The political/business response is what destroys the argument in my mind. For example, why is it that only developed nations are to financially punished while developing nations like China who treat their environment like sewer, get off scott free. It is just redistributing the nation's wealth from the wealth creators to the wealth spongers without an ounce of environmentalism in play.
@afaultytoaster China has poisoned theri environment. The sky is just a thick haze of pollution, their water is unusable, their children are being born deformed. China treats their nation, their people and their ecology like a sewer.
@afaultytoaster I'm not surprised a person showing a flag of a regime that murdered millions of people doesn't care. Global Warming is a scam really. It happens naturally. Just another scam.
@NakedWombatStuff Funnily enough, if rich countries have been living the good life cooking the planet with fossil fuels for decades, it's not surprising that poorer ones think theyu deserve a turn, especially if the rich ones are still doing it and the poorer have huge reserves that they could exploit. Even if a *valid* conclusion happens to benefit a particular politics, it remains valid. MAny Leftists often claim it's a conspiracy of rich countries against the poor!
Bulgroz99's question is not excellent, as the video gives an example of how the runaway mechanisms may have been triggered before humans. I am curious the vid stated that humans arent influencing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Burning oil, or any hydrocarbon produces water molucules as well as carbon dioxide. I guess we increase methane by extensive cattle farming which fart it (yes really!) but I am wondering if our use of it as a fuel, releasing heat, CO2 and H2O, is even worse?
@PeteWatts48 So you look at a cyclic change that has happened thousands of times in the past, yet this time it is our fault but the other numerous times it happened by itself, does that make any sense to you?
@Bulgroz99 Houses burn down multiple times through accidents, but if you see someone squirting gasoline in through a window and throwing a mtach in, it is reasonable to deduce on that occasion human agency was responsible. The historic cycle is of ice age then recovery, not saunas. The earth has already warmed up naturally and human acticvity is pushing it even higher.. We are basting an already feverish patient.. Forest fires are natural, but take care with campfires!
@PeteWatts48 This is nonsense. If your house burned down 200 times in the past with regular intervals and you knew no one was around, would you suspect an arsonist the 201th time it happened?
@Bulgroz99 I think 200 may be overstated?We are already in an unusually warm patch, so cyclical activity would expecty cooling, not warming. The point is we can *see* "arsonists"- ourselves - setting fire to the house, we dont need to speculate. We know we are adding large amounts of heat and greenhouses gases to the atmosphere and we shoud expect non-cyclical warming. If you set fire to a house, you *expect* it to burn down. AGW deniers need to explain why it *wouldnt* happen!
@PeteWatts48 We are adding minute amounts of heat and CO2 to the atmosphere, compared to mother earth herself and father sun, we are insignificant in the bigger picture. With your logic atheists should explain why there is no god, and people who get arrested should explain why they are innocent right? Reverse burden of evidence I believe its called.
@Bulgroz99 Er no, actually. While I acknowledge the first figfures are correct, you cant assume the cycle has been continual for the whole of earth's history! It didnt freexe over when it was still molten for a start, and at it has also been "snowball earth" - frozen over completely for millions of years continuoously, Do yopu really think hundreds of climatological geeks couldnt have thought of such a facile objection s this? What is the evidence that *would* convinve you of AGW?
@PeteWatts48 But it has happened far more than 200 which was my point. Look at sediment samples, they go much further back. I think the small group of "scientists" in the UN, who claim to speak on behalf of every climatologist in the world, may have a political agenda. What would convince me? Lets see: We add an insignificant amount to GW (0.28% factoring in water vapor). We have a sinus curve following the exact same cycle as it did thousands of times before. How about nothing?
@Bulgroz99 And my point is, iif these facile observations were so compelling, how come scores of very geeky climatologists dont buyt it? AGW is accerptred by the greeat majhority of *all* climatologists, not just UN ones, who claim only to speak from the data FOr a belief to be rational, there has to be at least hypothetical evidence that would make it change, Youir poliytically paranoid simplistic comments are akin to the crass opinions of creationists parodying evolution.
@PeteWatts48 who are all these hypothetical geeky climatologists? Where did they get their data from? You are the creationist here, you are just repeating the same nonsense "50 million flies can't be wrong" you heard from others, instead of looking at the numbers and logic yourself. If you call yourself a scientist, why don't you use your own brain instead of just retelling what others are claiming? Before Kepler and Leonardo, the earth was center of the universe, it was a "fact".
@Bulgroz99 =a cyclic change that has happened thousands of times in the past= Just out of curiosity, what do you think caused the Earth to warm and cool over long periods in the past if it was not CO2, as geologists have established?
@potholer54 Frankly I am not sure what causes this. My guess would be that it is part of a bigger cycle. Perhaps because of our solar-systems path around the milky way, a secondary solar cycle, or two or more of these natural cycles interfering with each other, sometimes canceling out the effects, sometimes enhancing them. I believe CO2 is released into the atmosphere as a result of this natural cycle, it is not causing it.
@Bulgroz99 =Frankly I am not sure what causes this= Thanks for the honest answer. I ask, because yours is a commonly-held belief that temperature must be due to something else -- anything but CO2. Even though 100-year-old experiments show a physical reason why CO2 warms the Earth, and a clear correlation between CO2 and temp over the last 500 million years, you are still hoping something else might show up. Why are you so resistant to the CO2 explanation?
So how did this exact same change and "runaway" mechanism get triggered and reversed hundreds or thousands of times in the past before humans even existed?
@Bulgroz99 An excellent question, but perhaps commenting on a three-year-old video is not the best way to get a response. You should try a PM from his channel page for a full response to your question, perhaps. Peace.
@Bulgroz99 =So how did this exact same change and "runaway" mechanism get triggered and reversed hundreds or thousands of times in the past before humans even existed?= As jahbabylon says, better to message me rather than pose a question on an old video. Long-term warming in the past was triggered by CO2 (and methane, which breaks down into CO2), and it was reduced when weathering dissolved CO2 and locked it into limestone rocks.
This is a good video. It explains eloquently(to me anyway) why the "skeptics" don't want to see or can't see.
It is not just the sum total of what we do that scares me it is this runaway effect that follows
We have left it too late people. We simply do not know what the margins are but we do know that there is a climate shift happening right now and we blew it. Enjoy the ride cos it will be bumpy
They did compensate for the drift of the satellite, but they made a sign-error, in effect doubling the effect of the drift. When other scientists corrected this mistake, the troposphere also showed a warming trend. Just saying they didn't forget about sat. drift, but they didn't correct for it properly. Good videos!
The "scam" is the corporate propaganda that deniers consume. Read about garbage the Koch oil billionaire brothers and other vested interests have been spreading. EVERY ONE of our respected scientific institutions has been telling us that human climate change is the real deal and the consequences are NOT GOOD! Business-as-usual is dangerous. It puts our future generations at risk. Here's a good short film.
@ReduceGHGs Global warming denial is definitely a bad rabbit to follow down the hole, but alarm-ism on either side of the debate is counter-productive. Maybe it is a conspiracy involving the koch brothers, but al gore stands to make a lot of money if the us government buys into his hype. So it works both ways, we need to work towards energy independence as well as energy that does not produce waste carbon. Nuclear seems like a safe short term option. Are u for that in order to reduce c02?
@ndelliott138 Alarmism? If telling people that an environmenal crisis is on the way is "alarmism" then SOUND THE ALARM! It is occuring and the consequences are NOT good.
Gore has NOTHING to do with the science. Profits from his books and movie go to fighting the problem. The vested interests want you to think it's all his idea but it isn't. He tells us what the experts say while the Koch brothers spin out propaganda. Know the difference?
@ReduceGHGs Also....there are teams around the world working around the clock to produce sustained fusion. If they can do that, we have enough energy in the oceans to power us even after our sun destroys the planet. If all the energy spent scaring us one way or the other was put into one of those projects, we could have been spending one cent per giga watt/hr.
@ndelliott138 Nuclear startup is slow and VERY expensive, waste disposal is problematic, and disasters happen. No thanks. Fusion is a pipe dream; not viable.
Don't fall into the conspiracy trap thinking that "the government" or Al Gore is out to scare us. That's baseless and uninformed. Vested interests "muffle" the needed alarm.
Governments are us. We need to establish laws, regs, and policies to make pollution more expensive and greener activities cheaper. Support candidates that "get it".
History demonstrates that warmer is healthier. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. Archaeological evidence shows that people lived longer, enjoyed better nutrition, and multiplied more rapidly than during epochs of cold.
@TheSaltyAdmiral no doubt that man helps the earth warm i just dont fell that the evidence points to it being nature or man but there is a whole lot of evidence for the man caused warming id rather continue to try to help the solution and wait for more evidence through certainly we can help the problem to get better
Why don't all the denier clowns understand that regardless of whether CO2 causes warming or not (it does), there is still the issue of ocean acidification which is just as important? Oh yeah, because that's apparently the "backup" plan the Warmists have come up with if the public don't buy the global warming "hoax". Lol.
Deniers love WattsUpwithThat which is funded by big oil. We need to get off of the fossil fuels and start using alternatives. I'm willing to pay so should the deniers
For any Australians, please sign this petition in the hope the government will fund renewable energy to achieve zero carbon emissions in the not too distant future - aycc.org.au/repoweraustralia/ (it should be the first link in the search) -thankyou, Australian Youth Climate Coalition. Your interest in this issue will benefit humanity and all other species.
Yes, and then we have "skeptics" like Penn Jillete (in Penn and Teller) telling us "intelligent" people that global warming isnt true, its just a correlation causation argument.
Causing about 10% of the atheist community to stop believing in it.
Seriously. Its hard to find actuall atheist skeptics these days.
@gulbirk Because most people think being a skeptic means not going with the mainstream ideas. Skepticism isn't something that';s so simple as looking at the popular message and going, "I think you're wrong!" It actually takes some skill, and some understanding of the topic you're being 'skeptic' about. I think skepticism should be taught in sociology classes in school.
