i am trying to understand why i hate alarmist global warming jerkoffs so much .maybe its the hidden a gender or weak theories or there smug superior tone or they get so offended when someone uses there own come sense and doesn't buy the crap what there selling and its always doom and gloom . they can go and get fucked sideways for all i care
ive seen soooo many of these computer generated (nerd programmed) cartoons, ive still to find some ACTUAL REAL photographs/satellite images of an ACTUAL icecap.....soho watches the sun 24/7, is the icecap not actually being filmed 24/7?? where are those images?? where are those movies?? why the seemingly constant need for GRAPHICS?!!!!!!
Attention: all believers in Man made global warming::::: I have GENUINE, thats GENUINE Area 51 Alien artifacts for sale but HURRY they will not last long!! Also, I will throw in FREE...thats FREE "GENUINE" Atlantis Island Treasure!!! This is a ONE TIME Offer and will NEVER be repeated!!
Why are the climate change deniers overwhelmingly ignorant fanatic religious retards from USA. May be fox news has something to do with it. I am proud to be in Europe , a civilized and learned world where we are trying to perform our duty towards the planet and its people.
So now the consensus is that there is climate change, it is not man-caused and that it is cost ineffective to waste tri\llions of dollars thrown down the rat-hole of 'carbon footprints' and the like. Just enjoy! And haul Al Gore in front of a congressional committee and investigate him for fraud. His movie is no more fact than 'Casper the Friendly Ghost is.
@sydneydoc Wrong, in winter the surface area can be as large or larger than it has been in the past, warmer temp. more water moisture in the air, more snow. But it is much thinner than it has been in the past because it is created by only recent snow.
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
I have seen this effect with my own eyes. I live in Northern Alaska and the amount of sea ice is dramticly changing. The seal hunting season is sorter every year due to the thinner ice. The snow is less each year. Several iditarod dogs have died from heat stroke. Snow is turning into slush at earlier dates.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the worlds most eminent climate scientists.
Indeed Sir. And after the leaked emails of ClimateGate and finally getting coverage of the mini ice age, the sun's effects on what is happening and the fact that the ice has increased since 2007 and the sea levels have gone down twice in recent years then maybe the fear mongering by politicians and the puppet media will be seen for the sham and scam that it is.
Those who know this GW charade is a fraud, all you have to do is explain to people that besides the nut job Al Gore being involved (the Al Gore who helped bring us the economically & environmentally destructive NAFTA, GATT, & WTO)
just tell people they have a Railroad Engineer in charge of the IPCC
How many IPCC members are also Lionel train collectors, or are model railroaders like their chief Choo Choo Charlie?
the video should have also shown how it was before the 70's(there was a cooling period back then)also it doesn't mention in what season,however i do agree there is a shrinking in arctic ice between those years,but antarctica's ice has been growing a lot ,this video is clearly biased
"A lot of ice gained in 2008 and 2009.Funny how you dont show recent artic ice"
Uh the video was posted in 2007.
"I see no different between Jan 2000 and Jan 2009 ice"
The decline in sea ice is in the summer months and september minimum. More is melting now than it used to. 2009 minimum had less ice extent than 2000 minimum.
A lot of ice gained in 2008 and 2009. Funny how you dont show recent artic ice. I see no different between Jan 2000 and Jan 2009 ice other than a little more ice in Jan 2009. But the perspective is different than this video to compare it to.
I realized that after posting. Not many seem to show 2009 data. Some are really misleading, like beginning in a winter month and ending in a summer month . People are clowns. They see film of ice falling off, or say "It's the thickness of the ice" without seeing these vids and the extreme differences from month to month. The IGCC says 20 inches in 100 years as worst case, or 20 feet in 1,000 and Al Gore turns it into 20 feet in a few years wins awards and gets played in every school.
I agree with you. The hysteria surrounding the ice caps are far to big. Even though I think it's good that there is a sense of emergency regarding the climate, it shouldn't come from false or manipulated data.
@BaronVonLichtenstein just because we gained alot of ice from 2008 to 2009 doesn't disprove anything. its only one year. the reason why they may not show the 2009 is cause it was just last year. wait like several months and they will show 2009 data.
It cooled from 1940 to 1979, so why would they start it at 1979, the end of a cooling period and beginning of a 30 yewar cooling period? That misrepresents the facts. I'm not saying it is intentional but does warp things. I would image it will cool for a lot more than 30 years based on past charts. More like several thousand years.
sulfate emissions have been going up, peaked 1970s then went down quick. then after that, the temperatures rose back up. sulfate aerosols are reflective and help keep earth cool.
@BaronVonLichtenstein, the reason the data start in 1979 is because they are from satellite imaging. There were no satellites monitoring the arctic before 1979.
I'm just saying they started at a point the temp started rising again and stopped as it started cooling. I've seen 2000-2009 images with no artic ice loss if you compare January to January. 08 and 09 were very cold and increased artic ice.
Kook up Arctic Sea Ice (Jan 2000 - May 2009) on You tube and compare identical months starting 2000. Theres no change using equivalent months. They recede every summer come back every winter. Of course if you compare Jan 09 to May 09, yes, there is less ice every MAy than Jan.
@curingaging00 what can it matter - 20 years (70s through 90s) of warming compared to 400000 years of glacial? I think we are warming just because compensatory mechanisms aren't on yet. When they turn on, we all will freeze to death... 500 metres of ice over new your - that's what we had 20ka ago. And that was AFTER people first settled america - quite on civilizational timescale
God gave us dominion over the Earth and all it's life. If we want to destroy it then we have the right to kill anything and everything we want, and when we are done Jesus will return and we will all go to Heaven. So it's all a moot point. I have faith in our Iron age God that he will stop us if we do something we shouldn't.
Doesn't it seem a bit pretentious that these global warming/climate change people are trying to keep the earth exactly the way it has been? These are the same people that try to keep all current species of organisms alive, but preach that natural selection is what controls the evolution of species. We do not understand this change, but are still trying to stop it. If polar bears are meant to go extinct, yeah, that sucks, but who are we to battle the very laws of nature which we have discovered?
Reducing species diversity damages habitats that we use for our services (medicine, food, soil stability, rainfall patterns). Reducing the effects of global warming (it can no longer be prevented) may help to prevent famines, economic collapse, mass emigration and war.
yep, I have no doubt Zihark300, that the earth would continue quite happily without us. There have been 5 major extinctions on the earth, and at one time the sea level was 400m (!) above what it is today. Species diversity has also tended to INCREASE over geological time. The problem is, most humans want to survive as a species.
@underdonkey5 no, human want to survive as CIVILIZATION. And that means preventing degradation to pre-technological era. Therefore, co2 emission won't stop unless something more efficient is employed.
If you see a puddle in front of you will you try to avoid it or just step in thinking it was meant to be? It was "meant to be" that we humans continue to use the organ that got us this far, our brains. And for those that have applied theirs to this extremely complex science there is now no credible debate over the core issue; HUMANS are warming the planet. So lets use our brains that got us in this mess and change some behaviors. Hopefully it was meant to be.
@ReduceGHGs how come it follows from ice core analyses that co2 concentration have been following temperature with the delay of order of hundreds of years as far as ice core allows us to see?
Natural CO2 increases do appear to follow natural temp increases. In the geologic record, humans played no part. Now we do as we "dump" about a million years of stored carbon in the atmosphere every year. Now, as we've changed the composition of the atmosphere it retains more heat. As we increase temps unnaturally, natural releases of CO2 will follow reinforcing the problem. Read NASA's James Hansen's new book, Storms Of Our Grandchildren. VERY informative.
check out a map of the atlantic ocean floor...the edges of the continents extended far out -200 miles or more. the north sea was forest and great britain was not an island. people adapted to the changing climate then, it;s time to do so again.nature marches on.
Yah, we should adapt back to being Neanderthals, looks like the Science deniers have a head start.
You do know that Humans were not alive back then right? Well all the cockroaches should be safe, maybe in another 5 million years there will be a responsible life form at the top of the food chain instead of all these reality denying monkeys.
There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for them & their money mates.
"The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. CO2 levels were at about 400 ppm.
"What was the climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today.
"Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher. There was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland. "
The evidence that the sea level in all of the Pacific islands is not changing is unequivocal.
The Pacific Island Sea Level Project was launched by the Australians in 1991. Using scientists from Flinders University, Adelaide and state-of-the-art SEAFRAME equipment kept perfectly level by GOPS, first time used in sea level measurements.
