The not on my planet attitude and the great race:
Dukof1 has proposed a global warming race between terraforming Mars using greenhouse gases to make it habitable, & the global warming induced Sea Level (SL) rise on Earth. He thinks that terraforming Mars would win. It seems to me that he is willing to accept that the greenhouse effect is real and capable of relatively fast results but only if it's not on this planet. Why does he think that the laws of Physics would act faster on another planet?
It doesn't matter if it's 10 or 20cm. The point is that any significant rise will take several hundred to thousands of years. Who cares about that? The society will be totally different. Our current buildings will only be pictures in a museum, made of materials we haven't yet invented. We will more likely populate Mars before the sea level has risen 1 meter. Let alone you talk about hundreds of feet in your video. And you give NO estimate to when, because you know it's ridiculously far out.
@dukof1 Sorry but the details do matter. At the end of the last 100 year period sea level rise increased to 3.3 mm/yr. At the beginning of the 100 year period that you referred to, the rate was only 1.7mm/yr. If the rate were to double again in keeping with the last 100 years then the rate would be 6.6 mm/yr by the end of that period. However the situation may be worse than that as the rate of decline in Antarctica has increase 4 fold. This places your 1m increase in SL in range by 2100.
@dukof1 As for populating Mars, it needs to be terraformed first. Its absolutely freezing and could do with an atmosphere. Perhaps you could bottle your CO2 emissions and send them there, they'll need them. Good luck! I wonder what planet the scientists got the idea of using greenhouse gases to make another planet like Mars inhabitable. The idea is to melt the ice caps on Mars to give it a sea and to obtain water to support life.
My dear friend, the melting polar ice caps are contributing to the global water cycle, and are the reason why global rainfall has increased over the past few years.
This rain is falling in the desert, amongst other places and greening and cooling those expanses where it now regularly rains.
Complete nonsense scare propaganda. Sure the sea may rise, and temperature, but it will take thousands of years for the ocean to rise even a meter. 10cm over last 100 years. And temperature about half a degree. How stupid can ppl get..
@dukof1 Thank you for responding to my video that investigated the evidence regarding global warming. When you say that the sea level and temperature may be rising, you are on the right track; because it is. However, you may need to check your data on the rate of sea level rise. The graph I posted in this video shows a rise of 20 cm not ten.
Extrapolating the rise in sea level due to rising temps based on a historical period with 35 yrs of aerosol cooling does not make sense.
The stolen emails are yesterdays news. Since then East Anglia's climate research unit has had six committees investigate "the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." -Wikipedia
As I understand it, they resourced all the climate data¹ and reproduced the graphs.
Note [1] The CRU obtains their data from the various meteorological bureaus around the world.
I will leave this discussion. I now know that your choice of standpoint is not due to lack of information. Contrary, you seem to know all that I post already.
The "silence the critics" approach you just expressed and that you claim I am not allowed to quote certain other sites on the Internet like you just did just further solidifies my suspicion. There is a bias and an agenda among many of the alarmists.
I did not say that you were "not allowed to quote certain other sites." I merely criticised you for the use of stolen emails and for misrepresenting the email by using it out of context. Use stolen emails if you want, but don't expect not to be criticised for doing it.
@firepowerjohan When you call mainstream scientists, "alarmists", this demonstrates a bias & an agenda. Scientists collect data, look for trends and then make predictions based on these trends. You may find the predictions based on the data alarming but a true scientist will follow the data to its logical conclusion. I admit that there is a human element in this process in that most of the report predictions to date, tend to underestimated the change; scientists are conservative not alarmists.
@firepowerjohan You have said that the recent temperature warming is due to natural process and that perhaps 10 years into the future science will discover a hitherto unknown mechanism that will prove you right. This tells me that you don't have any evidence to claim that it is a natural process. I'm sorry but all claims require evidence. To say that you don't need top supply evidence but everyone else has to, is special pleading.
@firepowerjohan This is a total red herring, come back when you find a real decline in temperatures.
You have just published a person's personal Email. When you read a person's email you are reading half a conversation and in this case only a snippet of that; that snippet also being abbreviated. Let's be honest here, it is wrong to steal emails and you have published the stolen email out of context in an attempt to misrepresent Prof. Jones. Is the LCD the best you can do?
@firepowerjohan Parallel lines of evidence is not circular reasoning as you allege. If a single block is supported by 9 columns, taking eight away still leaves the block supported. Furthermore the line of evidence that you are attacking, I did not even use in the video. Its a bit like trying to take a support away that was not there. It seems to me that you are relying on an argument that you must have obtained from someone else because it does not apply here.
The book the "Merchants of Doubt" gives a historical look at the climate "skeptics" movement. It traces this small group of scientists in their campaigns of disinformation on the following topics: tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT.
How a small group of scientests have made millions out of peddling doubt.
According to the inner core of the climate "skeptics" movement there is no hole in the Ozone layer, tobacco doesn't cause cancer and DDT is not poisonous.
@firepowerjohan Scientists didn't hide the decline in tree growth. Instead they investigated it and published papers on the matter. They well and truely put it on the public record.
The decline in tree growth was not caused by a temperature decline. The IPCC was not primarily producing a forestry report!
Herein lies your problem, according to the core scientists that make up the Climate "Skeptics" there is no hole in the ozone layer because CFCs do not deplete the ozone layer. If you accept that ozone effects plant growth then you should not conclude that temperatures are declining especially when thermometers are showing a temp increase.
The past actions of Climate "Skeptics" have led to people to contract skin cancer & cateracts. Why trust these people now?
