dont appear in isolation, theyre interactive.
Tacair1 2 years ago
The AR4 report(IPCC) states the forcing values for CH4 and H2O vapor. Solar variance has been very small over the last 50 years as reported by scientists like Lockwood. Cosmic rays are only speculative, considering solar energy measured values have been flat, cosmic ray climate effects are only speculative . I only follow the climate issues, I am not a climate scientist. I also used to be more skeptical about the possible effects of increased CO2. I am much less skeptical now.
wankervon 2 years ago
From AR4.
"So how is Radiative Forcing calculated? For the most part, it is estimated using data from what is referred to as General Circulation Models (GCMs)."
In other words a best "guess" based on "the model".
And the model doesnt include all the variables.
Would anyone stake their life on the model if applied to the space shuttle?
I doubt it!
Nasa wouldnt entertain the idea and theyd be right.
yet a best guess is all you have and not nearly good enough.
So again, still no proof. All Hype.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Climate models are reasonably accurate predictors at present. They are always susceptible to other climate factors, but the CO2 forcing value has been more or less within 30% of today's value over the past ten or more years. More data will produce a more accurate value, but so far, models have UNDERESTIMATED the observed climate trends.
wankervon 2 years ago
@wankervon
Same models the met office uses eh?
"Barbecue summer " anyone?
Sam accuracy that led to this prediction:
"august to december above average temps".
Eg of your model ( from the programmer.)
"OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniformdata integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."
Tacair1 2 years ago
Humans have raised CO2 levels. CO2 traps heat which has been verified by satellite measurements of outgoing radiation and surface measurements of downward radiation(from Skeptical science). The C13/C12 isotope ratio indicates that the increased CO2 is from fossil fuels. Get your head out of yor denier arse and start investigating. Stop acting like a hopeless dumbass!
wankervon 2 years ago
"Where's the proof??"
LOL @ wankervon. Where's YOURS?
rickrocker 2 years ago
Proof is : increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels TRAPS outgoing heat, resulting in Earth's atmosphere heating up. Other gases like CH4 also act as greenhouse gases. Other factors like albedo affect the heat loss of the planet. CO2 is an important forcing according to IPCC reports.
wankervon 2 years ago
Volcanoes are the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and volcanic activity has increased 500% since 1970. Greenhouse gases "trap heat", that's why the Earth stays warm and we all don't freeze to death. Humans contribute to 3.4% of all global CO2 emissions and 0.24% of total GH emissions as of 2007. What 'increase' in human emissions has we seen and how much emission affects the world's average temperature by one degree? You don't know and there is no way for you TO know. continued.
rickrocker 2 years ago
coninued... Lastly, your IPCC report is no longer a viable source for climate information. They have been caught up in a scandal which involved the manipulation of information with the intent to support your religion and, therefore, is no longer able to legitimately represent the "scientific concensus" on global warming. Start using facts and legitimate resources that don't affilliate themselves with the IPCC's findings.
rickrocker 2 years ago
The "volcanoes" comment is refuted by information from the USGS. In fact, according to the USGS, man contributes 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Although CO2 is a fraction of all greenhouse gases, it has an accumulative effect. Excess CO2 persists in the atmosphere, even as 99+% of it is recycled through the carbon cycle. The small difference has created a potential catastrophe over the following decades. I like to have insurance, even if I don't use it.
wankervon 2 years ago
Four of the USGS 'scientists' were fired over the climate gate emails. CO2 makes up less of a fraction, 3.4% of all greenhouse gases to be more correct. Exactly how much CO2 are we supposed to have in the atmosphere today? You can't answer this because it is impossible to know. You don't have insurance, you spent our wealth on the Global Warming Religion! That money is gone and never coming back.
rickrocker 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ancient Middle Eastern philosophy:
"You can shear the Sheep many times (reasonable profits), you can only 'Skin Them; once"... After the massive 'Skinning', the flocks population plummets.... That, my friends, is apparently the ultimate Goal, is it not?
Would you rather be Sheared or Skinned?
Assuming that you are Sheep of course..
Blogengezer 2 years ago
Brits lost a few ships in this one:
Sep of 1833, Krakatoa tiny url com/c585gm Big Pollution, emissions, CO2, GHG's by the inestimable (of course many Think they know) amounts more than the entire Industrial age. The result?.... Cooling.... for years? and thats only one 'biggie bang'. Using the present CRU 'modeling' computers, earth should have gone super GW. Wattsupwiththat?
Blogengezer 2 years ago
Yeah made a pop did that one, but hey, just recycling some plastic bags and going vegan oh and stopping cows from farting and breathing and blaming co2 would have stopped it.....not.
Greens.
Green on the outside but too yellow to say theyre red.
Watermelons the lot of em.
Commies in disguise.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Commies in disguise??? OK, comrade, whatever you say. Here is some REAL SCIENCE for you :
wankervon 2 years ago
Please cite ANY science paper that says that CO2 concentration does not trap heat. Deniers have zero scientific credibility but they do worship their Gods like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Hannity, none of whom know jack sh#* about climate science(or anything else)
wankervon 2 years ago
The issue is not the extent that CO2 traps heat provided by the day time sun; the issue is that you do not want to recognize that the CO2 for any period of time has had nill affect on climate. Not then, not now and never will. Feel free to give up all your freedom and wealth on your AGW doctrine.
foleyhund 2 years ago
What concentration do you propose to use?
Two plastic jars with "some" co2 trapped inside and a heat source?
Or are you going to accurately model proportions of ALL gases and factors such as starting temperature, solar irradiance, cosmic ray influences etc etc?
If its the first then you know what that means- Bogus.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tacair1 2 years ago
Why is global warming theory the only one that has to be proven wrong?
Why do i have to prove your "theory" wrong?
Surely the scientific method dictates ( if you follow it) that you need to prove your "theory" is right?
Once youve proven its valid, its up to others to try and prove it wrong.
But, since im a nice guy, ill play with you a while longer..
h t t p : / / icecap . us / images / uploads / CO2 , Temperaturesandiceages - f . pdf
Tacair1 2 years ago
Once again you ignore the science. CO2 does trap heat at a declining logarithmic scale. Therefore, only a fraction of heating from CO2 remains possible. And as I stated, I am the one with science degrees, where you obviously glued to the people who lied and used deceptive claims to lead you astray. Hope you recover from your poor understanding of scientific methodology. Cheers
foleyhund 2 years ago
I also have a science degree, BS in chemistry. So what. I am no climate scientist and neither are you, obviously. Also, don't forget the distinct possiblity that increased temperatures can increase other forcings like methane, many times more energy absorbent than CO2. The blog, Open Mind, shows how scientists have correctly predicted trend lines for temperatures. These"lies" have been vetted and shown as much ado about nothing(except to deniers)
wankervon 2 years ago
@wankervon
You may have slept through solar physics, astronomical effects on climate, atmospheric ionization cosmic rays and cloud formation, aerosols, and how to sharpen your pencil.
foleyhund 2 years ago
...speaking of pencil sharpening. The claims you call proof are nothing more than hypothesis. So maybe you can read:
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr. Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613, 2009.
foleyhund 2 years ago
CO2 concentration is just one factor that affects climate. Volcanic eruptions, ENSO and other factors also affect the climate. Do deniers have insurance??? Thionk of action to lower CO2 in the air as insurance. The potential harm from non action is too risky.
wankervon 2 years ago
...actually, many of us so called deniers do have science degrees. I only see the AGW's on the labeling attack on those they disagree with. You are the champion of demonizing.
foleyhund 2 years ago