No,no,no! Don't missunderstand, i had personal issus with things that i deal with in my life. This was the first page that popped out in youtube, so i thought maby if i wrote down all my anger i would forget about it.. then i realised i posted it, and now suddently people think am mad at him, Never watched his video, so i can't jugde the man, but he has never done me any harm :/
This video does not even begin to get the physics correct. What happens to that gas when it gets hit by the frequency? Absorbs. Ok. Fine. If it is absorbed then it no longer exists. Look up "height to extinction" and realize that CO2 extinquishes at 380 in about 40 ft. When you add more CO2 that height lowers. So what. That gas mol is in the convective layer and mixes. Once you put 20-50 ppm CO2 it saturates in 63 miles. No more heat trapping, just lower down. Video sucks...
@GuitarNoob101 Said the same to Galileo. When one reads the papers you realize that none know what is going on. One guy says this, one says that, and the herd is lead by the nose by the funding. Who has the right to print the money? What agenda? Get in line or you are defunded. Science now is about agenda and sources are like a false priesthood who seeks power...namely taxes. What if I told you Kallender, or Mann was the source. What if I told you Spencer or Svensmark? Would it matter?
@seaplaneguy1 You failed to cite those papers. What papers are you referring to, and where is the contradiction? How do we know you're not just pulling this out of your ass? It sounds like you are, because you're not just being skeptical of the science, but you're throwing a bunch of political claims into it as well.That makes it seem like you're trying to project your bias into science that you don't like. If I am wrong, show me, and I'll be happy to change my mind. Question is, would you?
@GuitarNoob101 You want me to cite a paper that has false data? Where have you been? Google climategate and realize that most of the papers are based on false data, starting with non other than callender and Keeling who cherry pigs measure co2 levels to fit their BS.. IPCC used to have a midevil warming period...then they adopted Mann's hockey stick...a complete fraud. Try Svensmark. He has some good stuff. Spencer. Hundreds. How about the German government. 1/70th is radiative...
@seaplaneguy1 You're falling into a bad crowd here. Climategate is a joke - go watch Potholer54's video on it. I've even read the e-mails in question. They were taken blatantly out of context, and used as anti-science propaganda. As for the medieval warming period, that has been exaggerated in importance, and does not invalidate the evidence pointing towards anthropomorphic climate change in our time. As for the hockey stick, I need to research it to know anything specific.
@GuitarNoob101 Climategate a Joke? Clearly you are not in the slightest informed. Potholer 54 can't even explain how CO2 controls climate...some miracle molecule.
Do this: Explain to me with physics just how a greenhouse gas can heat up the planet after saturation. But instead of using CO2, use H2O. OK. Remember that H2O varies from 200 to over 20,000 ppm all over the place and that H2O is 26 times more potent than CO2, leaving CO2 a spec compared to H2O in potency.
@GuitarNoob101 Second, If you have not heard about the Mann Hockey stick, you are indeed living on another planet...serious. "hide the decline" Like saying you don't know who Elvis was, or the Beatles, or Clinton... When you said that I knew you are totally a kool-aid drinker to the max. Calling Climategate a joke and not knowing about the hockey stick is like having the 800 lbs gorilla crapping in your face and saying the weather is great. Shocking...zero creds.
@seaplaneguy1 The personal attacks just keep coming. Don't attack ME, you're getting it completely wrong.
I did not say that I have not heard of the hockey stick. I said "I need to research it to know anything specific," responding to your claim that it's fabricated. Stop projecting your bullshit assumptions onto me. Also, Potholer54 DOES explain CO2's importance, but talking to somebody unwilling to listen does little good, as you are plainly showing.
@seaplaneguy1 You seem convinced that climate change is some sort of conspiracy, but if you're willing to propose that the scientific community is in cahoots to deceive everyone, then I would reflect on motives. Who is in a better position to profit from deceit in this issue: A large, diverse, and very loosely organized group of scientists with little to no ties to business, or giant businesses whose massive profits are threatened by climate and pollution legislation? It's worth thinking about.
@GuitarNoob101 Conspiracy. Climategate is as close to a poster boy of conspiracy as it gets. Caught red handed. Loosely organized? Nonsense! Diverse? Not even close. Less than ten people... Funding...need I say more. Why not blame H2O? Because even the most clueless would not fall for that. But CO2...those even power plants. Power and control. Look up Morice Strong...Criminals all.
I stand to gain a lot when my engine comes out and much more so if I jumped on the insane AGW ban
Really, who do you think you're fooling? Go read the e-mails, THEN tell me it's evidence of a conspiracy.
The more things you try to tie into a conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true. So thousands of scientists are in on fabricating data across numerous fields - data that happens to have practical use, as well (funny) - without anyone talking?
@seaplaneguy1 How DO you think the scientific method works, anyhow? Do you really think we could have progressed this far if scientists were always in cahoots to make a profit off of falsities? Who profits off of science that DOESN'T work?
What's funny is that the situation you described - "Less than ten people... Funding..." - applies SO well to Exxon-Mobil, and doesn't apply at all to scientists. Who are these supposed scientists, and where is your evidence? Yes, Climategate is still a joke.
@GuitarNoob101 Exxon 2 million to deniers. 8 million to AGW pro. 4:1 in favor AGW. US gov. 2 BILLion for Pro AGW and zero for deniers per year. WAKE UP. 32 Billion for "scientists" over last 20 years, 36 for technology to "solve" the co2 non problem. miscel. total 79 BILLION pro AGW. How much to deniers? 2 million. 79 b to 2 m. 79,000:2 or 39500:1 spending. EXXon is actually PRO carbon trading...look it up. EXXON is part the the cartel. Carbon trading 2 tril. Need I say more?
@GuitarNoob101 Exxon 2 million to deniers. 8 million to AGW pro. 4:1 in favor AGW. US gov. 2 BILLion for Pro AGW and zero for deniers per year. WAKE UP. 32 Billion for "scientists" over last 20 years, 36 for technology to "solve" the co2 non problem. miscel. total 79 BILLION pro AGW. How much to deniers? 2 million. 79 b to 2 m. 79,000:2 or 39500:1 spending. EXXon is actually PRO carbon trading...look it up. EXXON is part the the cartel. Carbon trading 2 tril. Need I say more?
@GuitarNoob101 Exxon 2 million to deniers. 8 million to AGW pro. 4:1 in favor AGW. US gov. 2 BILLion for Pro AGW and zero for deniers per year. WAKE UP. 32 Billion for "scientists" over last 20 years, 36 for technology to "solve" the co2 non problem. miscel. total 79 BILLION pro AGW. How much to deniers? 2 million. 79 b to 2 m. 79,000:2 or 39500:1 spending. EXXon is actually PRO carbon trading...look it up. EXXON is part the the cartel. Carbon trading 2 tril. Need I say more?
@GuitarNoob101 Scientific method. I use it all the time. I solved problems that no auto company (Porsche, Mercedes, GM, Toyoda, etc) in the world could solve...using design of experiments...scientific method. I know how to bring the model and empirical data together for real predictive models grounded in the DATA,and not beliefs. What is called science today is nothing of the sort. It is politics. Total junk. Zero predictive value because it is not rooted in real data.
@seaplaneguy1 You have no idea what you're talking about. The science has mounds of real data. Just because you don't actively educate yourself about the real science, and only listen to Al Gores and politics doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know, I'm an environmental science student, I see it all the time. Models, data, more than you can count. Do some actual research and stop boring us with your uncredible opinions.
@GuitarNoob101 As I was saying...Control is the key. Do some reading for Pete sake. You are like a guy living at the Vatican not knowing who/what the Pope is. Please. Wake up. Goldman Sachs AND Exon can make hundreds of billions on carbon trading. Total fraud. Control energy, you control the world. That is why CO2...linked to energy...is targeted and not H2O.
When I am done, I will have the 80-90% of the fuel load gone from the average person's life. I speak the truth regardless...
@GuitarNoob101 You want me to cite a paper that has false data? Where have you been? Google climategate and realize that most of the papers are based on false data, starting with non other than callender and Keeling who cherry pigs measure co2 levels to fit their BS.. IPCC used to have a midevil warming period...then they adopted Mann's hockey stick...a complete fraud. Try Svensmark. He has some good stuff. Spencer. Hundreds. How about the German government. 1/70th is radiative...
@GuitarNoob101 Show me a source that shows CO2 drives temperature. How about one that shows H2O drives temperatures. h2o is 26 times more GHG than CO2, why the hush hush on H2O? CO2 is a trace gas and only 3% of total GHG, and man only makes 3% of that. .001 of the entire is driving the other .999??? Try finding me one source that tells us where the 97% of the CO2 comes from? None. Science is propaganda these days. The first paper on how clouds form was in 2006!!!! Wake up.
@seaplaneguy1 Obviously you clicked on this link just so you spread your ignorant banter. If you actually listened to this video and the 10 that follow, this guy explains all that you just asked... Nothing you said is accurate. One big flaw, which is actually quite known in the scientific community (something I already knew as an environmental science student) is that water vapor concentration is increased by heat. So you need a mechanism to cause heat in order to increase the H2O.
@seaplaneguy1 Also, there are always people like you that passionately attack the science presented. This science is in its infancy. There is an expectation of skeptics and passionate deniers like yourself. Has happened hundreds of times in the past with ideas like evolution, relativity, gravity, etc... Fortunately real science is unbiased and provides the real information. Usually it just takes a while for the lay person to catch up to the scientific consensus.
My first text book is on global warming, so this has been a help to my studies. I have brain damage yet I understand your videos well - a testament I think to your fine presenting skills! Thank you so much potholer for the time you give up to make these videos. Much respect sir.
People understand!!! Climate has always changed like everything that we know, There are no two seconds in the 13.7 billion years of the universes history that have been the same..You change, climate changes, and so does nature..According to nature things change very slow, this allows nature time to adapt..over thousands and millions of years..What humans have done is upset the balance of nature by changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere INCREDIBLY QUICKLY. As a result earth heats up.
shouldn't the focus of a large part of climate change research go into what actually happens in global cooling? seeing as a perpetual loop is created between carbon gasses and warming, there must be a trigger to send the loop backwards? or is THAT just due to changes in the earths orbit?
"Progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.
Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science--real science--is rarely controversial. . ..Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point." --David Harsanyi, Real Clear Politics
WMO accepts Climate Change is happening. If skeptics strongly disagree then they should file a counter research or just stfu since an hour of google searching doesn't compare to actual WMO researches.
SallyAmis you fucking idiot. Make your own blog debunking potholer or something instead of spamming his videos with non-objections. Oh thats right, you don't have anything on his videos, instead you just rock up here asking unrelated questions trying to give your fucking stupid ideas a platform. I repeat... Make a blog, or go home. I hope you do, then i'll spam your blog posts with unrelated comments and go home claiming victory when you ask me why i would post such weird shit.
The fact that CO2 in general might increase temperatures doesn't prove that the amount of CO2 added by burning fossil fuels actually does so in practice.
We know that a rise in temperature increases levels of CO2; we know that changes in CO2 in the past lagged increases in temperature; we know that man-made CO2 is not a major component of the total amount of greenhouse gases; and we know that there are powerful homeostatic mechanisms which regulate CO2.
@sallyamis =Please address these issues= Instead of spending all your time posting messages without bothering to watch the videos, please take the time to watch the videos, and then post. You write "we know...." but what you know seems to be at odds with what climate researchers know. You'll find sources and references in all my videos, which you can look up for yourself.
@potholer54 "The fact that CO2 in general might increase temperatures doesn't prove that the amount of CO2 added by burning fossil fuels actually does so in practice.
We know that a rise in temperature increases levels of CO2; we know that changes in CO2 in the past lagged increases in temperature; we know that man-made CO2 is not a major component of the total amount of greenhouse gases; and we know that there are powerful homeostatic mechanisms which regulate CO2."
I know this is not addressed to me, but allow me to answer.
Sallyamis have been posting numerous post, claiming all sorts of stuff,
which is fine, EXCEPT Sallyamis fails to provide sources and objective information to credit his claims.
Now potholer54 have already done so, so if anyone has any critique, they should point it directly at the flaws and holes in those sources and information, however people rather critiques overall topics without going into specifics. which helps no one.
@sallyamis =what proportion of global warming, if any, can be demonstrated to result from the CO2 produced by greenhouse warming?= The CO2 produced by global warming? Are you refering to positive feedback? If you are, then I'd have to find someone who's doing research in that area and check the figure. You could, of course, do the same thing if you're really interested in knowing.
@potholer54 >> If you are, then I'd have to find someone who's doing research in that area and check the figure.
Perhaps you could explain why you deliberately missed this crucial area in your videos. You wouldn't be trying to make a political point by selecting just the evidence that fits your conclusions, would be? It certainly seems that way.
@sallyamis =Perhaps you could explain why you deliberately missed this crucial area in your videos. = I haven't missed positive feedback at all, it's in the very first video. If you bothered to watch the videos before rushing to comment you'd know that. But if you're asking me for the exact amount of CO2 produced due to an increase of 1 deg C caused by a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels, I'd have to look it up. But I suspect you don't really want to know.
@potholer54 >> Instead of spending all your time posting messages without bothering to watch the videos
You have a habit of claiming to know things for which you have no evidence.
>>You'll find sources and references in all my videos
You don't address the obvious point that an increase in CO2 would lead to an increase in the rate of photosynthesis. You don't address the point about the lag in CO2. You don't address the issue of what proportion of total greenhouse gases are CO2.
@sallyamis the FACT that CO2 MIGHT increase? wait a second... i thought that was a fact? am i missing something? we know that manmade CO2 is not a major component? who knows and where can i find that information? and which homeostatic mechanisms are at work to overwhelm the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, better yet, which natural mechanisms are at work to keep man made CO2 levels from causing an effect?
@sallyamis CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. The amount of warming attributable to CO2 can be measured through the absorption frequencies it absorbs at, a small band centered at about 15 micrometers. CO2 is released and absorbed by the ocean via Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal. As humans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere the partial pressure of CO2 increases. That is why the oceans are currently absorbing CO2 during a warming period, and that is why they are currently decreasing in pH.
Harries, John E. (2001) " Increases in Greenhouse Forcing Inferred from the Outgoing Longwave Radiation Spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"
Griggs, J.A. (2006) "Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS"
Wang, Kaicin (2009) " Global Atmospheric Downward Longwave Radiation Over Land Surface Under All-Sky Conditions from 1973 to 2008"
The simple truth is that heat causes changes in the Co2 level, instead of the other way around. There is now sound evidence to prove it. Sure, we inject some into the atmosphere, but its nothing to be concerned about. When the earth warms, it causes the oceans to release suspended Co2. And the amount it releases dwarfs what we put in by a freakish amount. When it cools again, there is a contraction of Co2. Now quit sending me messages. :p
@DNAz5646 Pretty sure youtube doesn't have anything to do with editor's lack of attention...
Could you please tell me if I'm clear (proper english) about what i previously talked about("legends and axe's descriptions on graphs at 9:19): is it really how you call it or there's a better way of saying it? thx
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
@vechorik There is nothing wrong with NASA data. It is wrong for Mr Taylor to focus on a tiny subset of data to allow him to distort the real truth of climate change. Google “James Taylor Deltoid” and see for yourself. Mr Taylor works for a right-wing public policy think tank (Heartland Institute). The Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the science linking cigarette smoke to health risks, and lobby against government reforms. Now their target is climate change.
@MrKrisRobbo, I believe in saving the earth. I also believe "climate change" is part of United Nations Agenda 21. Everyone should study Agenda 21 to understand the goals of current politics.
This is a sceptic attack to create public doubt to delay or prevent action on climate change. If you search “Climate Change” in YouTube and look at video comments, vechorik’s will likely appear. Mr Taylor is not a climate scientists and he has deceived the public by cherry picking data to fit is preconceived claims. If you want to know more about Mr Taylor, go to Google and separately search “James Taylor Deltoid” and “wiki heartland institute” - click on the first results.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
Read up on the psychology of conformity. Like the Asch Conformity Experiments. Simply put, people just don't rock the boat even when there is nothing at stake and the correct answer is obvious.
You are probaby familiar with some history, like the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Hitler, Senator Joe McCarthy, etc. How else do you explain these events? 100 years from now people may have global warming added to the list.
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.
Because mynameismatt2010, your comment lead me to believe that you thought more volcanoes were going off around the world with greater intensity then before. If that were the case, it would have a cooling effect for up to 7 years. Instead we see a gradual warming trend. The numbers don't add up for me.
A minor correction. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would not be "as cold as the Moon," because Earth's atmosphere keeps the temperature more or less constant. The Moon is either extremely cold in shadow or extremely hot in sunlight. The greenhouse effect keeps the Earth about 50 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it would otherwise be.
Otherwise, this is truly an excellent and objective discussion of the scientific issues. Thank you! On to video #2.
We cannot afford to deny climate change any longer. If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people.
I disagree with the premise that carbon gasses produced by man are significant enough to become the tipping point on the metaphorical scale. It simply doesn't make sense that all of the emmissions of mankind are affecting the climate when all the emmisions of the countless volcanic eruptions and wildfires have barely dented the cycle. A single volcanic eruption has the potential to emit as much of these gasses as we have recorded and estimated man emiting, throughout history.
@mynameismatt2010 Volcanos also release gases that have a cooling effect. Your repeating lines from right-wing politics, which makes it obvious to me you haven't studied the science at all.
See unlike you i actually have done research on the science. The amount of carbon gasses released in a volcanic eruption is so astronomically high that there is no way to discount their effect on the enviroment, thier natural effect that has nothing to do with mankind. If you believe that there are enough of these magic cooling gasses in a volcanic eruption to offset its warming potential why isn't the government using these to offset mans warming?
@BaboonJihad There are three problems with this right off the bat, the first is that it's on the EPA's website. The second is that it is only refering to prehistoric eruptions and the third is the assumption that the only "greenhouse gas" emitted by volcanos is CO2 when in fact they emit a pluthera of "greenhouse gasses." Carbon gasses emmitted by large volcanic eruptions far surpass human carbon gas output.
Also, they said the cooling is very short term so that's your cooling gas theory gone.
@mynameismatt2010 3 problems with yours. First you seem to assume the EPA is invalid without giving me a reason to doubt them. Second you assume more volcanoes are going off now then ever before with no reason to believe this. Third it shows temperature changes in correlation to eruptions.
Your a retard. I said volcanoes have a cooling effect, nothing more. Its not my fault if you saw some grand theory behind it, they do cool the atmosphere.
@BaboonJihad 1Do i really have to cite reasons not to be entirely trusting of the folly posted on the most corrupt government organizations website?
2I assume that volcanos are going to go off at a fairly consistent rate over time. Which means that the cooling effect left behind would wear off and we'd be left with a build up of "greenhouse gasses."
3Not long term.
Your comment had the implication of stating that a cooling effect from a volcano negates any warming effect. I simply debunked that.
@BaboonJihad 1 The EPA has repeatedly released its official statement based on incorrect reports and science that hasn't been peer reviewed. That is why i will not blindly assume the things on its website are correct.
2. How exactly does a constant amount of valconic eruptions mean that the current warming is not a result from it? Elaborate on that so i can see just what you're trying to say.
3. Looking at the short term effects of volcanic eruptions they found cooling, but they don't mention
@mynameismatt2010 Then its your job to prove it wrong. Simply saying "Its the EPA" doesn't cut it for me.
If volcanoes have been consistently erupting throughout history then I don't see how a sudden spike in temperature could be a result of volcanoes. Unless I'm missing something, I'd think you'd need another ingredient.
Yes they can cause long-term heating effects because the other gasses linger in the atmosphere longer. I never denied that.
@BaboonJihad Now i understand your confusion. You think there has been a "sudden spike in temprature." Tempratures are getting warmer, but gradually, the way natural warming would be. Even if there was a sudden spike it would be explained by the cooling effect of the volcanos that have erupted dissipating and giving way to the longer lasting warming effect.
@mynameismatt2010 That still requires that more volcanoes were going off then ever before in recorded history. I have no reason to believe that is going on.
@BaboonJihad What makes you think that that would require more volcanic activity than ever before? That really doesn't make sense. My initial claim was that Volcanos could be the cause of the initial tip in the metaphorical balance, and that those eruptions produce so much carbon gas that man produced carbon gasses are irrelivant in the grand scheme of the natural cycle of earths climate. That doesn't require increased volcanic activity at all.