It is clear from these measurements that there has been no change in sea level at any one of the PISLP sites since the
if fresh water is the only thing that evaporates out of the oceans then the more ice melt will add more fresh water to the top 5 feet off the worlds oceans this combined with warmer ocean water even air temperatures, will cause faster evaporation of the fresh water this will create more freaky bad rain storms.
IPCC is a group of Scientists who were appointed/asked by governments to represent their countries. A number have quit in frustration because of disagreement. Those selected, of course, reflect the climate attitudes of those who appointed them.
Now ! Show the results with winter ice ! what your seeing here is Winter in 1979 to summer of 2005 & summer from 2009. Global warming is a fucking Lie !
what the fuck are you people blind or just plain stupid? you say oh its not CO2, methane etc. or any other man-made pollution well lets put it in another way can you prove that its not that? if it isnt can you honestly say that we should not be alarmed at the rate of pollution or the melting ice? the northern passage which is suppose to be covered in ice is now open. industrialists would like you to believe that global warming is a fraud so they can continue to make profit polluting the world.
they are very influential they can buy politicians as well as scientists. everybody has a price. also don't believe in everything u read gentlemen. just because some "study" shows so and so doesn't mean that its true . Scientist as you may well know are very egotistical people they always say that they're right in their "Theories" . instead of bickering on whether humans cause gobal warming we should ask what can we do about it. there is no denying that it is really happening just watch the news
Ok, tell me this. Since archeologists are studying viking settlements that are being uncovered by receeding ice, doesn't that mean it was warmer 1000 years ago? Why weren't sea levels higher back then?
earth use to be a fireball.. then iceball.. fish came so did salt.. water melts ... land came, etc.. now go take a bucket and fill it with ice and salt... and another one without the salt. you will see wich bucket wil melt faster...
how long have poeple filmed the antartic ?
i bet 200 years ago the place was way bigger..
shit melts its a way of nature and nature cant be controled by humans cause we are just an element.
There are certainly still areas of uncertainty in climatology, which will be fascinating to work out in the years to come, but I don't think the risk of the entire hypothesis coming tumbling down is enough to warrant further inaction.
This is where we get into debating policy, where everyone is qualified to give an opinion. This is the sort of debating we should be doing.
Instead of "Is AGW true?" we should start asking "What should we do about AGW?"
I think that we both are after the same thing - empirical evidence for AGW As it stands the IPCC era models have failed to predict short term GW. Those models omitted clouds and ocean currents etc.
The focus should NOT be on Grennhouse gases, industrialization, humans and polution, but on Earth's temp which in not the AGW Central thesis
I need to be a skeptic and critic before I simply fall in line. There are some very smart PhD's including an IPCC author who are critics. I
Here are some other critics you can look up; Lindzen (wrote part of the IPCC report), Murty, Wiskle, Bellamy, Giaever (Nobel Prize winner), Itoh, Evans (AUS) - and a host of other top thinkers in THIS field.
Wiskel once set out to build a Kyoto house!
Dr. David Evans (AUS) Built Austrailia's Kyoto Carbon Counting model - a 6year effort.
These names would NEVER be on the skeptic side of this argument if the Science was on the on the other side.
While I agree temps are higher, I think that AGW is currently wrong - I will be a skeptic and critic until the Science is clear, instead of just consensus - which by itself is certainly not Science.
If you want to ask "What should we do about AGW?" My response would be to first define AGW. And it ain't CO2. If CO2 is not the culprit - would not a CO2 based solution be wrong? Have no effect on AGW?
It's a key question scientists ask themselves. I ask myself that question all the time regarding AGW. And my answer, every time, is that I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to look stupid if it meant that my species was no longer threatened with disaster. I know there's a chance I could be wrong, so in every policy recommendation I make, I look for ways to benefit in other areas so it wouldn't be a waste if I was wrong.
You ask that question as if this is a coin toss-it is not. Sadly, we humans are wrong in a big way rather often. LeMark was THE father of modern genetics way back until Mendel showed what was really going on. Lemark could not have been more wrong.
Ask a modern Psychologist what they think about Freud's ideas -
The time to ask "who is wrong" has not yet come upon us. We do need more measurements. In the skeptic school . . .
In the sceptic school, the scientist are rarely in the HOAX school of deniers. These scientists state rather clearly that more data is needed - that Earth has warmed and that no one really knows why.
As for hockeye stick CO2 - Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.
And let me restate - if AGW were true - none of these scientists mentioned would be singing the critic song.
They would all be standing on the AGW side pressing for solutions - they are first on foremost scientists whose lives are dedicated to the Scientific Method and asking a proper Central Question.
It is a matter of process - the Hockeye stick came first, then the IPCC and Al Gore. Now, we see more and more Scientists are questioning the Central Premise, the IPCC models have all failed over the last 8 years.
The empiracle data is what it is.
In Science, it falls to the scientist to prove his hypothsis - the AGW hypothesis has not been proven.
Critics need only poke holes in the presented conclusions once no holes remain - you have what we both would call fact.
The IPCC does not have models. It is an inter-governmental PANEL of scientists who assess ALL climate change data available. THey do not generate models, nor do any research. They simply read all the papers and report.
THey do it for free. It is a lengthy and thorough process. If the data says something, that is what they report. The report has to be written by consensus.
So they point out the empirical data to people and governments who don't have time to read 10,000 papers every year.
Co 2 ALWAYS lags behind temp by 800 to 2,000 years both up and down, so in other words temp drops and co 2 continues to raise for another 800 to 2,000 years and FINALLY starts to also drop. Now how can co 2 be a driver if it does not start or stop global warming, it act's like an EFFECT not a driver. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth
I would never say that AGW was 100% certain, or that there was total consensus among scientists, as absolute statements are not something true science will ever make.
However, I strongly believe that, given the likelihood and the risk, we need to start taking action now. It would be great to take action that helped other areas - such as the economy or health - as well as reducing carbon emissions. That way, if AGW turned out to be false, we'd still benefit from having acted against it.
I agee - Science is about testing an hypothesis; not about the press. My feeling' is that the hypothsis of CO2 driven global warming has not met the test.
I think the IPCC only looks back 1000 years.
Is Earth warmer? Sure - but over what time period, 100,000yrs - trending much warmer, 10,000 yrs - nope Earth cooling. HOw about 2000 yrs - still cooling and at a faster rate. 700 yrs (LIA) break even. Last century - very hot. But last ~9/10 years, break even again.
Over the nine years, 2000-2008, since the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature the mean value of the forecast error is just 0.06 °C.
freeagain2 said; "Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998." What is the source of this headline?
Northern Hemisphere Sets 1300 Year Climate Warming Record
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pennsylvania, September 2, 2008 (ENS) - Surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, according to researchers at Penn State's Earth System Science Center and three other U.S. universities.
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.
(Funny how every news item has a counter news item . . . )
Unfortuanately, the news is just like that. They often perceive climate science as a policy debate where they must present both sides equally - when, in the scientific community at least, the two sides are not equal. They also like to publish the most shocking stories to get people to read them. I'd always check their sources to make sure they're accurate. Given the amount of UN confidence on AGW I'd be suspicious of this one.
The IPCC is, in fact, a compilation of all the peer-reviewed literature on climate chnage in the world. They don't conduct their own research, they just put it together. The amount of revisions they go through is absolutely painstaking - Dr Andrew Weaver from U Victoria wrote an account of his experience as an IPCC author if you're interested in more about that process.
cont'd in next post - silly comment length limit....
As the national science academies of all G8 nations as well as China, Brazil and India have explicitly endorsed the IPCC AR4, there are few - if any - credible challenges they have not already addressed. The IPCC panel and peer-review board (which can be any climatologist who wants to - even Richard Lindzen wrote part of IPCC) must achieve unanimous agreement over the contents. Basically, it can't be published without any legitimate challenges.
Regarding the recent downturn in temperatures - there are factors at play other than CO2. Right now we're at the bottom of the Milankovitch (solar) cycle and we had a strong 07-08 La Nina. That's had a masking effect on the CO2 forcing. It's well understood and not an area of concern for the climate change theory.
Regarding the Hadley study - because it was an individual report I'd check it against something like NASA measurements. The more people working on it the more credible it is.
To my knowledge the greenhouse effect has to do with the shape of the molecule, as molecules like CO2 or CH4 are more complex than N2 or O2 which make up 99% of our atmosphere. However I'm not extremely educated in this area so you may want to check with someone like an atmospheric physics prof - in my experience university profs are more than happy to answer questions like these. However I can give more historical context to the greenhouse effect - next comment....