Why do climate "skeptics" say "hide the decline" rather than "hide the decline in tree growth"? The reason is two fold:
• They want to MISLEAD people into thinking that the decline is in temperature not tree growth.
• Climate "SKEPTICS" claim that increasing levels of CO2 increases plant growth. Yet in high latitudes, since 1960, CO2 has increased but tree growth has DECLINED.
Applying their own standard, is not their claim MISLEADING?
@firepowerjohan Climategate was about the fossil fuel industry inundating the East Anglia CRU with freedom of information requests. It was a deliberate attempt by the climate "skeptics" to slow down climate research. There was never a temperature decline to hide and all graphs were found accurate. Your analogy is flawed.
You dodged my question, so I will ask it again: Did your sea level "expert" use his dowsing rods to measure and detect the Sea level?
@firepowerjohan The Swedish Skeptics' Association has annually awarded prizes for "Educator of the Year" and "Deceiver of the Year" since 1987. In 1995 the "coveted" award of "DECEIVER OF THE YEAR" was won by Nils Axel Morner. Does he use his dowsing rods to measure and detect the Sea Level?
"In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works. Mörner declined the offer." - Wikipedia
@firepowerjohan "That antarctica and other glacier freezes both from the top..."
Ice core samples are not taken near the coast or from antarctic glaciers or other glaciers. What you say here is irrelavent. It does not matter whether melt water refreezes on the top or underneath as ALL refrozen water is not used as a proxy. Your breaking "news" is 50 years out of date.
@firepowerjohan Arctic and Antarctic ice is of limited thickness, this limits to how far back ice core samples go. There is already a year X beyond which there is no compacted snow. You may think that ice is melting at a fast rate but I don't think 10 years is going to make much difference. Perhaps in 300 years there will not be much ice left. With 90 nations (including China) now starting to act on climate change there is hope.
@firepowerjohan "Some experts say that this puts a big question mark on how we use ice cores as a proxy"
If someone was that stupid they wouldn't be called an 'expert,' they'd be called a climate denier. Scientists have long known how to tell the difference between compacted snow and refrozen melt water.
This is just another excuse for not coming to a logical conclusions. Believe that the Sun is going to fall out of the sky tomorrow if you want; all you have is wild speculation.
IN THIS VIDEO I USED ICE CORE DATA whereby scientists have measured the ratio of O18/O16 as a proxy for temperature. Snow-Ice is unaffected by the hole in the Ozone layer. Both O16 and O18 are stable isotopes of oxygen so these would be stable over time. Ice cores are literally FROZEN IN TIME ! Scientists can tell if snow melts and refreezes; refrozen samples can therefore be rejected making ice core data highly RELIABLE and ACCURATE.
@firepowerjohan All measurement of temperature is done using proxies. With a convensional thermometer we measure the length of mercury in a tube; mercury being the proxy. Not all proxies are equal. In the video I avoided using tree ring proxy data so your argument is moot. Ice core data tends also to be accurate.
You said, "Those proxies that fit the conclusion is said to be accurate"
Wrong, we've long selected and used mercury thermometers as a prefered method. Thermocouples are accurate too.
@firepowerjohan My video does not argue that CO2 is causing global warming due to a process of elimination. Although we can eliminate other causes. My argument directly proved that CO2 is causing a reduction in energy emmitted from the Earth. This energy imbalance is the cause of Global warming. We do not need to understand the mechanics of Sun spots to be able to measure this imbalance.
@firepowerjohan "The biggest mistake is claiming we know ..." <- This is an incredibly stupid belief.
Disclaimer: Don't do this at home boys and girls.
Go & lie on a railway track and pretend that you don't "know" what happens to you when a train comes down the track.
Learning more about the Sun does not mean that we have to be open to the idea that it will turn into a giant milk-shake tomorrow. Physics tends to be refined over time not dumped. Newtonian physics is still used today.
@firepowerjohan Prior to 1960 we have hundreds of years of tree ring data taken in parallel to instrument data. During that time tree rings have been found to be an accurate proxy. The conclusion is that tree ring data is accurate going backwards in time but not necessarily forwards. The way to check the accuracy of a proxy is to use many different types and that is what scientists do. Ice proxies are not affected by the hole in the ozone layer like tree rings are.
@firepowerjohan Ice that grows from the bottom of an ice sheet has never been used as a proxy. Only compacted snow is used. Furthermore a scientists can tell when snow thaws and refreezes. Thawed/refrozen snow is not used either. Scientists have known about volcanoes under the sea for donkies years. They are usually caused by plate techtonics or magma hot spots. Volcanoes are not electromagnets.
@firepowerjohan "proxies olike tree rings. They were probably never reliable"
One thing you have to remember with trees is that they are subject to natural selection. In general trees have been optimised to grow in the natural environment. Man's impact on the natural environment has only been pronounced since the industrial revolution. So we would only expect to find problems with using tree rings as a proxy after the start of the industrial revolution.
firepowerjohan said, "check for eg. USA heat records for each state"
Why not start with Texas! How many consequitive days with temperatures over 100°F did Wichita Falls just have? Was it 100 days? [the previous record was only 79]
The average temperature over the summer for the whole of the state of Texas was 86.8 °F making it the hottest on record, not just for Texas but for any state in the US.
Who did the cherry picking? Not me. You selected the country ("USA"), the time period ("from year 2000 and onwards") and the parameter ("heat records"). Texas ticks all the boxes. Texas, last I looked, was part of the USA; we are talking about heat records; and it is since the year 2000.