@mynameismatt2010 Thats a nice theory, but none of the numbers add up. Volcanic activity has not increased, human activity has. Then there is a sudden global spike in temperature. Humans release 135 times the CO2 as volcanoes today ( news(DOT)discovery(DOT)com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627(DOT)html )
@BaboonJihad Look, there has been no "sudden spike" that you keep refering to. Volcanic activity doesn't have to increase for my theory to be effective. Human activity is minute at best. CO2 isn't the only carbon gass that causes warming, and it isn't the one that is most effective at warming.
The numbers do add up!
Explain why you insist that my theory would only work with increased volcanic activity, even though that doesn't seem to be necessary at all.
@mynameismatt2010 I've already explained several times and posted scientific sources. Its time for you to present some sort of evidence that; there is no sudden spike in temperature (which even the scientists who don't agree with AWG theory accept) or that volcanic activity is responsible. Your just making empty assertions and wasting my time at this point.
@BaboonJihad Nobody accepts a sudden spike in temprature. There has been warming, but not at a rate any more rapid than is to be expected. You haven't posted one legitimate reason volcanic activity would have to increase to cause warming, you simply repeat yourself without offering reasons for what you say. I'm not making empty assertions i'm stating that there is a real and legitimate role for volcanos in global warming that is more significant than the role of mankind.
@BaboonJihad You haven't posted anything relating to why my theory would require increased volcanic activity.
What evidence would you like? I didn't get my theory from some russian study or some collegiate consensus. It is my personal theory that is based on my research over several years. My claims are all i'm making, and if you can refute them i'll change my theory. As it stands though it makes sense.
BaboonJihad the long term effects. Now if we assume that what they said was right then there would be an initial cooling from volcanic eruptions, and subsequent warming after the cooling effect has dissipated. Carbon gasses have a long term efftect on the climate and according to this website the gasses that cause the cooling are short term.
Volcanos also release gases that have a cooling effect. What was the point of saying that then if not to say that the cooling effect negates the warming?
The science can't be settled that fast and there are many questions needing definite answers before one can make forecasts regarding AGW.
1) What is the climate sensitivity? Different studies put it between 0.5 and 10 degrees pre doubled CO2. 2) What are other factors and how they track historically.3) One can't simply adjoin proxy record to current record, You have to test if it's currently recording the right temperature.
Willie Soon, one of the scientific figures who claimed to be skeptical about climate change, has admitted to being paid more than $1 million in the past decade by major U.S. oil and coal companies. June 29, 2011
A number of errors in the video. 1) Still is NO " AGW consensus" among scientist, 2) The tropospheric anomaly has NOT been resolved, 3) Your positive feedback CO2 rolling ball--quantification? LOL, 4) Many other assumptions of the AGW are just that, the amount of man-made CO2 IN THE AIR is around 5% of total CO2 (see isotopic delta-12-C analysis), the GHG effect of CO2 is infinitesimal, CH4 is in parts per BILLION! (80%natural/ just 20% man) LOL, cloud cover not in AGW models, etc., etc.
Dr. de Jager is a renowned solar physicist and author of several peer-reviewed studies examining the solar influence upon climate. In response to the recent press release of three US studies indicating the Sun is entering a period of exceptionally low activity, he references his publications of 2010 and prior indicating that this Grand Solar Minimum will be similar to the Maunder Minimum which caused the LIA, and prediction that this "deep minimum" will last until approximately the year 2100.
Numerous scientists and climatologists point to the terrible flaw that the IPCC analysis totally ignores. The impact upon climate of solar activity, water vapor, and effects of cloud formation on global air pressure, temperature and winds. This is poorly contrived science being used to scare/scam people into a tax that will rule life on Earth. Q.Do any of you think taxing CO2 will alter its output substantially? Q.Will altering our CO2 have any measurable effect? Q.Who stands to gain from a tax
@Richard482 Well it is kinda funny, I just don't think taxing CO2 will change its output or have any real effect other than to line the pockets of a few people, and break many others. Back to the science, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes it causes warming. Is it alarming or a big threat? I have yet to see any evidence of it, all of the alarming announcements I have heard have been quickly retracted once they are examined. Not to sure what to do with CO2, it will be created as the pop. grows.
As expected they don't mention the Sun, Cosmic Rays, or clouds. So how can you make sweeping statements about climate when you leave out the main drivers of it? What a political institution they have become, amazing what money will do. Sad to see the scientific method sabotaged and twisted as is being done by the Royal Society. Obviously they are just a branch of the IPCC now.
@TheKickerboy99 "amazing what money will do" Not to do with the Royal Society but the argument being made is still the same. Link below. You haven't mentioned the results of that survey which you pointed out to me.
German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have released their latest international survey of climate scientists. The data are reported here//coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf I’ve spent a little time with this report.
@TheKickerboy99 I had look at that report. You even pasted the bit at the end "I’ve spent a little time with this report lol. Number 21 of the survey: How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?
1: not at all. 7:very much. The average was 5.678378 which could be rounded to 5.7. So the majority agree with this statement. So what's your point?
I just wish to correct a point made in the video. While it is true that corrections have been made to the troposphere data, it is NOT true that it resolved all of the problems concerning temperature differences between there and the surface. There still remain significant discrepancies in the mid troposphere decadal trends that have not been resolved. This is very significant and should not be overlooked!
@bricefabber =it is NOT true that it resolved all of the problems concerning temperature differences between there and the surface.= I don't remember saying that, but please tell me where in the video I said it. Thanks.
@potholer54 Well, I'm a bit surprised you're taking the easy way out with this one. Yes, you didn't *literally* say it, but human speech involves a certain amount of implication within any particular statement. Your statement that (at around 5:30) "the discovery knocked out the final piece of evidence that contradicted global warming", talking about this issue. Your statement unequivocally implies the issues has been resolved and taken care of, while that is definitely not true.
How can the earth's surface layer molecules absorb the short wave insolation whereas the atmospheric gases' molecules can't? Thanks
mjconley 1 week ago
The political/business response is what destroys the argument in my mind. For example, why is it that only developed nations are to financially punished while developing nations like China who treat their environment like sewer, get off scott free. It is just redistributing the nation's wealth from the wealth creators to the wealth spongers without an ounce of environmentalism in play.
NakedWombatStuff 1 month ago in playlist Climate Change
@NakedWombatStuff hint: china is an autocracy with a nuclear arsenal, that might be why they "get away with it"
afaultytoaster 3 weeks ago
@afaultytoaster China has poisoned theri environment. The sky is just a thick haze of pollution, their water is unusable, their children are being born deformed. China treats their nation, their people and their ecology like a sewer.
NakedWombatStuff 3 weeks ago
@NakedWombatStuff fascinating but besides the point
afaultytoaster 3 weeks ago
@afaultytoaster I'm not surprised a person showing a flag of a regime that murdered millions of people doesn't care. Global Warming is a scam really. It happens naturally. Just another scam.
NakedWombatStuff 3 weeks ago
@NakedWombatStuff classic ad hominem attack
afaultytoaster 3 weeks ago
@NakedWombatStuff Funnily enough, if rich countries have been living the good life cooking the planet with fossil fuels for decades, it's not surprising that poorer ones think theyu deserve a turn, especially if the rich ones are still doing it and the poorer have huge reserves that they could exploit. Even if a *valid* conclusion happens to benefit a particular politics, it remains valid. MAny Leftists often claim it's a conspiracy of rich countries against the poor!
PeteWatts48 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new book to check out on Amazon !
"The Pyramids' Mysteries Resolved: Scientific Solutions to Earth's Magnetic Field and Climate Change"
bercmag 1 month ago in playlist Climate Change
Bulgroz99's question is not excellent, as the video gives an example of how the runaway mechanisms may have been triggered before humans. I am curious the vid stated that humans arent influencing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Burning oil, or any hydrocarbon produces water molucules as well as carbon dioxide. I guess we increase methane by extensive cattle farming which fart it (yes really!) but I am wondering if our use of it as a fuel, releasing heat, CO2 and H2O, is even worse?
PeteWatts48 1 month ago
@PeteWatts48 So you look at a cyclic change that has happened thousands of times in the past, yet this time it is our fault but the other numerous times it happened by itself, does that make any sense to you?
Bulgroz99 3 weeks ago
@Bulgroz99 Houses burn down multiple times through accidents, but if you see someone squirting gasoline in through a window and throwing a mtach in, it is reasonable to deduce on that occasion human agency was responsible. The historic cycle is of ice age then recovery, not saunas. The earth has already warmed up naturally and human acticvity is pushing it even higher.. We are basting an already feverish patient.. Forest fires are natural, but take care with campfires!
PeteWatts48 3 weeks ago
@PeteWatts48 This is nonsense. If your house burned down 200 times in the past with regular intervals and you knew no one was around, would you suspect an arsonist the 201th time it happened?
Bulgroz99 4 days ago
@Bulgroz99 I think 200 may be overstated?We are already in an unusually warm patch, so cyclical activity would expecty cooling, not warming. The point is we can *see* "arsonists"- ourselves - setting fire to the house, we dont need to speculate. We know we are adding large amounts of heat and greenhouses gases to the atmosphere and we shoud expect non-cyclical warming. If you set fire to a house, you *expect* it to burn down. AGW deniers need to explain why it *wouldnt* happen!
PeteWatts48 2 days ago
@PeteWatts48 We are adding minute amounts of heat and CO2 to the atmosphere, compared to mother earth herself and father sun, we are insignificant in the bigger picture. With your logic atheists should explain why there is no god, and people who get arrested should explain why they are innocent right? Reverse burden of evidence I believe its called.
Bulgroz99 1 day ago
@PeteWatts48 200 times is an understatement, it happened five time in 400.000 years, that means 57.000 times in earths history.
Bulgroz99 1 day ago
@Bulgroz99 Er no, actually. While I acknowledge the first figfures are correct, you cant assume the cycle has been continual for the whole of earth's history! It didnt freexe over when it was still molten for a start, and at it has also been "snowball earth" - frozen over completely for millions of years continuoously, Do yopu really think hundreds of climatological geeks couldnt have thought of such a facile objection s this? What is the evidence that *would* convinve you of AGW?