The greenhouse effect has been studied since the 1800s, and it was Arrhenius in 1896 that calculated its effect. The average temperature of the earth would be around -15 C (sorry, Canadian units...) without greenhouse gases, and with pre-industrial amounts of greenhouse gases it's somewhere around 15 C (sorry don't know the exact figure and am having trouble finding it at the moment). So already, even with ~300 ppm CO2, the average temp has increased 30 C.
Carbon dioxide is one of the less powerful greenhouse gases, H2O is much weaker, CH4 is 21x stronger, etc. Check with someone in physical chemistry or atmospheric physics if that doesn't answer your question regarding potence.
The effects of greenhouse gases are calculated in terms of radiation (W/m squared) not temperature, as it is all the radiation forcings - greenhouse gases, albedo, and solar activity - which form the net radiation which is then used to derive temp. Physics again.
We'd know if there was enough volcanic activity to cause climate change. Even regular volcanoes do not make prediction impossible. Volcanic emissions are monitored, quantified and accounted for. We also track our own emissions. The numbers match up well.
It's highly unlikely that there's volcanic activity we don't know about that's sufficient to trigger climate change, whereas we've been burning hydrocarbons for 200 years. It would be hard to do that and not expect anything to happen.
Forests absorb carbon dioxide, then when they die or burn they release it. It balances out in the end. However it is another source of error that is well accounted for.
I'm not an expert on historical climatic events but I have some knowledge. The Medieval Warming Period was regional, around Europe. That's where the early study was done so it appeared quite major - until we started to look at evidence from other parts of the world and calculated that, overall, the Earth hardly warmed at all.
The Little Ice Age was similar - not globally synchronous, and to my knowledge there is no evidence that either of them were caused by greenhouse gases. Most likely, solar variations that fell outside of the regular Milankovitch cycles caused both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. We'd know if that was happening today, though - solar warming presents itself very differently to greenhouse gas warming. (Ask me that one next, it's really fun to explain!) :)
I think the big problem with the Little ice age is the CO2 rose during the period while the temps dropped. Centuries passed and CO2 forcing was negative.
Ice core studies show evidence of the little ice age and there is evidence that it was global and not simply regional.
My thought/theory is that CO2 trails warming and does not cause warming.
But the time time periods given and measurement capability is simply not precise enough to track that back 5,000 years.
You're absolutely right, CO2 trails warming by several centuries - only when the warming is caused by something else. For example, ice ages are caused by changes in the Earth's orbit which result in less solar radiation reaching Earth. The temperature of the planet decreases, including the temperature of the ocean. The cooler the ocean is, the more carbon dixoide it can hold in the form of carbonic acid. As its temperature decreases, it gradually takes more and more CO2 out of the air.
If our planet was warming up because of something else, eg more solar radiation or less albedo, the opposite would happen - the ocean would release carbon dioxide as its temperature increased.
That's how it usually works, but as CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, it can start the cycle of warming. CO2 and temperature are positive feedbacks of each other in the global ecosystem.
What is the evidence of the Little Ice Age being global? I'd be interested to see as that's not my area of expertise.
An article was generated by a research team from Chiles Universidad de Concepción and the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Araneda et al.
They summarized . . . The recognition of the LIA in Northern Patagonia, through the use of documentary sources, provides important, independent evidence for the occurrence of this phenomenon in the region.
My standpoint on climate change is that, whether or not we know all the details for sure, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide - a vital biogeochemical which cycles through the bioshpere - by nearly a factor of two is bound to throw something or other out of balance, which will come back to harm us eventually.
And on the details of CO2 I choose to trust the people who I feel are most credible and represent the majority of scientists, so yes, I follow the mainstream scientific view of AGW.
The IPCC does have a chapter on paleoclimatology, although it's not the focus of the report.
It's obvious the current temp and GHG levels are not unprecendented - they have been much higher in previous geological eras. However, what is unprecedented is the rate of change. If the climate changed at its natural slow pace, over millenia, ecosystems would adapt without a problem. But over a few centuries? All species, including humans, are in trouble.
We know that the warming is caused by greenhouse gases because the troposphere (closest to the Earth) is warming much more than the stratosphere (farther away) because the atmosphere is thickest closest to the Earth. Nights are warming at the same rate as days, and winter at the same rate as summer. If it was the sun causing the warming, none of those three things would be true.
As for albedo, people have increased it if anything, but melting snow and ice decreases albedo and that is an obvious result of warming (see video above!)
So we know with very high confidence that the Earth is warming from greenhouse gases. Seeing as we've been putting unnatural amounts into the air, and that we can tell the difference between natural (volcanic) and anthropogenic CO2 in ice cores (I'll try to find more on that for you), it's quite clear even without hard data.
However, climatologists, like any scientists, always question themselves, recheck their data, and give error measurements and statements of uncertainty. Sadly this natural uncertainty has been exploited, as (in my opinion - I'm straying away from science here) nobody wants to have to deal with decreasing CO2 emissions, so they look for every reason they can to disbelieve the science. But chances are those reasons were studied already and proved inaccurate.
The scariest part about CO2, though, is the delay in temp. If we went carbon-netural tomorrow, we would still warm more before the temperature leveled off. We've already guaranteed that it will get more extreme than what we're currently seeing.
All the delays and multiple forcings make it more complicated to sort out. It is not as simple as what Al Gore likes to imply, that CO2 is the only thing that affects temp and they match up perfectly. That leads to a lot of misconceptions.
My best advice to you would be to check the credibility of your sources. Newspapers should not be taken as science. Neither should anything from politicians. The best place to go is the primary source - scientific reports, and only peer-reviewed ones. Also, something done by one scientist is less credible than an organization. Those reports can be quite technical so you can either read the summary for policymakers or ask some like a university prof or even me to interpret it for you.
That goes for your own ideas as well. Science isn't like policy, where all opinions are equal. Unless you're a scientist, scientific opinions that contradict the norm have little to no crediblity. Climate change is not a religion based in blind faith. It is based in evidence, in elementary principles of physics discovered more than a century ago.
There you go. Sorry I'm so long-winded. And please continue to ask any questions you have, I'm quite enjoying myself :)
FreeAgain2 - Met office data shows that the ten warmest years on record were within the last 14 years. Here's how the met office gets its data; * balloon profiles * surface data * marine data * aircraft observations
Each day, the Met Office receives and uses around half a million observations of temperature, pressure, wind speed and direction, humidity and many other properties.
I'm not an expert in climate modelling so I can't give you exact figures. The IPCC report is free to download if you want to see their projections. An increased CO2 level is a positive radiative forcing, and the net forcing level is what causes the temp to change. I don't know if I'd say it was "direct" for that reason as often there are several factors that cancel out. It's the amount of radiation that stays on Earth that really decides our temp change.
Question 2....the Earth's temperature has both variability and natural changes. That's why all the graphs are sort of spiky. However the recent warming we're experiencing is too extreme for variability and far too fast for natural changes. The current temperature and CO2 is only unprecedented in the current geological period, but the rate of change is what's really scary.
And your last question....water vapour is not considered an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as its lifespan is a matter of days in the atmosphere - even if we added a whole bunch of water vapour at once the extra would just condense out. However, water vapour is a positive feedback to warming, as the warmer the air is, the more H2O it can hold (Avogardo and kinetic molecular theory if you're a chem student). It's included in the IPCC reports as a feedback cycle.
That's only the surface ice though, not the old-age ice in the middle that's never melted until now. The total volume is still shrinking, even if there's more on top.
Can't believe that anyone would argue against CO2 being a greenhouse gas! The science is simple - This planet used to be an extremely hot and volatile place in it's infancy - due to CO2. This was very gradually absorbed by trees and plants which fossilised - fossil fuels. Now we're releasing all that CO2 from the fossilised trees and plants back into the atmosphere and turning the Earth back into a hot and volatile planet - simple!
Arctic ice extent averaged for the month of January was 14.08 million square kilometers (5.43 million square miles). January extent was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) less than for the 1979 to 2000 average, and 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) greater than for January 2007.
the NSIDCconrims the artic ice sheets are GROWING - look it up for yourself
That's quite normal considering 2007 is the biggest dip in ice extent ever recorded. One could expect the extent to increase a bit again in the next year.
But what you're talking about is the MAXIMUM ice extent, while glaciologist in the world would agree the MINIMUM yearly ice extent (during late summer, that is) is a way better indicator of how things are going with sea ice.
That is dramatic but very short term. fluctuations in ice cap size over a hundred or hundreds of years would be interesting to see, since maps dated prior to 1600 show land in place of ice caps.
Warmer climate = more agricultural suitable land
More CO2 = greater crop yields and faster growing trees.
The drop in atmospheric oxygen is alarming. 22% in 1986 and 18-19% now. People will start dying at 17% atmospheric O2 levels. We have too much N2. We must increase CO2 & O2 and lower N2.