@firepowerjohan "OI said "USA", you said Texas which one is more local?"
The Texas record was a USA record, however let me refresh your memory, you said:
"check for example USA heat records for each state"
Isn't Texas a state? I realise that you are trying to weasil out of what you had asked, but a state is not more local than a state. Lets face it, you're trying to cherry pick your words!
I did not cherry pick the data, the DATA EXACTLY MATCHES YOUR CRITERIA.
@firepowerjohan Primarily sea ice is growing around antarctica whereas land ice mass is decreasing. However most of the sea ice melts each antarctic summer, so we are not seeing the ice accumulate from year to year. The mass of the arctic ice is measured by its gravitational effect on satelites. Whilst sea ice has no effect on sea levels the melting of land ice does.
@firepowerjohan A problem with global warming is that it makes agriculture unpredictable. This is a problem that is world wide, not just an Australian problem. Last year's heatwave in Russia killed about 1/3 of their grain harvest. I'm sure that Texas will experience a disasterous year for agriculture this year because of its drought. Sure we've had droughts before, but these events are becoming more extreme. That is why we call them records!
Global warming also leads to higher precipitation too. This year it was not the lack of water that caused problems in Australia but the quantity of it. The majority of Queensland was declared a disaster zone due to flooding. Just to put it in perspective, that is an area equivalent to about 9 average US states.
Climate change is not good for the poor old farmer.
A climate disaster in the grain growing US states, similar to that in Russia or Queensland, would cause a world wide famine.
Whilst trees can be used as proxies for temperature, we do not use dead trees as an indication of temperature. The lack of growth of a dead tree is not an indication that the temperature is very low. Similarly, a sick tree is not an indication that the temperature is falling when we know from instrument data that the temperature is rising. A tree affected by the hole in the Ozone layer should not be used as a proxy.
@firepowerjohan Storms like Yasi in Aus, and snowfall in the US and NZ are fueled by evaporation. Record precipitation is a sign that the globe is hotting up.
Even though the center of Greenland is very cold, little snow falls. The quantity of snow that falls is not just a measure of temperature but is dependent on air moisture content (evaporation).
When you reject the global average of temperature; constructed from measurements taken around the world, you are displaying your bias.
@firepowerjohan "Just like with the hockey stick scandal, the method is to blame"
My understanding of the "hockey stick scandal" was that climate skeptics didn't like thermometers being used to measure temperature. Is that what you mean? Personally, I don't think that waiting for a species to die out is a good way to measure temperature... and I'll leave the politics to you.
@firepowerjohan Prof Muller is advocating the inclusion of false temperature calculations into a report to the government. The bloke is a nut case! Everone knows, including Prof Muller, that there was no decline in actual temperatures. Post 1960 Ozone was being depleted in the upper atmosphere by hydroflourocarbon pollution. Tree growth seems to have been adversely affected by this. The decline in tree growth had nothing to do with temperature.
@firepowerjohan Are you really being honest when you advocate that false information be published to the public? I understand full well that if published the false information would support your political agenda. I ask again do you really think that publishing computations known to be false is honest?
btw Since the original hockey stick was published it has been independently verified by other proxies. The science is sound.
How do scientists know? They take measurements with thermometers. You on the other hand seem to be using a crystal ball. You certainly have not produced evidence of any of your claims. I have no confidence in Tarot cards, Ouija boards or your crystal ball.
The graph was colour coded to show that different sources of data were put together. The graph was part of a report and in the body of the report they explained how they put the data together; no deception involved. You on the other hand are claiming that they should have used a deceptive method to misrepresent the information (to show cooling when instrument data [ie thermometers] shows warming).
There's no need for the hyperbolic label of "fact or fiction." The debate is about the extent of radiative forcing of agw greenhouse gases and aerosols, which is far from black and white label of "fact or fiction." The policymaking debate would benefit from a dialing down of unconstuctive rhetoric and labelling. Let's all do our part.
@GorterPoss I've come across a number of people on youtube that argue:
1) Carbon dioxide is not a green house gas.
2) The increase in carbon dioxide is not due to the burning of fossil fuels.
3) The Earth is not warming.
Those are the sort of questions that this video seeks to answer. You may think it's hyperbolic but I'm responding to real people. Aerosols tend to be short lived in the atmosphere and hazzardous, so I don't see the current crop of aerosols as our saviour.
@firepowerjohan You said, "I do not claim Sunspots or OTHER ALTERNATIVES are proofed"
Basically you are ruling out any evidence that you may have to support any of your claims. But it is worse than that, you haven't provided any evidence from anyone else either. So far your MWP and it being global and warmer than today is only a JUST SO STORY.
@firepowerjohan Last year was a solar minimum yet we had a thermal maximum here on Earth. That's the complete opposite to what we would expect if the Sun's activity was "responsible." I can not agree with your conclusion.
"... CO2 after the turn of the century continued to increase, in fact if anything, slightly faster, but global temperature didn’t. If anything, it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century." - Murray Salby
Why did CO2 keep going up and temps are alleged to have gone down for a decade, if it's temps that are driving CO2?
@firepowerjohan "Earth has been warming since the little ice age but is not close to earlier warm periods"
This claim is not supported by all the proxy records, especially those from the southern hemisphere. Seems that the MWP may have been a local event; not a global event. Energy can shift around withing the climate system without it being an indication of global warming or cooling.
Greenland was not called Greenland because it was green; the inferrence from your question is not true.
@firepowerjohan said, "Currently 96% of CO2 emission is from the nature and not the human emission"
You forgot to mention that the same quantity of CO2 that is emitted by nature is also taken up by nature leaving a residue to accumulate in the atmosphere and oceans. The magnitude of the residue may be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels (by mankind).
