Global Warming

[MrGeneralfischer]

Making this video was a waste of energy.

[Geedubya73]

Stopped watchin this after 5 seconds...

I do believe we are damaging the planet with our overuse of fossil fuels and overpopulation etc etc, but if you're going to make a video which tries to teach, then at least spell things correctly, giving some confidence to the viewer that the maker has a reasonably good grasp of the English language and a modicum of intelligence.

Things Affect us, not Effect.

[lynnjbmine]

@Geedubya73 Thanks for your comment. It's just one letter....I think you understood the meaning.

[themanofdares]

global warming isnt something we can help or stop, its a freak of nature

[Thunderhook715]

the only way to survive extreme Ice Age Or Extreme Global Warming Is Underground manmade or in Deep Natural Stable Caves.

And There Are Probably More Undiscovered Caves Than Documented Caves

[Elvistek]

that was the most ignorant words i read in these days... What are you talking about?

[Supremax67]

We are simply too many humans on this planet. We have no natural predators, so humans can expand without limit, until the planet can't take it anymore. Our planet was never meant to sustain more than a billion of us. United Nations needs to control birth growth before it's too late.

[themanofdares]

so you want people to stop populating the planet!!! are you crazy!!!! your talking about our planet as if its a god! the world is fine the trees are fine, this BS about the trees dying is just a bunch of crap

this planet is not goin to go in destruction because we dont recycle and all that crap

you Obama suppoters, and tree huggers should shut the heck up , you have no clue what your talking about Change, change , change, change!! just shut up, we dont need change!!!

[Tweak54]

The global warming isnt something we do.

Its the Galactic alignment that makes all planets come closer to each other and warm up.

[minilemur]

jffryfnt you keep talking pretentious sounding nonse about hydrological feedbacks. The point is that there is no evidence of positive feedbacks and runaway greenhouse effects in the long historical record we have for the planet. Moreover, temperature records over the last 20 years have WAY UNDERSHOT the IPCC lowest predictions.

The dumbest thing you claim is about CO2 concentrations. They have been 10 - 20 times as high in the past! NO runaway greenhouse effect - we're still here. Duh!

[minilemur]

jffryfnt - you keep missing the basic points: the CO2 graph does not correlate with the temperature graph on any level of granularity. There is much better correlation with solar activity. Even the IPCC models recognise that there predictions depend on assuming positive feedback - for which there is zero evidence. Even if positive feedback did exist why would it not be set off by the solar activity rather than a tiny increase in one of the least important GHGs.

[jffryfnt]

If you think it's all about correlations of graphs between CO2 and temperature, you've got much to learn my friend.

And yes, there's tons of evidence of feedbacks. These feedbacks are so incredibly important that over geologic time, they've essentially kept the Earth within a certain habitable temperature range (thankfully for negative feedbacks). Take a course in Earth history sometime, or read about it yourself. Read about the Cenozoic Earth. Read about chemical cycles of the Phanerozoic Eon.

[minilemur]

jffryfnt - on the contrary you have much to learn. AND YOU'VE COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT! Yes, there are negative feedbacks - so no problem. What I am saying is that the CO2 dogma depends upon POSITIVE feedbacks for which there is ZERO evidence. Why don't you read about the Holocene optimum or learn about the Cenozoic ice age when CO2 levels were 10 times as high as now.

[jffryfnt]

before you start discussing proxy records, I think you need to get your head around some basic fundamentals to understanding the Earth System, namely, with feedbacks. And you seem to have a really hard time with the positive ones, of which you allege is the only crutch holding up the AGW argument.

If no positive feedbacks exist then that means the hydrologic cycle does not exist. If increased warming increases evaporation rates, thereby increasing a more powerful greenhouse gas, water vapor...

[jffryfnt]

...consequently exacerbates the warming. But this can't exist! It's a positive feedback! Mind you, up until the vapor condenses and precipitates, in which that process is a negative (but it takes time for the negative to catch up!). Overall, it's a balance with no net gain either way--until it IS in balance. This is a very small scale example and there are many more. Look at the things that affect planetary albedo for instance.

[minilemur]

But all these things that your video suggests will make a zillionth of a difference or less to global warming. It isn't driven by CO2, but by internal climate variability (well within normal bounds) and by solar activity variations. It hasn't even warming at all for the last 8 years according to the very GISS statistics that the IPCC base their alarmism on.

[jffryfnt]

You need to revisit some basics. CO2 is a GHG. Without GHG, the Earth would be 33*C cooler.

