Wow the skeptic is a fricking lawyer just what do you think he is going to say but his clients who are the polluters aren't doing anything wrong which would make them liable. This is a joke to even have a lawyer talk about anything other than a legal matter, and no even open his corrupt biased mouth about anything scientific.
Climate scientists should not give in to these bullshit debates. The GW-deniers do not deserve a platform. They already have their corporate-welfare-fed organizations where they are free to spout all the lies and garbage they want.
Should a professor from the geology department waste their time debating whether the earth is flat or round with some dumb christian or Flat Earth Society member? No!
As for C14 in ice cores, that is used in recent work (by Lal et al) to reconstruct solar activity over the past 30000 years or so. Unfortunately they can't go back much further than that yet because of the short half-life. And of course, since it's a pretty new technique, there may be many caveats, among them interference from biological sources as the biosphere underwent significant changes over the measurement period.
(cont) The isotopic analysis I'm talking about has nothing to do with ice cores; it's measured directly today at stations such as that at Mauna Loa. They see a decrease in the C13 ratio. They also measure a slight but significant decrease in oxygen that is consistent with fossil fuel burning, and of course they can estimate how much we are burning directly at typical sources, as well as from knowledge about how much fossil fuel has been retrieved and sold.
They measured this and used it to Prove that "humans cause global warming by burning fossil fuels and releasing co2?"
Wouldn't it be easier to test if "burning" fossil fuels creates co2 instead of the heat and force that drives the machine?
Problem with the claim is Combustion isn't "burning" it's a exothermic reaction where the potential energy in the gasoline turns to heat and force within a small low oxygen area not allowing a "burn"
On ejection the caramelized gas can smolder to CO, though
@TheRealArchAngel Of course they test what gasses are produced during fossil fuel combustion. The reason they need these atmospheric measurements is because the CO2 may go elsewhere, and in fact a lot of it does; nearly half of it ends up in ocean and land sinks.
Well, Imbuki and CanX_2 co2 orbiters are well into their "5 year mission" recording real co2 concentrations from 100,000 points on earth, monitoring to access where they come from,monitoring to access how it flows,and monitoring to access where it goes and to see if the way co2 wonders around in the real world matches all the predictions,estimates,mathematical formulas,and computer models
The first of the Next generation sattilites are being launched and they with the OCOs will test "AGW"
There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has any effect on temp as it has NONE in the lab. You must increase CO2 to 200,000 ppm to achieve a 3 degree C temp change in the lab, this is like getting $100 or $200,000, which would have more effect on your life?
There is no direct proof 100 ppm increase that is so small has any effect on temp. Just remember that believers.
The fact is the IPCC argument is the following for man made global warming, it is an unproven IR theory that even if true the value is disputed, then they use models that have not been able to predict anything being positive loopback heavy that claim a small temperature increase from IR has an amplifying effect over time. If you believe in manmade global warming at least understand the unproven theories you are believing in. Us non believers need my than unproven theories – go figure
@MissingGWdotcom I'm not sure what you mean by an "IR theory". If you mean the basic radiative properties of greenhouse gasses like CO2, that is based on fundamental physics and it was demonstrated by Arrhenius more than 100 years ago, and by many others subsequently. That much is not controversial in the slightest. What complicates matters are the feedbacks, but paleodata suggests that uncertainty there may not be our friend (e.g. rapid changes during D-O events, meltwater pulse 1a, the PETM).
As someone that designs biospheres it irks me that people say "Green house effect" when a greenhouse creates a mini biosphere separate from the outside...it doesn't "trap heat" with it's glass or netting (a machine does that)
Likewise Earth's heat regulator is the Earth's core pluming and waning for last 4 billion years not the bullshit trace gases it emits with the heat during it's "pluming cycles" driving current Inter-glaciation cycle,earthquakes,&Iceland subduction volcanic awakening
@TheRealArchAngel The earth's internal heat contributes very little to the warming at the surface. I don't recall exactly, but I think it was on the order of 1 or 2%. The sun causes most of the warming, and GHGs just absorb heat radiation and reemit part of it back to earth, thereby warming it a bit more. And yeah, it's a bit of a misnomer. Archer uses the metaphor of a partially clogged drain; some water builds up in the sink until the pressure is such that flow in=out.
Correction, it's actually more on the order of 0.02%. Thus, the earth system receives nearly 5000 times the amount of energy from the sun than it does from the earth's internal heat - though obviously that heat is still very important for plate tectonics and volcanism, so it can still influence the climate indirectly.