@firepowerjohan The graph is fine, it's your understanding of the graph that is causing your problem. The graph is an average over the whole globe just like it's claimed to be. Problem is that when you add extra water or expand the water that is already there, most of it will find its way towards the equator and hardly any at the poles due to the gravitational attraction of the Moon and Sun. The Maldives is near the equator. Sea level rises usually exceed the general rate in the tropics.
@firepowerjohan What you are saying is that you haven't noticed the sea level rise in the Maldives from the vantage point of your living room, thousands of miles away. The sea level at the Maldives has risen 8" in the last 40 years, but unlike you, the local residents have noticed:
"By 2020 the Maldives plans to eliminate or offset all of its Greenhouse emissions." - Wikipedia
@firepowerjohan "USA heat records ... Only one record from 2000 and onwards"
Sydney alone has had TWO heat records in just the last 4 days!
In 2010, Russia experienced a massive heatwave with temperatures in the 40s which caused 40% of their grain crop to fail. The USA was also affected by the heatwave too:
"Many records were broken, some of which dated back to the 19th century"-Wikipedia
@firepowerjohan RE Monkton's claim: The Himalayan glaciers showing no particular change in 200 years, except Gangotri.
Monkton has had to admit that they have been receeding for almost 200 years. A video by Potholer54 explains:
"Monckton Bunkum #3 - Correlations & Glaciers"
So the himalayan Glaciers are retreating and with continued warming will disappear in the furture. Most are currently melting at a rate between 20-30 m/yr. As temperatures rise so too will the melt rate.
@firepowerjohan Yes the climate has been changing up and down but my video demonstrates that the current change is not natural and that the upward trend is due to the effect of CO2 and methane. The video also demonstrates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Yes, good point but that was where the conversation started, the big picture:
"Depending on which dataset is used, 2010 was the hottest year on record or the second hottest."
However you can't accuse me of cherry picking the data because I picked the city I live in and the days upon which you sent your messages - Just happened that they were all record temperatures or near record temperatures.
@firepowerjohan If you think that we are headed for another ice age soon, then would it not be prudent to keep the fossil fuels in reserve for when they're needed?
@firepowerjohan Hate to burst your bubble but the temperatures are not dropping. So far this month Sydney had its second highest temperature on record for the 1st day of the month. The 2nd day was again the 2nd highest temperature recorded for the second of the month. The 3rd day was the HIGHEST temperatrure on record for the 3rd day of the month. So far today we are within a degree of the 2nd highest temp on record for the 4th day of the month. Its another typical summer's day in mid-winter ???
@firepowerjohan You sound like this elderly woman I knew. Whenever the mercury soared over the century mark, she'd be puting on a jumper. Senility can have strange effects.
@firepowerjohan Ooops there goes another rubber tree. Was it a "decline" in rubber trees? After sifting through thousands of stolen emails, the best they could come up with was "hide the decline". Your quote doesn't even say what the decline was in.
@firepowerjohan "so thats over 200 times the level of earth"
The question is not by how much is 96% greater than 0.04% but what is the temperature sensitivity to increases in CO2. Also the scale is not linear. Each time you double the concentration of CO2, you increase the temperature by the same amount. So we get from 0.04% to 96% in just 12 (doubling) steps; not 200 times. If you take the extra density of Venus into account it becomes 18 steps (but still a lot less than 200).
If we consider the CO2 greenhouse effect on Venus to be roughly +100°C (of the temperature of Venus which is 740°K), then dividing by 18 gives us the temperature sensitivity of 5.5°C per doubling of CO2. 115 years ago Arrhenius calculated it to be between 5 and 6%. Modern climate models calculate it to be 5.8°C.
@Texmurphy51 your video is out of date. There are now multiple proxies going backwards in time eg ice core samples, mollusc shells etc. The problem with tree ring data was mainly at higher latitudes. It is thought that the hole in the ozone layer was responsible for the divergence/decline in tree growth post 1960. Flourocarbons caused most of the damage to the O3 layer. Tree ring proxies have been found to be accurate prior to 1960 (prior to widespread use of flourocarbons).
BTW, how about a sub?
goggycozzle 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The not on my planet attitude and the great race:
Dukof1 has proposed a global warming race between terraforming Mars using greenhouse gases to make it habitable, & the global warming induced Sea Level (SL) rise on Earth. He thinks that terraforming Mars would win. It seems to me that he is willing to accept that the greenhouse effect is real and capable of relatively fast results but only if it's not on this planet. Why does he think that the laws of Physics would act faster on another planet?
RasPesher 1 month ago
It doesn't matter if it's 10 or 20cm. The point is that any significant rise will take several hundred to thousands of years. Who cares about that? The society will be totally different. Our current buildings will only be pictures in a museum, made of materials we haven't yet invented. We will more likely populate Mars before the sea level has risen 1 meter. Let alone you talk about hundreds of feet in your video. And you give NO estimate to when, because you know it's ridiculously far out.
dukof1 1 month ago
@dukof1 Sorry but the details do matter. At the end of the last 100 year period sea level rise increased to 3.3 mm/yr. At the beginning of the 100 year period that you referred to, the rate was only 1.7mm/yr. If the rate were to double again in keeping with the last 100 years then the rate would be 6.6 mm/yr by the end of that period. However the situation may be worse than that as the rate of decline in Antarctica has increase 4 fold. This places your 1m increase in SL in range by 2100.