PeteWatts48 17 hours ago
@PeteWatts48 But it has happened far more than 200 which was my point. Look at sediment samples, they go much further back. I think the small group of "scientists" in the UN, who claim to speak on behalf of every climatologist in the world, may have a political agenda. What would convince me? Lets see: We add an insignificant amount to GW (0.28% factoring in water vapor). We have a sinus curve following the exact same cycle as it did thousands of times before. How about nothing?
Bulgroz99 13 hours ago
@Bulgroz99 And my point is, iif these facile observations were so compelling, how come scores of very geeky climatologists dont buyt it? AGW is accerptred by the greeat majhority of *all* climatologists, not just UN ones, who claim only to speak from the data FOr a belief to be rational, there has to be at least hypothetical evidence that would make it change, Youir poliytically paranoid simplistic comments are akin to the crass opinions of creationists parodying evolution.
PeteWatts48 6 hours ago
@PeteWatts48 who are all these hypothetical geeky climatologists? Where did they get their data from? You are the creationist here, you are just repeating the same nonsense "50 million flies can't be wrong" you heard from others, instead of looking at the numbers and logic yourself. If you call yourself a scientist, why don't you use your own brain instead of just retelling what others are claiming? Before Kepler and Leonardo, the earth was center of the universe, it was a "fact".
Bulgroz99 1 hour ago
@Bulgroz99 =a cyclic change that has happened thousands of times in the past= Just out of curiosity, what do you think caused the Earth to warm and cool over long periods in the past if it was not CO2, as geologists have established?
potholer54 12 hours ago
Comment removed
Bulgroz99 8 hours ago
Comment removed
Bulgroz99 8 hours ago
@potholer54 Frankly I am not sure what causes this. My guess would be that it is part of a bigger cycle. Perhaps because of our solar-systems path around the milky way, a secondary solar cycle, or two or more of these natural cycles interfering with each other, sometimes canceling out the effects, sometimes enhancing them. I believe CO2 is released into the atmosphere as a result of this natural cycle, it is not causing it.
Bulgroz99 7 hours ago
@Bulgroz99 =Frankly I am not sure what causes this= Thanks for the honest answer. I ask, because yours is a commonly-held belief that temperature must be due to something else -- anything but CO2. Even though 100-year-old experiments show a physical reason why CO2 warms the Earth, and a clear correlation between CO2 and temp over the last 500 million years, you are still hoping something else might show up. Why are you so resistant to the CO2 explanation?
potholer54 8 minutes ago
So how did this exact same change and "runaway" mechanism get triggered and reversed hundreds or thousands of times in the past before humans even existed?
Bulgroz99 1 month ago
@Bulgroz99 An excellent question, but perhaps commenting on a three-year-old video is not the best way to get a response. You should try a PM from his channel page for a full response to your question, perhaps. Peace.
jahbabylon 1 month ago in playlist Climate Change
@Bulgroz99 7:53
Z4RUM4N 1 month ago in playlist Climate Change
@Bulgroz99 =So how did this exact same change and "runaway" mechanism get triggered and reversed hundreds or thousands of times in the past before humans even existed?= As jahbabylon says, better to message me rather than pose a question on an old video. Long-term warming in the past was triggered by CO2 (and methane, which breaks down into CO2), and it was reduced when weathering dissolved CO2 and locked it into limestone rocks.
potholer54 4 days ago
This is a good video. It explains eloquently(to me anyway) why the "skeptics" don't want to see or can't see.
It is not just the sum total of what we do that scares me it is this runaway effect that follows
We have left it too late people. We simply do not know what the margins are but we do know that there is a climate shift happening right now and we blew it. Enjoy the ride cos it will be bumpy
23peacefrog 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
climategate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
MrTranscend1 1 month ago in playlist Climate Change
They did compensate for the drift of the satellite, but they made a sign-error, in effect doubling the effect of the drift. When other scientists corrected this mistake, the troposphere also showed a warming trend. Just saying they didn't forget about sat. drift, but they didn't correct for it properly. Good videos!
bnightm 2 months ago in playlist Climate Change
The "scam" is the corporate propaganda that deniers consume. Read about garbage the Koch oil billionaire brothers and other vested interests have been spreading. EVERY ONE of our respected scientific institutions has been telling us that human climate change is the real deal and the consequences are NOT GOOD! Business-as-usual is dangerous. It puts our future generations at risk. Here's a good short film.
Google: The Denial Machine Video Frontline
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Global warming denial is definitely a bad rabbit to follow down the hole, but alarm-ism on either side of the debate is counter-productive. Maybe it is a conspiracy involving the koch brothers, but al gore stands to make a lot of money if the us government buys into his hype. So it works both ways, we need to work towards energy independence as well as energy that does not produce waste carbon. Nuclear seems like a safe short term option. Are u for that in order to reduce c02?
ndelliott138 2 months ago
@ndelliott138 Alarmism? If telling people that an environmenal crisis is on the way is "alarmism" then SOUND THE ALARM! It is occuring and the consequences are NOT good.
Gore has NOTHING to do with the science. Profits from his books and movie go to fighting the problem. The vested interests want you to think it's all his idea but it isn't. He tells us what the experts say while the Koch brothers spin out propaganda. Know the difference?
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Also....there are teams around the world working around the clock to produce sustained fusion. If they can do that, we have enough energy in the oceans to power us even after our sun destroys the planet. If all the energy spent scaring us one way or the other was put into one of those projects, we could have been spending one cent per giga watt/hr.
ndelliott138 2 months ago
@ndelliott138 Nuclear startup is slow and VERY expensive, waste disposal is problematic, and disasters happen. No thanks. Fusion is a pipe dream; not viable.
Don't fall into the conspiracy trap thinking that "the government" or Al Gore is out to scare us. That's baseless and uninformed. Vested interests "muffle" the needed alarm.
Governments are us. We need to establish laws, regs, and policies to make pollution more expensive and greener activities cheaper. Support candidates that "get it".
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
@ndelliott138 ??????? How can we have enough power in the oceans AFTER the sun destroys the planet?????
jahbabylon 1 month ago in playlist Climate Change
This has been flagged as spam show
History demonstrates that warmer is healthier. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century. Archaeological evidence shows that people lived longer, enjoyed better nutrition, and multiplied more rapidly than during epochs of cold.
ItsTheSunStupid 2 months ago
i have no doubt that the earth is warming
not sure if its man caused
spenore 2 months ago
@spenore
Good, you're halfway there! :) Whats makes you doubt its man made?
TheSaltyAdmiral 2 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@TheSaltyAdmiral no doubt that man helps the earth warm i just dont fell that the evidence points to it being nature or man but there is a whole lot of evidence for the man caused warming id rather continue to try to help the solution and wait for more evidence through certainly we can help the problem to get better
spenore 2 months ago
Why don't all the denier clowns understand that regardless of whether CO2 causes warming or not (it does), there is still the issue of ocean acidification which is just as important? Oh yeah, because that's apparently the "backup" plan the Warmists have come up with if the public don't buy the global warming "hoax". Lol.
PR4ET0RI4N 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Deniers love WattsUpwithThat which is funded by big oil. We need to get off of the fossil fuels and start using alternatives. I'm willing to pay so should the deniers
MarkNobs 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For any Australians, please sign this petition in the hope the government will fund renewable energy to achieve zero carbon emissions in the not too distant future - aycc.org.au/repoweraustralia/ (it should be the first link in the search) -thankyou, Australian Youth Climate Coalition. Your interest in this issue will benefit humanity and all other species.
goodnessgracious91 3 months ago
beware the youtube climate denial trolls
watch?v=fXkVpW2r0bQ
TheElasticJesusRez 3 months ago in playlist Climate Change
1:24 so cute!!!!!! he loves the warm sidewalk!
anabanana35 3 months ago
Sadly nothing will ever be done about Global Warming because our corporations are controlled by dirty energy companies. :[
Paulsasleepwalker 3 months ago
Yes, and then we have "skeptics" like Penn Jillete (in Penn and Teller) telling us "intelligent" people that global warming isnt true, its just a correlation causation argument.
Causing about 10% of the atheist community to stop believing in it.
Seriously. Its hard to find actuall atheist skeptics these days.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Because most people think being a skeptic means not going with the mainstream ideas. Skepticism isn't something that';s so simple as looking at the popular message and going, "I think you're wrong!" It actually takes some skill, and some understanding of the topic you're being 'skeptic' about. I think skepticism should be taught in sociology classes in school.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi ""Because most people think being a skeptic means not going with the mainstream ideas"" That probably sums it up yeah , :)
I agree, it should be taught in school The only problem is that soon as someone tries to teach it, someone else will call it an ideology.
gulbirk 3 months ago
STUPID ASS RACIST!!!! STUPID ASS JESUS PRAYING IDIOT... IDIOT GAY!!!!
NorwegianMuslimGirl 4 months ago
@NorwegianMuslimGirl who are you directing your rushed comment to.
vinsong 3 months ago
@vinsong
No one.. i was just made, and i felt the need to write that down..
NorwegianMuslimGirl 3 months ago
@NorwegianMuslimGirl mad at...? potholer? nicest person on tube...
vinsong 3 months ago
@vinsong
No,no,no! Don't missunderstand, i had personal issus with things that i deal with in my life. This was the first page that popped out in youtube, so i thought maby if i wrote down all my anger i would forget about it.. then i realised i posted it, and now suddently people think am mad at him, Never watched his video, so i can't jugde the man, but he has never done me any harm :/
NorwegianMuslimGirl 3 months ago
This video does not even begin to get the physics correct. What happens to that gas when it gets hit by the frequency? Absorbs. Ok. Fine. If it is absorbed then it no longer exists. Look up "height to extinction" and realize that CO2 extinquishes at 380 in about 40 ft. When you add more CO2 that height lowers. So what. That gas mol is in the convective layer and mixes. Once you put 20-50 ppm CO2 it saturates in 63 miles. No more heat trapping, just lower down. Video sucks...
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 Sources, or you're just trolling.