This maybe the case. But how do we know its not a natural cycle. We can't even predict what the weather will be in 2 weeks time let alone predict what the climate will be in 50 to 100 years. We could be going into a cooling period or stay the same for all we know.
Gosh. Wouldn't that be like blasphemy to question something Mr. Gore said? Aren't GW "deniers" like Holocaust deniers somehow? They are both deniers, right?
Denying bad.
Questions bad.
CO2 bad.
Humans bad.
We are all bad.
Let's all feel really guilty and pay out the ass now. Agree? Agreeing good. I like cheese. Cheese is good. The Moon is made of cheese. Do you agree or do you DENY it?!! What if Al Gore said so?
How dare you question the reality presented you Global warming is so real =)...if you have a good enough media campaign the moon CAN be made of cheese. Did you know the ocean used to extend into what is now central europe (for example), that will be coming back folks, probably in a couple centuries.
How dare I question "reality"? I can't choose what I believe, because I know that believing something doesn't make it true. From what I understand, CO2 can not possibly act as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is too heavy to form a layer high up in the atmosphere. Water vapor and methane are the only significant greenhouse gasses. It is a lie that CO2 causes global warming at all. I want more CO2. It means faster growing plants and higher yielding crops and more oxygen output for us breath.
Isn't relaxing in spite of their imminent demise exactly what mindless sheep do?
Pay attention, look at this video again and consider the implications. The thermal energy required to melt that much sea ice implies major changes are happening within our ecosystem. I encourage you to think a little harder sir.
Its the other way around. Global Warming Alarmists aren't interested in facts or science. Most people who believe that Global Warming is caused by humans only see scary pictures of ice melting and steam rising from factories. They don't research anything and believe everything they see. Like watching Al Gore. He has got it all wrong. He uses scare tactics to make people believe.
Look who's talking. If you checked the science for yourself instead of buying into the claim of a "scientific consensus", which does not mean fact btw, you wouldn't say that. And noone is denying GW. Human CO2 emissions being the cause of GW is what is in dispute, but "GW" promoters also promote this sort of confusion. Why had other planets been warming up also and the ice caps on Mars melting? SUVs? Industry? Could it have to do with the Sun? Look at last years average temps and compare.
Climate changes. It always has and always will. The cycles are regular and apparent in ice core samples. There is nothing unusual about the current shift in climate. Don't believe me. Look for yourself and believe your own eyes. Just don't believe politicians or people profiting from new GW legislation like Al Gore.
that may help but i have a funny filling that it to late try to stop the ice from meting. it human have some to do with or not. i don't think it can be fix. if some right about ice cap. ice will keep meting. than we will get it cooling, tornado, and other thing. you ever seen the movie day after tomorrow. i think irt going be some thing like that but not as fast as the movie show.
We should all turn of electricity for 1 day and stop driving for one day starting tomorrow.like that we can lower pollution!WHOS WITH ME!This is not a Joke!
i am trying to understand why i hate alarmist global warming jerkoffs so much .maybe its the hidden a gender or weak theories or there smug superior tone or they get so offended when someone uses there own come sense and doesn't buy the crap what there selling and its always doom and gloom . they can go and get fucked sideways for all i care
vmgqie 3 weeks ago
HAIKU
I hatch! Crawl! And swim!
Oh how I love my sweet life,
But—why's the sea so WARM?
StephanieLisaTara 4 months ago
ive seen soooo many of these computer generated (nerd programmed) cartoons, ive still to find some ACTUAL REAL photographs/satellite images of an ACTUAL icecap.....soho watches the sun 24/7, is the icecap not actually being filmed 24/7?? where are those images?? where are those movies?? why the seemingly constant need for GRAPHICS?!!!!!!
whackitov 5 months ago
the earth is overheating simples its a joke the jet engine has fucked the planet
bobodd5 8 months ago
Comment removed
bobodd5 8 months ago
google- daily arctic sea ice maps . Notice the cooling!
david222444 8 months ago
What about 2011 (now?)
Legomakerx 9 months ago
That's fake.
I can't belive some people are actually so stupid to belive it!
Nitrousek 10 months ago
this is the type of shit Al Gore jacks off to
TheHNIC88 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Attention: all believers in Man made global warming::::: I have GENUINE, thats GENUINE Area 51 Alien artifacts for sale but HURRY they will not last long!! Also, I will throw in FREE...thats FREE "GENUINE" Atlantis Island Treasure!!! This is a ONE TIME Offer and will NEVER be repeated!!
basenjib123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why are the climate change deniers overwhelmingly ignorant fanatic religious retards from USA. May be fox news has something to do with it. I am proud to be in Europe , a civilized and learned world where we are trying to perform our duty towards the planet and its people.
nonewusr 1 year ago
So now the consensus is that there is climate change, it is not man-caused and that it is cost ineffective to waste tri\llions of dollars thrown down the rat-hole of 'carbon footprints' and the like. Just enjoy! And haul Al Gore in front of a congressional committee and investigate him for fraud. His movie is no more fact than 'Casper the Friendly Ghost is.
cwbandbuff 1 year ago
@cwbandbuff Al Gore got that money.
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
I. P. C. C. . I PEE IN YOUR CRAINUM CLUB .
clockworkdog1 1 year ago
The UK's leading scientific body - The Royal Society has published a new report effectively saying that man caused warming is nonsense.
Societies are a bit slow on the uptake being dominated by politics but it's good to see some common sense shining through.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@uwilly23
Forget your alarmist nonsense. Look at the facts.
Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for 30 years. It is now at the highest on record.
Arctic sea ice was lower in the 1930's. Over the past 6000 years, the past 100yrs is at a high.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
Stop showing me cartoons of ice melting . I want too see real images.
mwcdx 1 year ago
@mwcdx Totally... that's sooo fake =/
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
let the dam ice melt it havent been there forever right?
Porre1337 1 year ago
Better animations at "Climate Denial Crock of the Week"
RicksPoker 1 year ago
we're f**'d
russell7771181 1 year ago
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool .. good work USA!!! GO USA
elitecombt 1 year ago
Arctic sea ice is now ABOVE normal ... so much for the global warming alarmist idiots.
sydneydoc 1 year ago
@sydneydoc Wrong, in winter the surface area can be as large or larger than it has been in the past, warmer temp. more water moisture in the air, more snow. But it is much thinner than it has been in the past because it is created by only recent snow.
uwilly23 1 year ago
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
goog2k 1 year ago 3
As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
"we" caused this...
fairboy13 1 year ago 2
@fairboy13 we did a good thing!
coturnix19 1 year ago
oh oh hey i know...why don't we make a live action ice age:melt down movie? O.O
animeosi 1 year ago
This is stupid... do you actually belive this shit?
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
Not by Fire but by Ice
THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW! goole this link
davidsimonsean 1 year ago
I have seen this effect with my own eyes. I live in Northern Alaska and the amount of sea ice is dramticly changing. The seal hunting season is sorter every year due to the thinner ice. The snow is less each year. Several iditarod dogs have died from heat stroke. Snow is turning into slush at earlier dates.
iFlyLow49 2 years ago
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
TrooperRaven 2 years ago
we are fuckingg up!!!!!
fgarcia1167 2 years ago
Sorry Marxist Warm-mongers.......
but............
The mini ice age starts here
By David Rose
10th January 2010
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the worlds most eminent climate scientists.
INFORMATIONLIBERATION(dot)com
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Indeed Sir. And after the leaked emails of ClimateGate and finally getting coverage of the mini ice age, the sun's effects on what is happening and the fact that the ice has increased since 2007 and the sea levels have gone down twice in recent years then maybe the fear mongering by politicians and the puppet media will be seen for the sham and scam that it is.
qazastan 2 years ago 2
Qazastan, Ty for the support.
Those who know this GW charade is a fraud, all you have to do is explain to people that besides the nut job Al Gore being involved (the Al Gore who helped bring us the economically & environmentally destructive NAFTA, GATT, & WTO)
just tell people they have a Railroad Engineer in charge of the IPCC
How many IPCC members are also Lionel train collectors, or are model railroaders like their chief Choo Choo Charlie?
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Yup. It was snowing in Dallas, Freezing in Florida.
BaronVonLichtenstein 2 years ago 2
the video should have also shown how it was before the 70's(there was a cooling period back then)also it doesn't mention in what season,however i do agree there is a shrinking in arctic ice between those years,but antarctica's ice has been growing a lot ,this video is clearly biased
elpablitogringo 2 years ago
"A lot of ice gained in 2008 and 2009.Funny how you dont show recent artic ice"
Uh the video was posted in 2007.