RasPesher 1 month ago
@dukof1 As for populating Mars, it needs to be terraformed first. Its absolutely freezing and could do with an atmosphere. Perhaps you could bottle your CO2 emissions and send them there, they'll need them. Good luck! I wonder what planet the scientists got the idea of using greenhouse gases to make another planet like Mars inhabitable. The idea is to melt the ice caps on Mars to give it a sea and to obtain water to support life.
RasPesher 1 month ago
@RasPesher
Mars has intolerably potent electromagnetic fields of wild variation.
There are alien ruins there from when it was populated in the distant past, but now, for the human class of life it is ruined.
goggycozzle 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@RasPesher
My dear friend, the melting polar ice caps are contributing to the global water cycle, and are the reason why global rainfall has increased over the past few years.
This rain is falling in the desert, amongst other places and greening and cooling those expanses where it now regularly rains.
goggycozzle 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Complete nonsense scare propaganda. Sure the sea may rise, and temperature, but it will take thousands of years for the ocean to rise even a meter. 10cm over last 100 years. And temperature about half a degree. How stupid can ppl get..
dukof1 1 month ago
@dukof1 Thank you for responding to my video that investigated the evidence regarding global warming. When you say that the sea level and temperature may be rising, you are on the right track; because it is. However, you may need to check your data on the rate of sea level rise. The graph I posted in this video shows a rise of 20 cm not ten.
Extrapolating the rise in sea level due to rising temps based on a historical period with 35 yrs of aerosol cooling does not make sense.
RasPesher 1 month ago
The stolen emails are yesterdays news. Since then East Anglia's climate research unit has had six committees investigate "the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." -Wikipedia
As I understand it, they resourced all the climate data¹ and reproduced the graphs.
Note [1] The CRU obtains their data from the various meteorological bureaus around the world.
RasPesher 4 months ago
I will leave this discussion. I now know that your choice of standpoint is not due to lack of information. Contrary, you seem to know all that I post already.
The "silence the critics" approach you just expressed and that you claim I am not allowed to quote certain other sites on the Internet like you just did just further solidifies my suspicion. There is a bias and an agenda among many of the alarmists.
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "The 'silence the critics' approach"
I did not say that you were "not allowed to quote certain other sites." I merely criticised you for the use of stolen emails and for misrepresenting the email by using it out of context. Use stolen emails if you want, but don't expect not to be criticised for doing it.
RasPesher 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan When you call mainstream scientists, "alarmists", this demonstrates a bias & an agenda. Scientists collect data, look for trends and then make predictions based on these trends. You may find the predictions based on the data alarming but a true scientist will follow the data to its logical conclusion. I admit that there is a human element in this process in that most of the report predictions to date, tend to underestimated the change; scientists are conservative not alarmists.
RasPesher 4 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan You have said that the recent temperature warming is due to natural process and that perhaps 10 years into the future science will discover a hitherto unknown mechanism that will prove you right. This tells me that you don't have any evidence to claim that it is a natural process. I'm sorry but all claims require evidence. To say that you don't need top supply evidence but everyone else has to, is special pleading.
RasPesher 4 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan This is a total red herring, come back when you find a real decline in temperatures.
You have just published a person's personal Email. When you read a person's email you are reading half a conversation and in this case only a snippet of that; that snippet also being abbreviated. Let's be honest here, it is wrong to steal emails and you have published the stolen email out of context in an attempt to misrepresent Prof. Jones. Is the LCD the best you can do?
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Parallel lines of evidence is not circular reasoning as you allege. If a single block is supported by 9 columns, taking eight away still leaves the block supported. Furthermore the line of evidence that you are attacking, I did not even use in the video. Its a bit like trying to take a support away that was not there. It seems to me that you are relying on an argument that you must have obtained from someone else because it does not apply here.
RasPesher 5 months ago
The book the "Merchants of Doubt" gives a historical look at the climate "skeptics" movement. It traces this small group of scientists in their campaigns of disinformation on the following topics: tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT.
How a small group of scientests have made millions out of peddling doubt.
According to the inner core of the climate "skeptics" movement there is no hole in the Ozone layer, tobacco doesn't cause cancer and DDT is not poisonous.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Scientists didn't hide the decline in tree growth. Instead they investigated it and published papers on the matter. They well and truely put it on the public record.
The decline in tree growth was not caused by a temperature decline. The IPCC was not primarily producing a forestry report!
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Ozone Effect"
Herein lies your problem, according to the core scientists that make up the Climate "Skeptics" there is no hole in the ozone layer because CFCs do not deplete the ozone layer. If you accept that ozone effects plant growth then you should not conclude that temperatures are declining especially when thermometers are showing a temp increase.
The past actions of Climate "Skeptics" have led to people to contract skin cancer & cateracts. Why trust these people now?
RasPesher 5 months ago
How can you not call these "hide the decline" graphs missleading?
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Let's look at DOUBLE STANDARDS!
Why do climate "skeptics" say "hide the decline" rather than "hide the decline in tree growth"? The reason is two fold:
• They want to MISLEAD people into thinking that the decline is in temperature not tree growth.
• Climate "SKEPTICS" claim that increasing levels of CO2 increases plant growth. Yet in high latitudes, since 1960, CO2 has increased but tree growth has DECLINED.
Applying their own standard, is not their claim MISLEADING?
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Climategate was about the fossil fuel industry inundating the East Anglia CRU with freedom of information requests. It was a deliberate attempt by the climate "skeptics" to slow down climate research. There was never a temperature decline to hide and all graphs were found accurate. Your analogy is flawed.