@werecow2003 Here is the problem you believers do not even know what your own argument is, damn it it is in the IPCC 4th report chapters 1, 6 and 9 explains it all. Takes about 2 hours to read darn it. You are correct CO2 is a greenhouse gas but in the lab it takes 200,000 PPM of CO2 (or 20%) to get a 3 degree C increase, NOTE 100 PPM HAS NO! I SAID NO AFFECT! Nothing of nothing is nothing!!!! We are talking about CO2 rising .01%!!! not 20%%%% like me giving you 100 dollars or 200,000!!!!! HELLO
So you have a scientist on the one hand laying out the state of knowledge, and a lawyer on the other throwing out utter BS at rates that would make Duane Gish proud. I can tell that he's never opened a paleoclimatology textbook in his life. And then you get two minutes of rebuttal time? This is the problem that scientists face in communicating this issue. It's really easy to make shit up, but it takes a lot of time to explain what makes it shit.
@FromDimmuLand Do you seriously think a few angry emails written by a handful of people trump 97% of publishing climate scientists, every significant scientific body in the world, and decades of work by thousands of researchers?
@werecow2003 Ofcourse, I believe the group that Do NOT stand to make Billions in Tax scams more than the ones who Gets all those Billions of Tax Dollahs.. Any Day of the Week....
@FromDimmuLand You might want to look at the funding sources of those spreading climate change doubt.
But either way, you shouldn't take the word of any politician, be it Gore or Inhoffe. Listen to the people who study this stuff instead - but when you do, do not take the word of any single scientist, but look at the aggregate, the preponderance of evidence, as Schneider liked to say.
Belief is for religion,"Truth" is for philosophy and "debate" is for politics
Test the fucker
re-test the fucker
test all other explanations
That is the true Scientific Method
The Eggheads have made their case with their glorified Sim\Earth,predictions and mathematical formulas
Now the "grunts"(like me) have 10 billion (in just the US) to verify,Tests,re-test and Falsify "AGW" with Imbuki and CanX-2 tracking CO2 in real time to see if comes out from,moves and goes into where Eggheads claim
UN is nothing BUT an entity for the Bankers to protect Them from Us..
Co2 is a life giving gas, all plants needs it, and the Warming you are lieing about is realy Your Nuclear Bomb Tests work.... Stop Lieing .............
Talk about Post Glacial Rebound, that is the Problem, NOT CO2 .........
nuclear fallout has caused the ice to melt. Now where in Post Glacial Rebound. the oceans are not rising ie sea level. the ocean floor is sinking. PROVE ME WRONG!! Scott (BUG) watch my vids. I made one for this vid. too
@believersunderground You certainly do upset some folks don't you, bro? Although if they hated the Master they must hate his friends, eh? Be strong and very brave, there really only One to please!
Lets just say co2 does harm the earth, if the volcano in Italy 20 years ago created 20 years worth of the worlds combined co2 emissions surely wasting all this time and money on reducing it is pointless and just supressing the population during an economic crisis? surely we should be using this horrible green tax to not prevent something we cannot stop but to survive the effects....destroying free market and a one world government wont solve anything
No with a broken EBC Humans emmit Carbon Monoxide,not Carbon Dioxide
And considering there is only 1.2 trillion tons of Co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air and the rise in co2 is 500 billion tons in the last 150 years most of the Environuts estimate of how much co2 humans magically make by using "evil oil" is grossly overestimated
With proper ECB CO2 in exhauist from aor intake and additives is 68 grams to 323 grams a gallon not "19lb a gallon"
It continues to amaze me that people like MissingGWdotcom continue to offer up arguments proclaiming climate change skepticism yet provide no peer-reviewed data. More than 98% of climate science experts are in agreement that AGW is real and that we must act now. In fact, the arguments he does provide have been debunked countless times. He's a fossil fuel industry shill.
The IPCC does claim the current temp rise must be man because the cant explain it, but they cant explain any of the 100s of drastic and sudden temp changes seen in the GISP and Vostok ice cores since the last ice age, as much as 3 degree C in 200 years is common but the IPCC makes no mention of this data and simply ignores it in their 4th report as they want you to believe any temp change is abnormal, that is a lie.
See the ice cores graphs at my site, same as my name.
The UN wants $60 billion to figure how the climate really works, good idea as long as the IPCC is no part of it and a bipartisan panel is interpreting the data.
A recent meeting of top economists were asked to spend a $1 trillion on the best things to help mankind and reducing CO2 came in dead last! First was disease (Aids), followed by things like malnutrition, free trade, malaria, new food technologies, clean water and water technologies, migration, lower cost government, infant mortality, health services, and then dead last at #15 was lowering CO2.
I think it is important to understand the IPCCs proof of man made global warming. There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm in the lab to see a 3 degree C change. Global warming nuts then say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere.