GuitarNoob101 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Said the same to Galileo. When one reads the papers you realize that none know what is going on. One guy says this, one says that, and the herd is lead by the nose by the funding. Who has the right to print the money? What agenda? Get in line or you are defunded. Science now is about agenda and sources are like a false priesthood who seeks power...namely taxes. What if I told you Kallender, or Mann was the source. What if I told you Spencer or Svensmark? Would it matter?
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 You failed to cite those papers. What papers are you referring to, and where is the contradiction? How do we know you're not just pulling this out of your ass? It sounds like you are, because you're not just being skeptical of the science, but you're throwing a bunch of political claims into it as well.That makes it seem like you're trying to project your bias into science that you don't like. If I am wrong, show me, and I'll be happy to change my mind. Question is, would you?
GuitarNoob101 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 You want me to cite a paper that has false data? Where have you been? Google climategate and realize that most of the papers are based on false data, starting with non other than callender and Keeling who cherry pigs measure co2 levels to fit their BS.. IPCC used to have a midevil warming period...then they adopted Mann's hockey stick...a complete fraud. Try Svensmark. He has some good stuff. Spencer. Hundreds. How about the German government. 1/70th is radiative...
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 You're falling into a bad crowd here. Climategate is a joke - go watch Potholer54's video on it. I've even read the e-mails in question. They were taken blatantly out of context, and used as anti-science propaganda. As for the medieval warming period, that has been exaggerated in importance, and does not invalidate the evidence pointing towards anthropomorphic climate change in our time. As for the hockey stick, I need to research it to know anything specific.
GuitarNoob101 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Climategate a Joke? Clearly you are not in the slightest informed. Potholer 54 can't even explain how CO2 controls climate...some miracle molecule.
Do this: Explain to me with physics just how a greenhouse gas can heat up the planet after saturation. But instead of using CO2, use H2O. OK. Remember that H2O varies from 200 to over 20,000 ppm all over the place and that H2O is 26 times more potent than CO2, leaving CO2 a spec compared to H2O in potency.
.
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Second, If you have not heard about the Mann Hockey stick, you are indeed living on another planet...serious. "hide the decline" Like saying you don't know who Elvis was, or the Beatles, or Clinton... When you said that I knew you are totally a kool-aid drinker to the max. Calling Climategate a joke and not knowing about the hockey stick is like having the 800 lbs gorilla crapping in your face and saying the weather is great. Shocking...zero creds.
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 The personal attacks just keep coming. Don't attack ME, you're getting it completely wrong.
I did not say that I have not heard of the hockey stick. I said "I need to research it to know anything specific," responding to your claim that it's fabricated. Stop projecting your bullshit assumptions onto me. Also, Potholer54 DOES explain CO2's importance, but talking to somebody unwilling to listen does little good, as you are plainly showing.
Who is drinking the kool-aid, I wonder?
GuitarNoob101 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 You seem convinced that climate change is some sort of conspiracy, but if you're willing to propose that the scientific community is in cahoots to deceive everyone, then I would reflect on motives. Who is in a better position to profit from deceit in this issue: A large, diverse, and very loosely organized group of scientists with little to no ties to business, or giant businesses whose massive profits are threatened by climate and pollution legislation? It's worth thinking about.
GuitarNoob101 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Conspiracy. Climategate is as close to a poster boy of conspiracy as it gets. Caught red handed. Loosely organized? Nonsense! Diverse? Not even close. Less than ten people... Funding...need I say more. Why not blame H2O? Because even the most clueless would not fall for that. But CO2...those even power plants. Power and control. Look up Morice Strong...Criminals all.
I stand to gain a lot when my engine comes out and much more so if I jumped on the insane AGW ban
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 Climategate. Joke. Corporate propaganda. They're synonymous.
Really, who do you think you're fooling? Go read the e-mails, THEN tell me it's evidence of a conspiracy.
The more things you try to tie into a conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true. So thousands of scientists are in on fabricating data across numerous fields - data that happens to have practical use, as well (funny) - without anyone talking?
GuitarNoob101 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 How DO you think the scientific method works, anyhow? Do you really think we could have progressed this far if scientists were always in cahoots to make a profit off of falsities? Who profits off of science that DOESN'T work?
What's funny is that the situation you described - "Less than ten people... Funding..." - applies SO well to Exxon-Mobil, and doesn't apply at all to scientists. Who are these supposed scientists, and where is your evidence? Yes, Climategate is still a joke.
GuitarNoob101 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Exxon 2 million to deniers. 8 million to AGW pro. 4:1 in favor AGW. US gov. 2 BILLion for Pro AGW and zero for deniers per year. WAKE UP. 32 Billion for "scientists" over last 20 years, 36 for technology to "solve" the co2 non problem. miscel. total 79 BILLION pro AGW. How much to deniers? 2 million. 79 b to 2 m. 79,000:2 or 39500:1 spending. EXXon is actually PRO carbon trading...look it up. EXXON is part the the cartel. Carbon trading 2 tril. Need I say more?
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuitarNoob101 Exxon 2 million to deniers. 8 million to AGW pro. 4:1 in favor AGW. US gov. 2 BILLion for Pro AGW and zero for deniers per year. WAKE UP. 32 Billion for "scientists" over last 20 years, 36 for technology to "solve" the co2 non problem. miscel. total 79 BILLION pro AGW. How much to deniers? 2 million. 79 b to 2 m. 79,000:2 or 39500:1 spending. EXXon is actually PRO carbon trading...look it up. EXXON is part the the cartel. Carbon trading 2 tril. Need I say more?
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuitarNoob101 Exxon 2 million to deniers. 8 million to AGW pro. 4:1 in favor AGW. US gov. 2 BILLion for Pro AGW and zero for deniers per year. WAKE UP. 32 Billion for "scientists" over last 20 years, 36 for technology to "solve" the co2 non problem. miscel. total 79 BILLION pro AGW. How much to deniers? 2 million. 79 b to 2 m. 79,000:2 or 39500:1 spending. EXXon is actually PRO carbon trading...look it up. EXXON is part the the cartel. Carbon trading 2 tril. Need I say more?
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Scientific method. I use it all the time. I solved problems that no auto company (Porsche, Mercedes, GM, Toyoda, etc) in the world could solve...using design of experiments...scientific method. I know how to bring the model and empirical data together for real predictive models grounded in the DATA,and not beliefs. What is called science today is nothing of the sort. It is politics. Total junk. Zero predictive value because it is not rooted in real data.
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 You have no idea what you're talking about. The science has mounds of real data. Just because you don't actively educate yourself about the real science, and only listen to Al Gores and politics doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know, I'm an environmental science student, I see it all the time. Models, data, more than you can count. Do some actual research and stop boring us with your uncredible opinions.
triphip2 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 As I was saying...Control is the key. Do some reading for Pete sake. You are like a guy living at the Vatican not knowing who/what the Pope is. Please. Wake up. Goldman Sachs AND Exon can make hundreds of billions on carbon trading. Total fraud. Control energy, you control the world. That is why CO2...linked to energy...is targeted and not H2O.
When I am done, I will have the 80-90% of the fuel load gone from the average person's life. I speak the truth regardless...
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 You want me to cite a paper that has false data? Where have you been? Google climategate and realize that most of the papers are based on false data, starting with non other than callender and Keeling who cherry pigs measure co2 levels to fit their BS.. IPCC used to have a midevil warming period...then they adopted Mann's hockey stick...a complete fraud. Try Svensmark. He has some good stuff. Spencer. Hundreds. How about the German government. 1/70th is radiative...
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@GuitarNoob101 Show me a source that shows CO2 drives temperature. How about one that shows H2O drives temperatures. h2o is 26 times more GHG than CO2, why the hush hush on H2O? CO2 is a trace gas and only 3% of total GHG, and man only makes 3% of that. .001 of the entire is driving the other .999??? Try finding me one source that tells us where the 97% of the CO2 comes from? None. Science is propaganda these days. The first paper on how clouds form was in 2006!!!! Wake up.
seaplaneguy1 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 Obviously you clicked on this link just so you spread your ignorant banter. If you actually listened to this video and the 10 that follow, this guy explains all that you just asked... Nothing you said is accurate. One big flaw, which is actually quite known in the scientific community (something I already knew as an environmental science student) is that water vapor concentration is increased by heat. So you need a mechanism to cause heat in order to increase the H2O.
triphip2 4 months ago
@seaplaneguy1 Also, there are always people like you that passionately attack the science presented. This science is in its infancy. There is an expectation of skeptics and passionate deniers like yourself. Has happened hundreds of times in the past with ideas like evolution, relativity, gravity, etc... Fortunately real science is unbiased and provides the real information. Usually it just takes a while for the lay person to catch up to the scientific consensus.
triphip2 4 months ago
My first text book is on global warming, so this has been a help to my studies. I have brain damage yet I understand your videos well - a testament I think to your fine presenting skills! Thank you so much potholer for the time you give up to make these videos. Much respect sir.
bagospannerz 4 months ago
People understand!!! Climate has always changed like everything that we know, There are no two seconds in the 13.7 billion years of the universes history that have been the same..You change, climate changes, and so does nature..According to nature things change very slow, this allows nature time to adapt..over thousands and millions of years..What humans have done is upset the balance of nature by changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere INCREDIBLY QUICKLY. As a result earth heats up.
timdnwd 4 months ago in playlist Climate Change
shouldn't the focus of a large part of climate change research go into what actually happens in global cooling? seeing as a perpetual loop is created between carbon gasses and warming, there must be a trigger to send the loop backwards? or is THAT just due to changes in the earths orbit?
FlashMeterRed 4 months ago
Great series here which I have linked and cited in a number of places already. Thankyou, Potholer54 - much appreciated. :-)
Astrostevo 4 months ago
"Progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.
Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science--real science--is rarely controversial. . ..Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point." --David Harsanyi, Real Clear Politics
hookalakah 5 months ago
WMO accepts Climate Change is happening. If skeptics strongly disagree then they should file a counter research or just stfu since an hour of google searching doesn't compare to actual WMO researches.
tyrfing214 5 months ago in playlist Climate Change
SallyAmis you fucking idiot. Make your own blog debunking potholer or something instead of spamming his videos with non-objections. Oh thats right, you don't have anything on his videos, instead you just rock up here asking unrelated questions trying to give your fucking stupid ideas a platform. I repeat... Make a blog, or go home. I hope you do, then i'll spam your blog posts with unrelated comments and go home claiming victory when you ask me why i would post such weird shit.
Jacckkkkkkk 5 months ago
The fact that CO2 in general might increase temperatures doesn't prove that the amount of CO2 added by burning fossil fuels actually does so in practice.
We know that a rise in temperature increases levels of CO2; we know that changes in CO2 in the past lagged increases in temperature; we know that man-made CO2 is not a major component of the total amount of greenhouse gases; and we know that there are powerful homeostatic mechanisms which regulate CO2.
Please address these issues.
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis =Please address these issues= Instead of spending all your time posting messages without bothering to watch the videos, please take the time to watch the videos, and then post. You write "we know...." but what you know seems to be at odds with what climate researchers know. You'll find sources and references in all my videos, which you can look up for yourself.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 Why not ANSWER his question and then present your rebuttal? Not hard to do, bro.
rojadrik 5 months ago
@rojadrik =Why not ANSWER his question and then present your rebuttal?= What question is that?
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 "The fact that CO2 in general might increase temperatures doesn't prove that the amount of CO2 added by burning fossil fuels actually does so in practice.
We know that a rise in temperature increases levels of CO2; we know that changes in CO2 in the past lagged increases in temperature; we know that man-made CO2 is not a major component of the total amount of greenhouse gases; and we know that there are powerful homeostatic mechanisms which regulate CO2."
rojadrik 5 months ago
@rojadrik =We know that a rise in temperature increases levels of CO2, etc, etc....= But what is the question you want me to answer?
potholer54 4 months ago
Comment removed
Meansofviewing 5 months ago
@rojadrik
I know this is not addressed to me, but allow me to answer.
Sallyamis have been posting numerous post, claiming all sorts of stuff,
which is fine, EXCEPT Sallyamis fails to provide sources and objective information to credit his claims.
Now potholer54 have already done so, so if anyone has any critique, they should point it directly at the flaws and holes in those sources and information, however people rather critiques overall topics without going into specifics. which helps no one.
Meansofviewing 5 months ago
@potholer54 Why don't you cut the hot air and smart remarks and try sticking to the science?
All of the statements I made in my post are established, mainstream views.
Perhaps I will be clearer: what proportion of global warming, if any, can be demonstrated to result from the CO2 produced by greenhouse warming?
It's a pretty simple question. As my PhD supervisor used to say "if you can't measure it it isn't science".
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis I like how you tossed in that little "my PhD supervisor" tidbit as cheap way to try to lend yourself credibility. Nice try.
zzyzx0788 5 months ago
@sallyamis =what proportion of global warming, if any, can be demonstrated to result from the CO2 produced by greenhouse warming?= The CO2 produced by global warming? Are you refering to positive feedback? If you are, then I'd have to find someone who's doing research in that area and check the figure. You could, of course, do the same thing if you're really interested in knowing.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 >> If you are, then I'd have to find someone who's doing research in that area and check the figure.
Perhaps you could explain why you deliberately missed this crucial area in your videos. You wouldn't be trying to make a political point by selecting just the evidence that fits your conclusions, would be? It certainly seems that way.
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis =Perhaps you could explain why you deliberately missed this crucial area in your videos. = I haven't missed positive feedback at all, it's in the very first video. If you bothered to watch the videos before rushing to comment you'd know that. But if you're asking me for the exact amount of CO2 produced due to an increase of 1 deg C caused by a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels, I'd have to look it up. But I suspect you don't really want to know.
potholer54 4 months ago
@potholer54 >> Instead of spending all your time posting messages without bothering to watch the videos
You have a habit of claiming to know things for which you have no evidence.
>>You'll find sources and references in all my videos
You don't address the obvious point that an increase in CO2 would lead to an increase in the rate of photosynthesis. You don't address the point about the lag in CO2. You don't address the issue of what proportion of total greenhouse gases are CO2.
sallyamis 5 months ago
@sallyamis the FACT that CO2 MIGHT increase? wait a second... i thought that was a fact? am i missing something? we know that manmade CO2 is not a major component? who knows and where can i find that information? and which homeostatic mechanisms are at work to overwhelm the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, better yet, which natural mechanisms are at work to keep man made CO2 levels from causing an effect?
digitalblasphemy1100 4 months ago
@sallyamis CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. The amount of warming attributable to CO2 can be measured through the absorption frequencies it absorbs at, a small band centered at about 15 micrometers. CO2 is released and absorbed by the ocean via Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal. As humans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere the partial pressure of CO2 increases. That is why the oceans are currently absorbing CO2 during a warming period, and that is why they are currently decreasing in pH.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@sallyamis Measurements of longwave radiation:
Harries, John E. (2001) " Increases in Greenhouse Forcing Inferred from the Outgoing Longwave Radiation Spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"
Griggs, J.A. (2006) "Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS"
Wang, Kaicin (2009) " Global Atmospheric Downward Longwave Radiation Over Land Surface Under All-Sky Conditions from 1973 to 2008"
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
The simple truth is that heat causes changes in the Co2 level, instead of the other way around. There is now sound evidence to prove it. Sure, we inject some into the atmosphere, but its nothing to be concerned about. When the earth warms, it causes the oceans to release suspended Co2. And the amount it releases dwarfs what we put in by a freakish amount. When it cools again, there is a contraction of Co2. Now quit sending me messages. :p
Ravalat 5 months ago
Gosh, vid quality is so bad, I can't even read the legends and axes' descriptions (sorry about my english) on graphs (9:19) and that make it suck!
philacoudre 5 months ago
@philacoudre blame youtube
DNAz5646 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 Pretty sure youtube doesn't have anything to do with editor's lack of attention...
Could you please tell me if I'm clear (proper english) about what i previously talked about("legends and axe's descriptions on graphs at 9:19): is it really how you call it or there's a better way of saying it? thx
philacoudre 5 months ago
@philacoudre Google
experience curve of dependence of atmospheric carbon dioxide on global average sea surface termerature
and a better res pic is the first thing in google images.
DNAz5646 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
howardsway782 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 6 months ago in playlist Climate Change
Comment removed
MrKrisRobbo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrKrisRobbo, you can try to discredit Mr. Taylor if you wish, but are you telling me I can't believe NASA data as well?
vechorik 6 months ago
@vechorik There is nothing wrong with NASA data. It is wrong for Mr Taylor to focus on a tiny subset of data to allow him to distort the real truth of climate change. Google “James Taylor Deltoid” and see for yourself. Mr Taylor works for a right-wing public policy think tank (Heartland Institute). The Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the science linking cigarette smoke to health risks, and lobby against government reforms. Now their target is climate change.
MrKrisRobbo 6 months ago
@MrKrisRobbo, I believe in saving the earth. I also believe "climate change" is part of United Nations Agenda 21. Everyone should study Agenda 21 to understand the goals of current politics.
vechorik 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vechorik
This is a sceptic attack to create public doubt to delay or prevent action on climate change. If you search “Climate Change” in YouTube and look at video comments, vechorik’s will likely appear. Mr Taylor is not a climate scientists and he has deceived the public by cherry picking data to fit is preconceived claims. If you want to know more about Mr Taylor, go to Google and separately search “James Taylor Deltoid” and “wiki heartland institute” - click on the first results.
MrKrisRobbo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
Read up on the psychology of conformity. Like the Asch Conformity Experiments. Simply put, people just don't rock the boat even when there is nothing at stake and the correct answer is obvious.
You are probaby familiar with some history, like the Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Hitler, Senator Joe McCarthy, etc. How else do you explain these events? 100 years from now people may have global warming added to the list.
oracle2world 6 months ago
@oracle2world Yes, because people are being burned at the stake and arrested because of Global Warming.
Moron.
zzyzx0788 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 in playlist Climate Change
@Ravalat =Carbon dioxide makes up .0039% of our atmosphere.... Dont believe me?= No.
potholer54 6 months ago
Comment removed
Ravalat 6 months ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 5 months ago
@Ravalat We can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and tell where each molecule came from. We know very precisely how much CO2 is ours.
kellygiz 5 months ago in playlist Climate Change
Because mynameismatt2010, your comment lead me to believe that you thought more volcanoes were going off around the world with greater intensity then before. If that were the case, it would have a cooling effect for up to 7 years. Instead we see a gradual warming trend. The numbers don't add up for me.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
A minor correction. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would not be "as cold as the Moon," because Earth's atmosphere keeps the temperature more or less constant. The Moon is either extremely cold in shadow or extremely hot in sunlight. The greenhouse effect keeps the Earth about 50 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it would otherwise be.
Otherwise, this is truly an excellent and objective discussion of the scientific issues. Thank you! On to video #2.
DrFredB 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We cannot afford to deny climate change any longer. If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people.
DemianHermann 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EPA and IPCC have been proven to be false
FLincKon 6 months ago
I disagree with the premise that carbon gasses produced by man are significant enough to become the tipping point on the metaphorical scale. It simply doesn't make sense that all of the emmissions of mankind are affecting the climate when all the emmisions of the countless volcanic eruptions and wildfires have barely dented the cycle. A single volcanic eruption has the potential to emit as much of these gasses as we have recorded and estimated man emiting, throughout history.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 Volcanos also release gases that have a cooling effect. Your repeating lines from right-wing politics, which makes it obvious to me you haven't studied the science at all.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad Oh really? What are those gasses?
See unlike you i actually have done research on the science. The amount of carbon gasses released in a volcanic eruption is so astronomically high that there is no way to discount their effect on the enviroment, thier natural effect that has nothing to do with mankind. If you believe that there are enough of these magic cooling gasses in a volcanic eruption to offset its warming potential why isn't the government using these to offset mans warming?
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 Here, take a look at "Volcanic eruptions"
epa(dot)gov/climatechange/science/pastcc(dot)html
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad There are three problems with this right off the bat, the first is that it's on the EPA's website. The second is that it is only refering to prehistoric eruptions and the third is the assumption that the only "greenhouse gas" emitted by volcanos is CO2 when in fact they emit a pluthera of "greenhouse gasses." Carbon gasses emmitted by large volcanic eruptions far surpass human carbon gas output.