You dodged my question, so I will ask it again: Did your sea level "expert" use his dowsing rods to measure and detect the Sea level?
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan The Swedish Skeptics' Association has annually awarded prizes for "Educator of the Year" and "Deceiver of the Year" since 1987. In 1995 the "coveted" award of "DECEIVER OF THE YEAR" was won by Nils Axel Morner. Does he use his dowsing rods to measure and detect the Sea Level?
"In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works. Mörner declined the offer." - Wikipedia
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "That antarctica and other glacier freezes both from the top..."
Ice core samples are not taken near the coast or from antarctic glaciers or other glaciers. What you say here is irrelavent. It does not matter whether melt water refreezes on the top or underneath as ALL refrozen water is not used as a proxy. Your breaking "news" is 50 years out of date.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Arctic and Antarctic ice is of limited thickness, this limits to how far back ice core samples go. There is already a year X beyond which there is no compacted snow. You may think that ice is melting at a fast rate but I don't think 10 years is going to make much difference. Perhaps in 300 years there will not be much ice left. With 90 nations (including China) now starting to act on climate change there is hope.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Some experts say that this puts a big question mark on how we use ice cores as a proxy"
If someone was that stupid they wouldn't be called an 'expert,' they'd be called a climate denier. Scientists have long known how to tell the difference between compacted snow and refrozen melt water.
This is just another excuse for not coming to a logical conclusions. Believe that the Sun is going to fall out of the sky tomorrow if you want; all you have is wild speculation.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Did they use mercury in the middle ages"?
IN THIS VIDEO I USED ICE CORE DATA whereby scientists have measured the ratio of O18/O16 as a proxy for temperature. Snow-Ice is unaffected by the hole in the Ozone layer. Both O16 and O18 are stable isotopes of oxygen so these would be stable over time. Ice cores are literally FROZEN IN TIME ! Scientists can tell if snow melts and refreezes; refrozen samples can therefore be rejected making ice core data highly RELIABLE and ACCURATE.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan All measurement of temperature is done using proxies. With a convensional thermometer we measure the length of mercury in a tube; mercury being the proxy. Not all proxies are equal. In the video I avoided using tree ring proxy data so your argument is moot. Ice core data tends also to be accurate.
You said, "Those proxies that fit the conclusion is said to be accurate"
Wrong, we've long selected and used mercury thermometers as a prefered method. Thermocouples are accurate too.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
proof burden is on YOU, that is
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan My video does not argue that CO2 is causing global warming due to a process of elimination. Although we can eliminate other causes. My argument directly proved that CO2 is causing a reduction in energy emmitted from the Earth. This energy imbalance is the cause of Global warming. We do not need to understand the mechanics of Sun spots to be able to measure this imbalance.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "The biggest mistake is claiming we know ..." <- This is an incredibly stupid belief.
Disclaimer: Don't do this at home boys and girls.
Go & lie on a railway track and pretend that you don't "know" what happens to you when a train comes down the track.
Learning more about the Sun does not mean that we have to be open to the idea that it will turn into a giant milk-shake tomorrow. Physics tends to be refined over time not dumped. Newtonian physics is still used today.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Prior to 1960 we have hundreds of years of tree ring data taken in parallel to instrument data. During that time tree rings have been found to be an accurate proxy. The conclusion is that tree ring data is accurate going backwards in time but not necessarily forwards. The way to check the accuracy of a proxy is to use many different types and that is what scientists do. Ice proxies are not affected by the hole in the ozone layer like tree rings are.
RasPesher 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Ice that grows from the bottom of an ice sheet has never been used as a proxy. Only compacted snow is used. Furthermore a scientists can tell when snow thaws and refreezes. Thawed/refrozen snow is not used either. Scientists have known about volcanoes under the sea for donkies years. They are usually caused by plate techtonics or magma hot spots. Volcanoes are not electromagnets.
RasPesher 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "proxies olike tree rings. They were probably never reliable"
One thing you have to remember with trees is that they are subject to natural selection. In general trees have been optimised to grow in the natural environment. Man's impact on the natural environment has only been pronounced since the industrial revolution. So we would only expect to find problems with using tree rings as a proxy after the start of the industrial revolution.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
firepowerjohan said, "check for eg. USA heat records for each state"
Why not start with Texas! How many consequitive days with temperatures over 100°F did Wichita Falls just have? Was it 100 days? [the previous record was only 79]
The average temperature over the summer for the whole of the state of Texas was 86.8 °F making it the hottest on record, not just for Texas but for any state in the US.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Now we are back to cherry picking again"
Who did the cherry picking? Not me. You selected the country ("USA"), the time period ("from year 2000 and onwards") and the parameter ("heat records"). Texas ticks all the boxes. Texas, last I looked, was part of the USA; we are talking about heat records; and it is since the year 2000.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan "OI said "USA", you said Texas which one is more local?"
The Texas record was a USA record, however let me refresh your memory, you said:
"check for example USA heat records for each state"
Isn't Texas a state? I realise that you are trying to weasil out of what you had asked, but a state is not more local than a state. Lets face it, you're trying to cherry pick your words!
I did not cherry pick the data, the DATA EXACTLY MATCHES YOUR CRITERIA.
RasPesher 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan Primarily sea ice is growing around antarctica whereas land ice mass is decreasing. However most of the sea ice melts each antarctic summer, so we are not seeing the ice accumulate from year to year. The mass of the arctic ice is measured by its gravitational effect on satelites. Whilst sea ice has no effect on sea levels the melting of land ice does.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
@firepowerjohan A problem with global warming is that it makes agriculture unpredictable. This is a problem that is world wide, not just an Australian problem. Last year's heatwave in Russia killed about 1/3 of their grain harvest. I'm sure that Texas will experience a disasterous year for agriculture this year because of its drought. Sure we've had droughts before, but these events are becoming more extreme. That is why we call them records!