"I see no different between Jan 2000 and Jan 2009 ice"
The decline in sea ice is in the summer months and september minimum. More is melting now than it used to. 2009 minimum had less ice extent than 2000 minimum.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
A lot of ice gained in 2008 and 2009. Funny how you dont show recent artic ice. I see no different between Jan 2000 and Jan 2009 ice other than a little more ice in Jan 2009. But the perspective is different than this video to compare it to.
BaronVonLichtenstein 2 years ago
Well the video is from 2007 and I hardly think he/she can see into the future. ; )
SilkSwe 2 years ago
@SilkSwe
I realized that after posting. Not many seem to show 2009 data. Some are really misleading, like beginning in a winter month and ending in a summer month . People are clowns. They see film of ice falling off, or say "It's the thickness of the ice" without seeing these vids and the extreme differences from month to month. The IGCC says 20 inches in 100 years as worst case, or 20 feet in 1,000 and Al Gore turns it into 20 feet in a few years wins awards and gets played in every school.
BaronVonLichtenstein 2 years ago
I agree with you. The hysteria surrounding the ice caps are far to big. Even though I think it's good that there is a sense of emergency regarding the climate, it shouldn't come from false or manipulated data.
SilkSwe 2 years ago
@BaronVonLichtenstein just because we gained alot of ice from 2008 to 2009 doesn't disprove anything. its only one year. the reason why they may not show the 2009 is cause it was just last year. wait like several months and they will show 2009 data.
curingaging00 2 years ago
It cooled from 1940 to 1979, so why would they start it at 1979, the end of a cooling period and beginning of a 30 yewar cooling period? That misrepresents the facts. I'm not saying it is intentional but does warp things. I would image it will cool for a lot more than 30 years based on past charts. More like several thousand years.
BaronVonLichtenstein 2 years ago 5
sulfate emissions have been going up, peaked 1970s then went down quick. then after that, the temperatures rose back up. sulfate aerosols are reflective and help keep earth cool.
curingaging00 2 years ago
@BaronVonLichtenstein, the reason the data start in 1979 is because they are from satellite imaging. There were no satellites monitoring the arctic before 1979.
dandersononutube 1 year ago
I'm just saying they started at a point the temp started rising again and stopped as it started cooling. I've seen 2000-2009 images with no artic ice loss if you compare January to January. 08 and 09 were very cold and increased artic ice.
BaronVonLichtenstein 1 year ago
Kook up Arctic Sea Ice (Jan 2000 - May 2009) on You tube and compare identical months starting 2000. Theres no change using equivalent months. They recede every summer come back every winter. Of course if you compare Jan 09 to May 09, yes, there is less ice every MAy than Jan.
BaronVonLichtenstein 1 year ago
@dandersononutube,
Satellites have been monitoring the arctic since at least 1973....
"ScienceDaily (Sep. 7, 2009)"
underfoil 1 year ago 2
@curingaging00 what can it matter - 20 years (70s through 90s) of warming compared to 400000 years of glacial? I think we are warming just because compensatory mechanisms aren't on yet. When they turn on, we all will freeze to death... 500 metres of ice over new your - that's what we had 20ka ago. And that was AFTER people first settled america - quite on civilizational timescale
coturnix19 1 year ago
@BaronVonLichtenstein and this vid is made in 2007
curingaging00 2 years ago
the reason why it may have cooled is due to sulfates. in the 70s our sulfate emissions gone down as we realize it isn't healthy for the environment.
curingaging00 2 years ago
@curingaging00 when yellowstone erupts, america will die of sulfate poisoning!
coturnix19 1 year ago
God gave us dominion over the Earth and all it's life. If we want to destroy it then we have the right to kill anything and everything we want, and when we are done Jesus will return and we will all go to Heaven. So it's all a moot point. I have faith in our Iron age God that he will stop us if we do something we shouldn't.
Giamilton 2 years ago
Doesn't it seem a bit pretentious that these global warming/climate change people are trying to keep the earth exactly the way it has been? These are the same people that try to keep all current species of organisms alive, but preach that natural selection is what controls the evolution of species. We do not understand this change, but are still trying to stop it. If polar bears are meant to go extinct, yeah, that sucks, but who are we to battle the very laws of nature which we have discovered?
Zihark300 2 years ago 2
Reducing species diversity damages habitats that we use for our services (medicine, food, soil stability, rainfall patterns). Reducing the effects of global warming (it can no longer be prevented) may help to prevent famines, economic collapse, mass emigration and war.
underdonkey5 2 years ago
yep, I have no doubt Zihark300, that the earth would continue quite happily without us. There have been 5 major extinctions on the earth, and at one time the sea level was 400m (!) above what it is today. Species diversity has also tended to INCREASE over geological time. The problem is, most humans want to survive as a species.
underdonkey5 2 years ago
@underdonkey5 no, human want to survive as CIVILIZATION. And that means preventing degradation to pre-technological era. Therefore, co2 emission won't stop unless something more efficient is employed.
coturnix19 1 year ago
If you see a puddle in front of you will you try to avoid it or just step in thinking it was meant to be? It was "meant to be" that we humans continue to use the organ that got us this far, our brains. And for those that have applied theirs to this extremely complex science there is now no credible debate over the core issue; HUMANS are warming the planet. So lets use our brains that got us in this mess and change some behaviors. Hopefully it was meant to be.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
@ReduceGHGs how come it follows from ice core analyses that co2 concentration have been following temperature with the delay of order of hundreds of years as far as ice core allows us to see?
coturnix19 1 year ago
@coturnix19
Natural CO2 increases do appear to follow natural temp increases. In the geologic record, humans played no part. Now we do as we "dump" about a million years of stored carbon in the atmosphere every year. Now, as we've changed the composition of the atmosphere it retains more heat. As we increase temps unnaturally, natural releases of CO2 will follow reinforcing the problem. Read NASA's James Hansen's new book, Storms Of Our Grandchildren. VERY informative.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago 2
Why not use actual satelite images instead of an animation?
dontlikenumbers 2 years ago
check out a map of the atlantic ocean floor...the edges of the continents extended far out -200 miles or more. the north sea was forest and great britain was not an island. people adapted to the changing climate then, it;s time to do so again.nature marches on.
cwbandbuff 2 years ago
Yah, we should adapt back to being Neanderthals, looks like the Science deniers have a head start.
You do know that Humans were not alive back then right? Well all the cockroaches should be safe, maybe in another 5 million years there will be a responsible life form at the top of the food chain instead of all these reality denying monkeys.
Giamilton 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for them & their money mates.
SEE Professor Bob Carter
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
"The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. CO2 levels were at about 400 ppm.
"What was the climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today.
"Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher. There was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland. "
Science Magazine -2009
See: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on Earth
goog2k 2 years ago
@goog2k blessed times....
coturnix19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The evidence that the sea level in all of the Pacific islands is not changing is unequivocal.
The Pacific Island Sea Level Project was launched by the Australians in 1991. Using scientists from Flinders University, Adelaide and state-of-the-art SEAFRAME equipment kept perfectly level by GOPS, first time used in sea level measurements.
It is clear from these measurements that there has been no change in sea level at any one of the PISLP sites since the
start, which for most goes back to 1992.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
if fresh water is the only thing that evaporates out of the oceans then the more ice melt will add more fresh water to the top 5 feet off the worlds oceans this combined with warmer ocean water even air temperatures, will cause faster evaporation of the fresh water this will create more freaky bad rain storms.
BeAnEarthNut 2 years ago
I hope that all the ice melts as soon as possible..fuck global warming
TheBase4321 2 years ago
So why cant you show us real time pictures I mean we have satellite's that must have been recording this over the years. or do we?
gleenbeast 2 years ago
Here's an interesting visualization from NOAA.
Google... Ice-Free Arctic Summers Likely Sooner Than Expected
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Try sending a geosynchronous satellite in the north pole.
Oh wait, you can't.
That is real, but we can't always monitor it.