Many things force climate, TSI is but only one. It's been warming for over a century, ya know.

[minilemur]

corrections jffryfnt you're the one that needs to revisit some basics - it's been warming for 200 years since the "little ice age", i.e. well before and thus nothing to do with human CO2 emissions.

Secondly, climate sensitivity to CO2 declines with each new increment of CO2 added. Are you suggesting that 33 degrees cooler would somehow be better? If not, why do you draw the line at current temperature, when the Earth has often been warmer, for instance during the mediaeval warm period.

[jffryfnt]

You're right, yes it's been warming since the LIA, but the rate of warming has certainly increased. Climates are always changing on the Earth, and yes MANY things can force climate.

But, you have no scientific basis to state that climate sens. decreases with increasing CO2. It's all dependent on the feedbacks.

We NEED CO2, otherwise we wouldn't have a habitable planet. It's not that AGW is bad, it's because it is abrupt, and gives little time for species to adapt, humans too.

[minilemur]

jffryfunt - it simply isn't true that the rate of increase has increased. Far from it. Temperatures have not risen at all for the last 10 years, for example. The rate of increase was faster in the first half of the 20th century than the second half.

You admit that your argument is all dependent upon the feedbacks. There is no scientific evidence confirming the positive feedbacks that you speculate about. Even if feedbacks did exist, why should they not be triggered by the sun rather than CO2?

[jffryfnt]

Um, there's tons of evidence of positive and negative feedbacks in the System, just look at thousands of proxy records of the past. If it was the sun, we'd see it in the data. Trouble is, it's not there!

CO2 is a GHG, present evidence to me that it isn't. Otherwise, just acknowledge the fact that it is a GHG, and that implicitly means that is CAN force climate.

[minilemur]

jffryfnt - your posts are so confused it's hard to know where to start. You can't just vaguely say there are positive and negative feedbacks: unless you can quantify them you can't honestly alarm us about unreasonable rises in temperature which can't be forced by CO2 alone. It is a greenhouse gas, but a much less important one than water vapour so adding CO2 has been calculated to have very little extra effect.

[jffryfnt]

Don't know too much Earth history do you? Feedbacks exist whether or not they can be quantified. Inasmuch as you may think I'm making anything up, it is supported in the scientific literature. Water vapor is a GHG, BUT it is a feedback mechanism, NOT a forcing agent like CO2 is. Receding glaciers and melting permafrost are examples of positive feedbacks. Chemical weathering, over very long time scales, is a negative feedback mechanism. The Earth System is filled with feedbacks. Want more?

[minilemur]

Further, jffryfnt the rate of change isn't particularly unprecedented or abrupt. Again you just need to look at some historical temperature graphs to see that. Just think it through carefully. Visualise that famous huge graph in Al Gore's movie. In your mind's eye look at the steep curves that occur time after time over the last few hundred thousand years - does their gradient ring a bell - why yes excatly the same sort of gradient as in the twentieth century. Case dismissed.

[jffryfnt]

I know it isn't unprecedented. I never said it was. There's been much more abrupt climate changes in the past. Millions of years ago. By the way, you're missing the scale of those graphs you were looking at in Gore's 'movie'. You're appealing to ignorance. Case dismissed.

[minilemur]

so jffryfnt - you admit that there have been more abrupt changes in the past - presumably not caused by human CO2 emissions! How am I supposed to be missing the scale of those graphs in Gore's brainless movie? I'm appealing to science and scientific evidence. Case dismissed.

[jffryfnt]

Yes, there's been many more abrupt changes. Be careful of your logic here. That doesn't mean that since it's happened before, it's no reason to worry about it now, especially when we have a significant role in it. Take the massive extinction event that took place 65 million years ago: the Chixalub crater and the extinction of dinosaurs for instance. The fallout from the impact was a major climatic event wiping out most species on Earth. Of course, humans weren't there.

[jffryfnt]

Are you comparing the rates of waxing and waning of ice ages compared to the recent rise in temperature? First, let's acknowledge the fact that they are affected by completely different forcing mechanisms. Realize which type of forcing is occurring at each time. Furthermore, our signature on the current atmospheric CO2 concentration is not matched anywhere in any proxy record, not too mention, highly deviant of any natural carbon cycling process.

[dabiribd]

Great job

[Lovu4ave]

A new lifestyle is cherished for now(or forever;),that is, to erase your OWN carbon trace!!!Like Swiss Re, no matter for the pr's consideration or else, at least it's a positive attempt.