RasPesher 5 months ago
Cont...
Global warming also leads to higher precipitation too. This year it was not the lack of water that caused problems in Australia but the quantity of it. The majority of Queensland was declared a disaster zone due to flooding. Just to put it in perspective, that is an area equivalent to about 9 average US states.
Climate change is not good for the poor old farmer.
A climate disaster in the grain growing US states, similar to that in Russia or Queensland, would cause a world wide famine.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 5 months ago
A proxy is a proxy.
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan .. and an elephant is an elephant!
Whilst trees can be used as proxies for temperature, we do not use dead trees as an indication of temperature. The lack of growth of a dead tree is not an indication that the temperature is very low. Similarly, a sick tree is not an indication that the temperature is falling when we know from instrument data that the temperature is rising. A tree affected by the hole in the Ozone layer should not be used as a proxy.
RasPesher 5 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Storms like Yasi in Aus, and snowfall in the US and NZ are fueled by evaporation. Record precipitation is a sign that the globe is hotting up.
Even though the center of Greenland is very cold, little snow falls. The quantity of snow that falls is not just a measure of temperature but is dependent on air moisture content (evaporation).
When you reject the global average of temperature; constructed from measurements taken around the world, you are displaying your bias.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Just like with the hockey stick scandal, the method is to blame"
My understanding of the "hockey stick scandal" was that climate skeptics didn't like thermometers being used to measure temperature. Is that what you mean? Personally, I don't think that waiting for a species to die out is a good way to measure temperature... and I'll leave the politics to you.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Prof Muller is advocating the inclusion of false temperature calculations into a report to the government. The bloke is a nut case! Everone knows, including Prof Muller, that there was no decline in actual temperatures. Post 1960 Ozone was being depleted in the upper atmosphere by hydroflourocarbon pollution. Tree growth seems to have been adversely affected by this. The decline in tree growth had nothing to do with temperature.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Are you really being honest when you advocate that false information be published to the public? I understand full well that if published the false information would support your political agenda. I ask again do you really think that publishing computations known to be false is honest?
btw Since the original hockey stick was published it has been independently verified by other proxies. The science is sound.
RasPesher 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "the alarmists know the 'truth' ."
How do scientists know? They take measurements with thermometers. You on the other hand seem to be using a crystal ball. You certainly have not produced evidence of any of your claims. I have no confidence in Tarot cards, Ouija boards or your crystal ball.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "if one use deceptive methods ..."
The graph was colour coded to show that different sources of data were put together. The graph was part of a report and in the body of the report they explained how they put the data together; no deception involved. You on the other hand are claiming that they should have used a deceptive method to misrepresent the information (to show cooling when instrument data [ie thermometers] shows warming).
RasPesher 6 months ago
There's no need for the hyperbolic label of "fact or fiction." The debate is about the extent of radiative forcing of agw greenhouse gases and aerosols, which is far from black and white label of "fact or fiction." The policymaking debate would benefit from a dialing down of unconstuctive rhetoric and labelling. Let's all do our part.
GorterPoss 6 months ago
@GorterPoss I've come across a number of people on youtube that argue:
1) Carbon dioxide is not a green house gas.
2) The increase in carbon dioxide is not due to the burning of fossil fuels.
3) The Earth is not warming.
Those are the sort of questions that this video seeks to answer. You may think it's hyperbolic but I'm responding to real people. Aerosols tend to be short lived in the atmosphere and hazzardous, so I don't see the current crop of aerosols as our saviour.
RasPesher 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan You said, "I do not claim Sunspots or OTHER ALTERNATIVES are proofed"
Basically you are ruling out any evidence that you may have to support any of your claims. But it is worse than that, you haven't provided any evidence from anyone else either. So far your MWP and it being global and warmer than today is only a JUST SO STORY.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Your claim: The "earth was hotter than today" at times during the last "few thousand years".
The average produced from all the proxy data covering the last 10 thousand years does not support your claim. However even if it was true, so what!
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Last year was a solar minimum yet we had a thermal maximum here on Earth. That's the complete opposite to what we would expect if the Sun's activity was "responsible." I can not agree with your conclusion.
RasPesher 6 months ago
ofc I mean climate, not weather
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan - Salby's theory: Temp drives CO2.
"... CO2 after the turn of the century continued to increase, in fact if anything, slightly faster, but global temperature didn’t. If anything, it decreased in the first decade of the 21st century." - Murray Salby
Why did CO2 keep going up and temps are alleged to have gone down for a decade, if it's temps that are driving CO2?
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Earth has been warming since the little ice age but is not close to earlier warm periods"
This claim is not supported by all the proxy records, especially those from the southern hemisphere. Seems that the MWP may have been a local event; not a global event. Energy can shift around withing the climate system without it being an indication of global warming or cooling.
Greenland was not called Greenland because it was green; the inferrence from your question is not true.
RasPesher 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "So, if your theory was right then it is already too late."
What are you calling "my theory"? Can you quote "my theory" from my video?
RasPesher 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan said, "Currently 96% of CO2 emission is from the nature and not the human emission"
You forgot to mention that the same quantity of CO2 that is emitted by nature is also taken up by nature leaving a residue to accumulate in the atmosphere and oceans. The magnitude of the residue may be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels (by mankind).