LovelyYTRocks 2 years ago
Tuvalu.
sagiliciousness 2 years ago
IPCC is a group of Scientists who were appointed/asked by governments to represent their countries. A number have quit in frustration because of disagreement. Those selected, of course, reflect the climate attitudes of those who appointed them.
dberry2003 2 years ago
Now ! Show the results with winter ice ! what your seeing here is Winter in 1979 to summer of 2005 & summer from 2009. Global warming is a fucking Lie !
wingnut4427 2 years ago
what the fuck are you people blind or just plain stupid? you say oh its not CO2, methane etc. or any other man-made pollution well lets put it in another way can you prove that its not that? if it isnt can you honestly say that we should not be alarmed at the rate of pollution or the melting ice? the northern passage which is suppose to be covered in ice is now open. industrialists would like you to believe that global warming is a fraud so they can continue to make profit polluting the world.
limsky83 2 years ago
they are very influential they can buy politicians as well as scientists. everybody has a price. also don't believe in everything u read gentlemen. just because some "study" shows so and so doesn't mean that its true . Scientist as you may well know are very egotistical people they always say that they're right in their "Theories" . instead of bickering on whether humans cause gobal warming we should ask what can we do about it. there is no denying that it is really happening just watch the news
limsky83 2 years ago
YES CO2 levels were WAY HIGHER in the past .JUST google --- CARBONIFEROUS CO2 ---. Click the first link.
uboat21 2 years ago
CO2 rates were higher in the past, but it happened over millions of years. Organisms had time to adopt. Now compare that to 50 years.
TheNomadicMonad 2 years ago
Sea level rise was FASTER before fossil fuel burning. Much faster. It was caused by something besides CO2.
uboat21 2 years ago
Ok, tell me this. Since archeologists are studying viking settlements that are being uncovered by receeding ice, doesn't that mean it was warmer 1000 years ago? Why weren't sea levels higher back then?
KarrensMan69 2 years ago
BTW, Melting ice caps is not science- it is pretty pictures.
Science is numbers.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
earth use to be a fireball.. then iceball.. fish came so did salt.. water melts ... land came, etc.. now go take a bucket and fill it with ice and salt... and another one without the salt. you will see wich bucket wil melt faster...
how long have poeple filmed the antartic ?
i bet 200 years ago the place was way bigger..
shit melts its a way of nature and nature cant be controled by humans cause we are just an element.
Vleesball 2 years ago
There are certainly still areas of uncertainty in climatology, which will be fascinating to work out in the years to come, but I don't think the risk of the entire hypothesis coming tumbling down is enough to warrant further inaction.
This is where we get into debating policy, where everyone is qualified to give an opinion. This is the sort of debating we should be doing.
Instead of "Is AGW true?" we should start asking "What should we do about AGW?"
rileannas 2 years ago
I think that we both are after the same thing - empirical evidence for AGW As it stands the IPCC era models have failed to predict short term GW. Those models omitted clouds and ocean currents etc.
The focus should NOT be on Grennhouse gases, industrialization, humans and polution, but on Earth's temp which in not the AGW Central thesis
I need to be a skeptic and critic before I simply fall in line. There are some very smart PhD's including an IPCC author who are critics. I
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Here are some other critics you can look up; Lindzen (wrote part of the IPCC report), Murty, Wiskle, Bellamy, Giaever (Nobel Prize winner), Itoh, Evans (AUS) - and a host of other top thinkers in THIS field.
Wiskel once set out to build a Kyoto house!
Dr. David Evans (AUS) Built Austrailia's Kyoto Carbon Counting model - a 6year effort.
These names would NEVER be on the skeptic side of this argument if the Science was on the on the other side.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
While I agree temps are higher, I think that AGW is currently wrong - I will be a skeptic and critic until the Science is clear, instead of just consensus - which by itself is certainly not Science.
If you want to ask "What should we do about AGW?" My response would be to first define AGW. And it ain't CO2. If CO2 is not the culprit - would not a CO2 based solution be wrong? Have no effect on AGW?
.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Comment removed
rileannas 2 years ago
Comment removed
rileannas 2 years ago
What if you were wrong?
It's a key question scientists ask themselves. I ask myself that question all the time regarding AGW. And my answer, every time, is that I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to look stupid if it meant that my species was no longer threatened with disaster. I know there's a chance I could be wrong, so in every policy recommendation I make, I look for ways to benefit in other areas so it wouldn't be a waste if I was wrong.
But what if you were wrong?
rileannas 2 years ago
You ask that question as if this is a coin toss-it is not. Sadly, we humans are wrong in a big way rather often. LeMark was THE father of modern genetics way back until Mendel showed what was really going on. Lemark could not have been more wrong.
Ask a modern Psychologist what they think about Freud's ideas -
The time to ask "who is wrong" has not yet come upon us. We do need more measurements. In the skeptic school . . .
2006 research by
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
In the sceptic school, the scientist are rarely in the HOAX school of deniers. These scientists state rather clearly that more data is needed - that Earth has warmed and that no one really knows why.
As for hockeye stick CO2 - Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Lastly,
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.
1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.
2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.
These conlusions are from Richard Courtney - an expert peer reviewer for the IPCC.
AWG is not an Emergency.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
And let me restate - if AGW were true - none of these scientists mentioned would be singing the critic song.
They would all be standing on the AGW side pressing for solutions - they are first on foremost scientists whose lives are dedicated to the Scientific Method and asking a proper Central Question.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Could the same thing not be said for NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, and every professional scientific organization on the planet?
Let me also restate - what if you were wrong? Is this a gamble you want to take?
rileannas 2 years ago
It is a matter of process - the Hockeye stick came first, then the IPCC and Al Gore. Now, we see more and more Scientists are questioning the Central Premise, the IPCC models have all failed over the last 8 years.
The empiracle data is what it is.
In Science, it falls to the scientist to prove his hypothsis - the AGW hypothesis has not been proven.
Critics need only poke holes in the presented conclusions once no holes remain - you have what we both would call fact.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
The IPCC does not have models. It is an inter-governmental PANEL of scientists who assess ALL climate change data available. THey do not generate models, nor do any research. They simply read all the papers and report.
THey do it for free. It is a lengthy and thorough process. If the data says something, that is what they report. The report has to be written by consensus.
So they point out the empirical data to people and governments who don't have time to read 10,000 papers every year.
rsedan 2 years ago 10
@rsedan They get big bucks for their "work".
clockworkdog1 1 year ago
Let's Clarify the what if I am wrong statement - If CO2 drives Heat? OR the Earth is warming?
Can you be specific?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Co 2 ALWAYS lags behind temp by 800 to 2,000 years both up and down, so in other words temp drops and co 2 continues to raise for another 800 to 2,000 years and FINALLY starts to also drop. Now how can co 2 be a driver if it does not start or stop global warming, it act's like an EFFECT not a driver. Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth
solargw 2 years ago
You are wrong.
Antarctic ice has been GROWING at 4.7% per decade for the past 30 years ... Arctic decreasing at 2.7%
sydneydoc 2 years ago
I would never say that AGW was 100% certain, or that there was total consensus among scientists, as absolute statements are not something true science will ever make.
However, I strongly believe that, given the likelihood and the risk, we need to start taking action now. It would be great to take action that helped other areas - such as the economy or health - as well as reducing carbon emissions. That way, if AGW turned out to be false, we'd still benefit from having acted against it.
rileannas 2 years ago
I agee - Science is about testing an hypothesis; not about the press. My feeling' is that the hypothsis of CO2 driven global warming has not met the test.
I think the IPCC only looks back 1000 years.
Is Earth warmer? Sure - but over what time period, 100,000yrs - trending much warmer, 10,000 yrs - nope Earth cooling. HOw about 2000 yrs - still cooling and at a faster rate. 700 yrs (LIA) break even. Last century - very hot. But last ~9/10 years, break even again.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Over the nine years, 2000-2008, since the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature the mean value of the forecast error is just 0.06 °C.
Or, to put it another way Bullseye!
simplyeighties 2 years ago
freeagain2 said; "Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998." What is the source of this headline?
simplyeighties 2 years ago
Northern Hemisphere Sets 1300 Year Climate Warming Record
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pennsylvania, September 2, 2008 (ENS) - Surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, according to researchers at Penn State's Earth System Science Center and three other U.S. universities.
simplyeighties 2 years ago 2
Friday, April 4, 2008
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.
(Funny how every news item has a counter news item . . . )
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Unfortuanately, the news is just like that. They often perceive climate science as a policy debate where they must present both sides equally - when, in the scientific community at least, the two sides are not equal. They also like to publish the most shocking stories to get people to read them. I'd always check their sources to make sure they're accurate. Given the amount of UN confidence on AGW I'd be suspicious of this one.
rileannas 2 years ago
Would you say the IPCC "report" is fully peer reveiwed?
If serious questions remain - or challenges to various parts of the report/ - Do you think those challenges should be re-analyzed?