Also, they said the cooling is very short term so that's your cooling gas theory gone.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 3 problems with yours. First you seem to assume the EPA is invalid without giving me a reason to doubt them. Second you assume more volcanoes are going off now then ever before with no reason to believe this. Third it shows temperature changes in correlation to eruptions.
Your a retard. I said volcanoes have a cooling effect, nothing more. Its not my fault if you saw some grand theory behind it, they do cool the atmosphere.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad 1Do i really have to cite reasons not to be entirely trusting of the folly posted on the most corrupt government organizations website?
2I assume that volcanos are going to go off at a fairly consistent rate over time. Which means that the cooling effect left behind would wear off and we'd be left with a build up of "greenhouse gasses."
3Not long term.
Your comment had the implication of stating that a cooling effect from a volcano negates any warming effect. I simply debunked that.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 1 That website provides its sources. Yes your going to have to give a reason to not believe it.
2 then the current warming is obviously not due to volcanoes, thank you.
3 also not long-term if it is consistent
I never said it did. But apparently you did not understand what I meant, which simply shows you did no actual research into it.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad 1 The EPA has repeatedly released its official statement based on incorrect reports and science that hasn't been peer reviewed. That is why i will not blindly assume the things on its website are correct.
2. How exactly does a constant amount of valconic eruptions mean that the current warming is not a result from it? Elaborate on that so i can see just what you're trying to say.
3. Looking at the short term effects of volcanic eruptions they found cooling, but they don't mention
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 Then its your job to prove it wrong. Simply saying "Its the EPA" doesn't cut it for me.
If volcanoes have been consistently erupting throughout history then I don't see how a sudden spike in temperature could be a result of volcanoes. Unless I'm missing something, I'd think you'd need another ingredient.
Yes they can cause long-term heating effects because the other gasses linger in the atmosphere longer. I never denied that.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad Now i understand your confusion. You think there has been a "sudden spike in temprature." Tempratures are getting warmer, but gradually, the way natural warming would be. Even if there was a sudden spike it would be explained by the cooling effect of the volcanos that have erupted dissipating and giving way to the longer lasting warming effect.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 That still requires that more volcanoes were going off then ever before in recorded history. I have no reason to believe that is going on.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad What makes you think that that would require more volcanic activity than ever before? That really doesn't make sense. My initial claim was that Volcanos could be the cause of the initial tip in the metaphorical balance, and that those eruptions produce so much carbon gas that man produced carbon gasses are irrelivant in the grand scheme of the natural cycle of earths climate. That doesn't require increased volcanic activity at all.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 Thats a nice theory, but none of the numbers add up. Volcanic activity has not increased, human activity has. Then there is a sudden global spike in temperature. Humans release 135 times the CO2 as volcanoes today ( news(DOT)discovery(DOT)com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627(DOT)html )
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad Look, there has been no "sudden spike" that you keep refering to. Volcanic activity doesn't have to increase for my theory to be effective. Human activity is minute at best. CO2 isn't the only carbon gass that causes warming, and it isn't the one that is most effective at warming.
The numbers do add up!
Explain why you insist that my theory would only work with increased volcanic activity, even though that doesn't seem to be necessary at all.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 I've already explained several times and posted scientific sources. Its time for you to present some sort of evidence that; there is no sudden spike in temperature (which even the scientists who don't agree with AWG theory accept) or that volcanic activity is responsible. Your just making empty assertions and wasting my time at this point.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad Nobody accepts a sudden spike in temprature. There has been warming, but not at a rate any more rapid than is to be expected. You haven't posted one legitimate reason volcanic activity would have to increase to cause warming, you simply repeat yourself without offering reasons for what you say. I'm not making empty assertions i'm stating that there is a real and legitimate role for volcanos in global warming that is more significant than the role of mankind.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 I have posted evidence from multiple sources. You either aren't looking at it or can't argue.
You still fail to present any evidence on part of your assertions thus they are still empty and your still a waste of time.
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@BaboonJihad You haven't posted anything relating to why my theory would require increased volcanic activity.
What evidence would you like? I didn't get my theory from some russian study or some collegiate consensus. It is my personal theory that is based on my research over several years. My claims are all i'm making, and if you can refute them i'll change my theory. As it stands though it makes sense.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
BaboonJihad the long term effects. Now if we assume that what they said was right then there would be an initial cooling from volcanic eruptions, and subsequent warming after the cooling effect has dissipated. Carbon gasses have a long term efftect on the climate and according to this website the gasses that cause the cooling are short term.
Volcanos also release gases that have a cooling effect. What was the point of saying that then if not to say that the cooling effect negates the warming?
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
4) What other factors may influence the proxies besides temperature like droughts etc. It's not done rigorously enough.
5) The surface stations need all be scrutinizes thoroughly. Other influence on even few of them may distort the data which is averaged among them.
6) What is the full CO2 balance. What part is human and what isn't.
All these need be settled before anyone can declare something serious
comnenus42 7 months ago in playlist Climate Change
This has been flagged as spam show
@comnenus42 A couple of video's that might help answer a couple of your statements.
"5) The surface stations need all be scrutinizes thoroughly. "
watch?v=N_JngnDGkOM&feature=channel_video_title
6) What is the full CO2 balance. What part is human and what isn't.
watch?v=l6W1KxiLcg8&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 6 months ago
The science can't be settled that fast and there are many questions needing definite answers before one can make forecasts regarding AGW.
1) What is the climate sensitivity? Different studies put it between 0.5 and 10 degrees pre doubled CO2. 2) What are other factors and how they track historically.3) One can't simply adjoin proxy record to current record, You have to test if it's currently recording the right temperature.
comnenus42 7 months ago in playlist Climate Change
Willie Soon, one of the scientific figures who claimed to be skeptical about climate change, has admitted to being paid more than $1 million in the past decade by major U.S. oil and coal companies. June 29, 2011
swordsintopens 7 months ago in playlist Climate Change
A number of errors in the video. 1) Still is NO " AGW consensus" among scientist, 2) The tropospheric anomaly has NOT been resolved, 3) Your positive feedback CO2 rolling ball--quantification? LOL, 4) Many other assumptions of the AGW are just that, the amount of man-made CO2 IN THE AIR is around 5% of total CO2 (see isotopic delta-12-C analysis), the GHG effect of CO2 is infinitesimal, CH4 is in parts per BILLION! (80%natural/ just 20% man) LOL, cloud cover not in AGW models, etc., etc.
samuraiconservative 7 months ago
Holy crap, I actually feel smarter after watching a video on YouTube. Surely this is the sign of the Apocalypse!
Un0r1g1n4l 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. de Jager is a renowned solar physicist and author of several peer-reviewed studies examining the solar influence upon climate. In response to the recent press release of three US studies indicating the Sun is entering a period of exceptionally low activity, he references his publications of 2010 and prior indicating that this Grand Solar Minimum will be similar to the Maunder Minimum which caused the LIA, and prediction that this "deep minimum" will last until approximately the year 2100.
PrairleDogged 7 months ago
Numerous scientists and climatologists point to the terrible flaw that the IPCC analysis totally ignores. The impact upon climate of solar activity, water vapor, and effects of cloud formation on global air pressure, temperature and winds. This is poorly contrived science being used to scare/scam people into a tax that will rule life on Earth. Q.Do any of you think taxing CO2 will alter its output substantially? Q.Will altering our CO2 have any measurable effect? Q.Who stands to gain from a tax
TheKickerboy99 7 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I think that this is pretty funny. What do you think?
watch?v=9bdrVHHwKT8
Richard482 6 months ago
@Richard482 Well it is kinda funny, I just don't think taxing CO2 will change its output or have any real effect other than to line the pockets of a few people, and break many others. Back to the science, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes it causes warming. Is it alarming or a big threat? I have yet to see any evidence of it, all of the alarming announcements I have heard have been quickly retracted once they are examined. Not to sure what to do with CO2, it will be created as the pop. grows.
TheKickerboy99 6 months ago
As expected they don't mention the Sun, Cosmic Rays, or clouds. So how can you make sweeping statements about climate when you leave out the main drivers of it? What a political institution they have become, amazing what money will do. Sad to see the scientific method sabotaged and twisted as is being done by the Royal Society. Obviously they are just a branch of the IPCC now.
TheKickerboy99 7 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 "amazing what money will do" Not to do with the Royal Society but the argument being made is still the same. Link below. You haven't mentioned the results of that survey which you pointed out to me.
watch?v=qbn6-5lbshA
Richard482 7 months ago
@Richard482 Look at the whole survey, it shows there is no consensus on the issue, and that we are just begining to understand how our climate works.
TheKickerboy99 7 months ago
German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have released their latest international survey of climate scientists. The data are reported here//coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf I’ve spent a little time with this report.
TheKickerboy99 7 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 I had look at that report. You even pasted the bit at the end "I’ve spent a little time with this report lol. Number 21 of the survey: How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?
1: not at all. 7:very much. The average was 5.678378 which could be rounded to 5.7. So the majority agree with this statement. So what's your point?
Richard482 7 months ago
I just wish to correct a point made in the video. While it is true that corrections have been made to the troposphere data, it is NOT true that it resolved all of the problems concerning temperature differences between there and the surface. There still remain significant discrepancies in the mid troposphere decadal trends that have not been resolved. This is very significant and should not be overlooked!
bricefabber 7 months ago
@bricefabber =it is NOT true that it resolved all of the problems concerning temperature differences between there and the surface.= I don't remember saying that, but please tell me where in the video I said it. Thanks.
potholer54 7 months ago
@potholer54 Well, I'm a bit surprised you're taking the easy way out with this one. Yes, you didn't *literally* say it, but human speech involves a certain amount of implication within any particular statement. Your statement that (at around 5:30) "the discovery knocked out the final piece of evidence that contradicted global warming", talking about this issue. Your statement unequivocally implies the issues has been resolved and taken care of, while that is definitely not true.
bricefabber 7 months ago