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan The graph is fine, it's your understanding of the graph that is causing your problem. The graph is an average over the whole globe just like it's claimed to be. Problem is that when you add extra water or expand the water that is already there, most of it will find its way towards the equator and hardly any at the poles due to the gravitational attraction of the Moon and Sun. The Maldives is near the equator. Sea level rises usually exceed the general rate in the tropics.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan What you are saying is that you haven't noticed the sea level rise in the Maldives from the vantage point of your living room, thousands of miles away. The sea level at the Maldives has risen 8" in the last 40 years, but unlike you, the local residents have noticed:
"By 2020 the Maldives plans to eliminate or offset all of its Greenhouse emissions." - Wikipedia
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "USA heat records ... Only one record from 2000 and onwards"
Sydney alone has had TWO heat records in just the last 4 days!
In 2010, Russia experienced a massive heatwave with temperatures in the 40s which caused 40% of their grain crop to fail. The USA was also affected by the heatwave too:
"Many records were broken, some of which dated back to the 19th century"-Wikipedia
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan RE Monkton's claim: The Himalayan glaciers showing no particular change in 200 years, except Gangotri.
Monkton has had to admit that they have been receeding for almost 200 years. A video by Potholer54 explains:
"Monckton Bunkum #3 - Correlations & Glaciers"
So the himalayan Glaciers are retreating and with continued warming will disappear in the furture. Most are currently melting at a rate between 20-30 m/yr. As temperatures rise so too will the melt rate.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Yes the climate has been changing up and down but my video demonstrates that the current change is not natural and that the upward trend is due to the effect of CO2 and methane. The video also demonstrates that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the burning of fossil fuels.
RasPesher 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Melting ice sheets -> overrated"
I'm sure that polar bears would not agree with you. If they can't get to the seals what are they going to eat?
The trouble is that the ice is highly reflective. When it melts the Earth heats up quicker.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Lets stick to the big picture"
Yes, good point but that was where the conversation started, the big picture:
"Depending on which dataset is used, 2010 was the hottest year on record or the second hottest."
However you can't accuse me of cherry picking the data because I picked the city I live in and the days upon which you sent your messages - Just happened that they were all record temperatures or near record temperatures.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan If you think that we are headed for another ice age soon, then would it not be prudent to keep the fossil fuels in reserve for when they're needed?
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Hate to burst your bubble but the temperatures are not dropping. So far this month Sydney had its second highest temperature on record for the 1st day of the month. The 2nd day was again the 2nd highest temperature recorded for the second of the month. The 3rd day was the HIGHEST temperatrure on record for the 3rd day of the month. So far today we are within a degree of the 2nd highest temp on record for the 4th day of the month. Its another typical summer's day in mid-winter ???
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan You sound like this elderly woman I knew. Whenever the mercury soared over the century mark, she'd be puting on a jumper. Senility can have strange effects.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Ooops there goes another rubber tree. Was it a "decline" in rubber trees? After sifting through thousands of stolen emails, the best they could come up with was "hide the decline". Your quote doesn't even say what the decline was in.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "one STRONG T->C implication & one much weaker C->T"
Good you're almost there. Depending on which dataset is used, 2010 was the hottest year on record or the second hottest.
The graph in the video (which goes up to 2005) shows that over the 25 year period from 1980 to 2005 the temperature increased by about 1°F.
C->T at the rate of 1°F/25 yrs.
At 1°F/25yrs it would take less than 700 yrs to flip from an ice age to an interglacial. What you call weak is like grease lightening!
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "Increased temprature on Earth increase CO2 levels due to Ocean emitting CO2"
In general, I agree with this statement. However my video goes further, it demonstrates three additional things:
1) Over the last 800,000 years there has been a correlation between T and C.
2) Post 1950 C leads T.
3) From 1970 to 1996 C caused T.
This is not to say that C has not caused T at other times, such as the PETM.
Conclusion: We have a positive feedback situation: T causes C and C causes T.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan I think you meant Venus not Mars. Mars has very little atmosphere.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "That gives us a ratio of ~90"
Yes that is why I previously said "18 (doubling) steps" as opposed to just "12 (doubling) steps.
...and why Earth's average temperature is not 740°K like Venus.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
Comment removed
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan "so thats over 200 times the level of earth"
The question is not by how much is 96% greater than 0.04% but what is the temperature sensitivity to increases in CO2. Also the scale is not linear. Each time you double the concentration of CO2, you increase the temperature by the same amount. So we get from 0.04% to 96% in just 12 (doubling) steps; not 200 times. If you take the extra density of Venus into account it becomes 18 steps (but still a lot less than 200).
RasPesher 6 months ago
@firepowerjohan Continued...
If we consider the CO2 greenhouse effect on Venus to be roughly +100°C (of the temperature of Venus which is 740°K), then dividing by 18 gives us the temperature sensitivity of 5.5°C per doubling of CO2. 115 years ago Arrhenius calculated it to be between 5 and 6%. Modern climate models calculate it to be 5.8°C.
RasPesher 6 months ago
Please look at this video
watch?v=Bs6ofn46xUY&feature=related
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 your video is out of date. There are now multiple proxies going backwards in time eg ice core samples, mollusc shells etc. The problem with tree ring data was mainly at higher latitudes. It is thought that the hole in the ozone layer was responsible for the divergence/decline in tree growth post 1960. Flourocarbons caused most of the damage to the O3 layer. Tree ring proxies have been found to be accurate prior to 1960 (prior to widespread use of flourocarbons).
RasPesher 6 months ago