I see where Hadley (CRUT3v) shows that the temp variations are falling sharply, from 2000 to 2008.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
The IPCC is, in fact, a compilation of all the peer-reviewed literature on climate chnage in the world. They don't conduct their own research, they just put it together. The amount of revisions they go through is absolutely painstaking - Dr Andrew Weaver from U Victoria wrote an account of his experience as an IPCC author if you're interested in more about that process.
cont'd in next post - silly comment length limit....
rileannas 2 years ago
As the national science academies of all G8 nations as well as China, Brazil and India have explicitly endorsed the IPCC AR4, there are few - if any - credible challenges they have not already addressed. The IPCC panel and peer-review board (which can be any climatologist who wants to - even Richard Lindzen wrote part of IPCC) must achieve unanimous agreement over the contents. Basically, it can't be published without any legitimate challenges.
rileannas 2 years ago
sorry, that's "with" any legitimate challenges, not "without".....
rileannas 2 years ago
Regarding the recent downturn in temperatures - there are factors at play other than CO2. Right now we're at the bottom of the Milankovitch (solar) cycle and we had a strong 07-08 La Nina. That's had a masking effect on the CO2 forcing. It's well understood and not an area of concern for the climate change theory.
Regarding the Hadley study - because it was an individual report I'd check it against something like NASA measurements. The more people working on it the more credible it is.
rileannas 2 years ago
Why do you suppose CO2 forces temps higher? Given all else the same.
And why do you suppose the effect would be so particularly powerful (10ppmCO2 = 0.1F' increase - give or take).
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
To my knowledge the greenhouse effect has to do with the shape of the molecule, as molecules like CO2 or CH4 are more complex than N2 or O2 which make up 99% of our atmosphere. However I'm not extremely educated in this area so you may want to check with someone like an atmospheric physics prof - in my experience university profs are more than happy to answer questions like these. However I can give more historical context to the greenhouse effect - next comment....
rileannas 2 years ago
The greenhouse effect has been studied since the 1800s, and it was Arrhenius in 1896 that calculated its effect. The average temperature of the earth would be around -15 C (sorry, Canadian units...) without greenhouse gases, and with pre-industrial amounts of greenhouse gases it's somewhere around 15 C (sorry don't know the exact figure and am having trouble finding it at the moment). So already, even with ~300 ppm CO2, the average temp has increased 30 C.
rileannas 2 years ago
Carbon dioxide is one of the less powerful greenhouse gases, H2O is much weaker, CH4 is 21x stronger, etc. Check with someone in physical chemistry or atmospheric physics if that doesn't answer your question regarding potence.
The effects of greenhouse gases are calculated in terms of radiation (W/m squared) not temperature, as it is all the radiation forcings - greenhouse gases, albedo, and solar activity - which form the net radiation which is then used to derive temp. Physics again.
rileannas 2 years ago
Clearly, a complicated issue.
Throw in a few Volcanoes (either surface or oceanic) and a Mount St. Helens (put 1 cubic mile of earth into the atmosphere) or some major wild fires
every once a decade and predicting temps becomes impossible.
Have you studied the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice age?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
We'd know if there was enough volcanic activity to cause climate change. Even regular volcanoes do not make prediction impossible. Volcanic emissions are monitored, quantified and accounted for. We also track our own emissions. The numbers match up well.
It's highly unlikely that there's volcanic activity we don't know about that's sufficient to trigger climate change, whereas we've been burning hydrocarbons for 200 years. It would be hard to do that and not expect anything to happen.
rileannas 2 years ago
Forests absorb carbon dioxide, then when they die or burn they release it. It balances out in the end. However it is another source of error that is well accounted for.
I'm not an expert on historical climatic events but I have some knowledge. The Medieval Warming Period was regional, around Europe. That's where the early study was done so it appeared quite major - until we started to look at evidence from other parts of the world and calculated that, overall, the Earth hardly warmed at all.
rileannas 2 years ago
The Little Ice Age was similar - not globally synchronous, and to my knowledge there is no evidence that either of them were caused by greenhouse gases. Most likely, solar variations that fell outside of the regular Milankovitch cycles caused both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. We'd know if that was happening today, though - solar warming presents itself very differently to greenhouse gas warming. (Ask me that one next, it's really fun to explain!) :)
rileannas 2 years ago
I think the big problem with the Little ice age is the CO2 rose during the period while the temps dropped. Centuries passed and CO2 forcing was negative.
Ice core studies show evidence of the little ice age and there is evidence that it was global and not simply regional.
My thought/theory is that CO2 trails warming and does not cause warming.
But the time time periods given and measurement capability is simply not precise enough to track that back 5,000 years.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
You're absolutely right, CO2 trails warming by several centuries - only when the warming is caused by something else. For example, ice ages are caused by changes in the Earth's orbit which result in less solar radiation reaching Earth. The temperature of the planet decreases, including the temperature of the ocean. The cooler the ocean is, the more carbon dixoide it can hold in the form of carbonic acid. As its temperature decreases, it gradually takes more and more CO2 out of the air.
rileannas 2 years ago
If our planet was warming up because of something else, eg more solar radiation or less albedo, the opposite would happen - the ocean would release carbon dioxide as its temperature increased.
That's how it usually works, but as CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, it can start the cycle of warming. CO2 and temperature are positive feedbacks of each other in the global ecosystem.
What is the evidence of the Little Ice Age being global? I'd be interested to see as that's not my area of expertise.
rileannas 2 years ago
FYI LIA
An article was generated by a research team from Chiles Universidad de Concepción and the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. Araneda et al.
They summarized . . . The recognition of the LIA in Northern Patagonia, through the use of documentary sources, provides important, independent evidence for the occurrence of this phenomenon in the region.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
My standpoint on climate change is that, whether or not we know all the details for sure, increasing the amount of carbon dioxide - a vital biogeochemical which cycles through the bioshpere - by nearly a factor of two is bound to throw something or other out of balance, which will come back to harm us eventually.
And on the details of CO2 I choose to trust the people who I feel are most credible and represent the majority of scientists, so yes, I follow the mainstream scientific view of AGW.
rileannas 2 years ago
The IPCC does have a chapter on paleoclimatology, although it's not the focus of the report.
It's obvious the current temp and GHG levels are not unprecendented - they have been much higher in previous geological eras. However, what is unprecedented is the rate of change. If the climate changed at its natural slow pace, over millenia, ecosystems would adapt without a problem. But over a few centuries? All species, including humans, are in trouble.
rileannas 2 years ago
We know that the warming is caused by greenhouse gases because the troposphere (closest to the Earth) is warming much more than the stratosphere (farther away) because the atmosphere is thickest closest to the Earth. Nights are warming at the same rate as days, and winter at the same rate as summer. If it was the sun causing the warming, none of those three things would be true.
rileannas 2 years ago
As for albedo, people have increased it if anything, but melting snow and ice decreases albedo and that is an obvious result of warming (see video above!)
So we know with very high confidence that the Earth is warming from greenhouse gases. Seeing as we've been putting unnatural amounts into the air, and that we can tell the difference between natural (volcanic) and anthropogenic CO2 in ice cores (I'll try to find more on that for you), it's quite clear even without hard data.
rileannas 2 years ago
However, climatologists, like any scientists, always question themselves, recheck their data, and give error measurements and statements of uncertainty. Sadly this natural uncertainty has been exploited, as (in my opinion - I'm straying away from science here) nobody wants to have to deal with decreasing CO2 emissions, so they look for every reason they can to disbelieve the science. But chances are those reasons were studied already and proved inaccurate.
rileannas 2 years ago
The scariest part about CO2, though, is the delay in temp. If we went carbon-netural tomorrow, we would still warm more before the temperature leveled off. We've already guaranteed that it will get more extreme than what we're currently seeing.
All the delays and multiple forcings make it more complicated to sort out. It is not as simple as what Al Gore likes to imply, that CO2 is the only thing that affects temp and they match up perfectly. That leads to a lot of misconceptions.
rileannas 2 years ago
My best advice to you would be to check the credibility of your sources. Newspapers should not be taken as science. Neither should anything from politicians. The best place to go is the primary source - scientific reports, and only peer-reviewed ones. Also, something done by one scientist is less credible than an organization. Those reports can be quite technical so you can either read the summary for policymakers or ask some like a university prof or even me to interpret it for you.
rileannas 2 years ago
That goes for your own ideas as well. Science isn't like policy, where all opinions are equal. Unless you're a scientist, scientific opinions that contradict the norm have little to no crediblity. Climate change is not a religion based in blind faith. It is based in evidence, in elementary principles of physics discovered more than a century ago.
There you go. Sorry I'm so long-winded. And please continue to ask any questions you have, I'm quite enjoying myself :)
rileannas 2 years ago
What would be your hypothesis regarding CO2 and global warming?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Can anyone name all the greenhouse gases and their percentage concentrations?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Certainly, glad to be of help:
carbon dioxide - 385 ppm
methane - 1774 ppb
nitrous oxide - 319 ppb
carbon tetrachloride - 93 ppt
sulfur hexafluoride - 5.6 ppt
other CFCs and HFCs - 1320 ppt
from chapter 2 of IPCC AR4. Don't worry, the only one I actually have memorized is CO2, I'm not that much of a nerd :)
rileannas 2 years ago 2
Thanks -
A few questions for you - if you have the time.
Do you believe that increasing CO2 concentrations by - say 50ppm (.005%)- 'directly' increase temps on the planet by 0.5-1.0 degrees?
Do you believe the Earth temp should NOT change over decades/Centuries?
Any thoughts to water vapor? Would you know if the IPCC addressed H20?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
FreeAgain2 - Met office data shows that the ten warmest years on record were within the last 14 years. Here's how the met office gets its data; * balloon profiles * surface data * marine data * aircraft observations
Each day, the Met Office receives and uses around half a million observations of temperature, pressure, wind speed and direction, humidity and many other properties.
simplyeighties 2 years ago
I'm not an expert in climate modelling so I can't give you exact figures. The IPCC report is free to download if you want to see their projections. An increased CO2 level is a positive radiative forcing, and the net forcing level is what causes the temp to change. I don't know if I'd say it was "direct" for that reason as often there are several factors that cancel out. It's the amount of radiation that stays on Earth that really decides our temp change.
rileannas 2 years ago
Question 2....the Earth's temperature has both variability and natural changes. That's why all the graphs are sort of spiky. However the recent warming we're experiencing is too extreme for variability and far too fast for natural changes. The current temperature and CO2 is only unprecedented in the current geological period, but the rate of change is what's really scary.
rileannas 2 years ago
And your last question....water vapour is not considered an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as its lifespan is a matter of days in the atmosphere - even if we added a whole bunch of water vapour at once the extra would just condense out. However, water vapour is a positive feedback to warming, as the warmer the air is, the more H2O it can hold (Avogardo and kinetic molecular theory if you're a chem student). It's included in the IPCC reports as a feedback cycle.
Hope this helps!
rileannas 2 years ago
Arctic Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Rate in Recorded History
7 Nov 08 -
An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to
ice levels. The total amount of ice, which set a record low last year,
grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.
See Arctic Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Rate in Recorded History
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
That's only the surface ice though, not the old-age ice in the middle that's never melted until now. The total volume is still shrinking, even if there's more on top.
rileannas 2 years ago
Can't believe that anyone would argue against CO2 being a greenhouse gas! The science is simple - This planet used to be an extremely hot and volatile place in it's infancy - due to CO2. This was very gradually absorbed by trees and plants which fossilised - fossil fuels. Now we're releasing all that CO2 from the fossilised trees and plants back into the atmosphere and turning the Earth back into a hot and volatile planet - simple!
MarkNobes 2 years ago 3
Arctic ice extent averaged for the month of January was 14.08 million square kilometers (5.43 million square miles). January extent was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) less than for the 1979 to 2000 average, and 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) greater than for January 2007.
the NSIDCconrims the artic ice sheets are GROWING - look it up for yourself
Jassy0808 2 years ago
That's quite normal considering 2007 is the biggest dip in ice extent ever recorded. One could expect the extent to increase a bit again in the next year.
But what you're talking about is the MAXIMUM ice extent, while glaciologist in the world would agree the MINIMUM yearly ice extent (during late summer, that is) is a way better indicator of how things are going with sea ice.
Caenwyr 2 years ago
That is dramatic but very short term. fluctuations in ice cap size over a hundred or hundreds of years would be interesting to see, since maps dated prior to 1600 show land in place of ice caps.
Warmer climate = more agricultural suitable land
More CO2 = greater crop yields and faster growing trees.
The drop in atmospheric oxygen is alarming. 22% in 1986 and 18-19% now. People will start dying at 17% atmospheric O2 levels. We have too much N2. We must increase CO2 & O2 and lower N2.
davidchenard 2 years ago
I hit reply next to rod1575's post yet it ended up here. So the solution is in avoiding
PEAK OIL!!!
How? By massive concentrated solar thermal power development.
fireofenergy 3 years ago
I understand that the arctic ice cap has been growing so much lately it's where it was in 1979 when these images were first possible.
What we're discovering is that the ice caps shrink, then grow, then shrink, then grow & that there is likely very little man can do about it.
DillonX 3 years ago
Google cryosphere today. Its 2009 and the ice has increased since this video. Nothing to worry about. Global Warming is over.
rod1575 3 years ago 2
I did...this is what I found!
"The 40Mb animation at the left shows the recent dramatic loss of multiyear sea ice..."
This is a up to date site too.
fireofenergy 3 years ago
This maybe the case. But how do we know its not a natural cycle. We can't even predict what the weather will be in 2 weeks time let alone predict what the climate will be in 50 to 100 years. We could be going into a cooling period or stay the same for all we know.
rod1575 3 years ago
Damn! Do you mean we have Global Cooling? We're doomed!! Quick! Someone ask Al Gore what to do.
davidchenard 2 years ago
come on! someone sue f****ng liar al gore
Flamethrower334 3 years ago
Gosh. Wouldn't that be like blasphemy to question something Mr. Gore said? Aren't GW "deniers" like Holocaust deniers somehow? They are both deniers, right?
Denying bad.
Questions bad.
CO2 bad.
Humans bad.
We are all bad.
Let's all feel really guilty and pay out the ass now. Agree? Agreeing good. I like cheese. Cheese is good. The Moon is made of cheese. Do you agree or do you DENY it?!! What if Al Gore said so?
davidchenard 2 years ago
How dare you question the reality presented you Global warming is so real =)...if you have a good enough media campaign the moon CAN be made of cheese. Did you know the ocean used to extend into what is now central europe (for example), that will be coming back folks, probably in a couple centuries.
UFOMAN618 2 years ago
How dare I question "reality"? I can't choose what I believe, because I know that believing something doesn't make it true. From what I understand, CO2 can not possibly act as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is too heavy to form a layer high up in the atmosphere. Water vapor and methane are the only significant greenhouse gasses. It is a lie that CO2 causes global warming at all. I want more CO2. It means faster growing plants and higher yielding crops and more oxygen output for us breath.
davidchenard 2 years ago
Al Gore is a moron.
Manmade Global Warming = 100% Bullsh@t!
For all the mindless sheep out there: RELAX!!
elvisatemydonuts 3 years ago
Isn't relaxing in spite of their imminent demise exactly what mindless sheep do?
Pay attention, look at this video again and consider the implications. The thermal energy required to melt that much sea ice implies major changes are happening within our ecosystem. I encourage you to think a little harder sir.
sharker2003 3 years ago 4
global warming deniers aren't interested in facts or science.
zenbeer 3 years ago
Its the other way around. Global Warming Alarmists aren't interested in facts or science. Most people who believe that Global Warming is caused by humans only see scary pictures of ice melting and steam rising from factories. They don't research anything and believe everything they see. Like watching Al Gore. He has got it all wrong. He uses scare tactics to make people believe.
rod1575 3 years ago
Look who's talking. If you checked the science for yourself instead of buying into the claim of a "scientific consensus", which does not mean fact btw, you wouldn't say that. And noone is denying GW. Human CO2 emissions being the cause of GW is what is in dispute, but "GW" promoters also promote this sort of confusion. Why had other planets been warming up also and the ice caps on Mars melting? SUVs? Industry? Could it have to do with the Sun? Look at last years average temps and compare.
davidchenard 2 years ago
Climate changes. It always has and always will. The cycles are regular and apparent in ice core samples. There is nothing unusual about the current shift in climate. Don't believe me. Look for yourself and believe your own eyes. Just don't believe politicians or people profiting from new GW legislation like Al Gore.
davidchenard 2 years ago
that may help but i have a funny filling that it to late try to stop the ice from meting. it human have some to do with or not. i don't think it can be fix. if some right about ice cap. ice will keep meting. than we will get it cooling, tornado, and other thing. you ever seen the movie day after tomorrow. i think irt going be some thing like that but not as fast as the movie show.
rwmtiger 3 years ago
We should all turn of electricity for 1 day and stop driving for one day starting tomorrow.like that we can lower pollution!WHOS WITH ME!This is not a Joke!
emman331 3 years ago
October 2008 has seen the fastest Arctic sea ice extent growth ever recorded
sydneydoc 3 years ago
Ignore that message...i idiot posted it (il change my password :) )
Jeseeu 3 years ago
ok....fuck dumshit,bullshit cooksucker...mother fucker dick ...etc
Jeseeu 3 years ago