This is false. They've now directly measured outgoing longwave radiation at CO2 associated bandwidths decreasing at the top of the atmosphere into space, while the downward longwave radiation at those bandwidths coming from the atmosphere at the surface has simultaneously increased. That is as direct as you can get - it's CO2 trapping heat. See Wang 2009, Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Philipona 2004 and Evans 2006. I can send you links if you're interested.
@werecow2003 Funny even if IR were true the amount of the value is disputed. Now the IPCC claims the value is .5 degree C for 100ppm increase in CO2 and there proof is what they claim is today's observed value (.5 C from 100 ppm co2), Go figure but then they go on to say it has to be the total value because they have no other explanation but then again they state their mission in not to explain natural events, lolol, all a big scam
@MissingGWdotcom You seem to be convinced that either climate scientists are complete blabbering idiots or that they're all involved in some kind of evil socialist plot. I can't really help you with that, but I can say that you're creating a giant straw man regarding how climate sensitivity is estimated. A huge deal of work goes into that topic, using models, paleodata, experimental data, the historical record, and our understanding of the physics.
@werecow2003 There is no such things as a climate scientist, there a people that do models, some do tree rings, some coral reefs, some thermal dynamics, some ocean currents and on and on and on. Dr Mann studies tree rings and badly, he is not an all knowing climate scientist, no one is. Same for the rest at the CRU. Fact is many scientists know the weakness of the IPCC science and have signed petitions disagreeing with it.
@MissingGWdotcom That's like saying there's no such thing as a linguist because some focus on morphology and some on grammar. No one is claiming that Mann or Jones or any individual scientist is all-knowing, but the preponderance of evidence points decisively in one direction.
Regarding the petitions, I can only assume that the Oregon Petition is one of those. Do yourself a favor and check the credentials of the people on those lists. Most are not publishing climate scientists.
@werecow2003 Your just upset because you are one of these fools that thinks there is an all knowing climate scientist, LMAO!!! No such thing dude it is made up of 1000s of fields, Mann studies tree rings and poorly but he is your nuts GLOBAL MAN MADE CLIMATE expert, cracks me up.
@werecow2003 Look if you want ot believe in an unproven IR theory and models that say the small temp change from IR has an amplifying effect over time but these models have not been able to predict crap, and the fact the IPCC does not even try to explain natural temp changes then hay be my guest many do, in particular those getting research $.
@werecow2003 But until I see some real proof a 100 ppm increase in C02 has any effect and the temp change today is natual and needed I am not drinking the koolaid sorry.
@MissingGWdotcom The difference in CO2 between the ice ages and interglacials was around 100 ppm. The sun drove the initial changes there due to orbital variations (Milankovic), but you need GHG and albedo feedbacks to get the numbers right - solar forcing comes nowhere near the level of forcing required. There are other events, such as the PETM, that similarly show a likely correlation (in this case with methane). See Cronin's textbook Paleoclimates (2009).
@werecow2003 God I get so bored teaching beleivers their own darn argument, Funny on CO2, you know how the measure CO2, on a mountian somewhere in HI. but do you think that measurement is the same all over the planet, no not even close for example in a forest and near ocean in can rise 700, 800, 1100 ppm. Funny measuring CO2 like this would be like measuring temp from just one place and making that the benchmark, but we do with C02, but more great science, but lets say it is true up 100 ppm
@werecow2003 Really orbital variation please do tell, there is all kinds of debate in this area as well as most say a change in tilt or orbit whatever it was would not have enough effect to make any differance. Just like all this crap we do not know shit and are in second grade, look go beleive in whatever you want but it is just a belief at this point in history.
@werecow2003 Oh good solar forcing, funny the IPCCs has cut the suns effect drasticaly from one report to the next, meanwhile the evideance is showing more and more it is the driving force, but the IPCC claims their job is not to explain natural change but blame eveything today on man because they cant explain it what a scam.
You have been scammed and if you start thinking critical and look at the other side you will see the huge ass holes.
@werecow2003 Funny have you ever looked at the Vostok or GISP data, the two oldest and most studied ice cores in the world? For example the GISP show the NH was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree C 2000 years ago and 3 degree C 3300 years ago with many ups and downs in between. If you look at major events in history
Honestly, I am more interested in the real time co2 measurements Imbuki launched in Jan 2009 and CanX-2 launched in Nov 2008 is collecting from 100,000 points on earth to:1
1) Get a more accurate co2 world concentration
2) Track Co2 flow (where it comes from,where it goes)
3) and with Next generation weather sattilites being launched starting july 2010 TEST
a)If local Co2 consentration effects tempature
b If eloevated tempatuire from Co2 effects weather
There is uncertainty on issues like storm intensity, although there is some tentative evidence that hurricane intensity may have increased - as is predicted from theory. But that's certainly not a settled issue, as any educated person will admit.
However, you can't then jump the gun and say right now "we're going to test it, and the answer is going to be no". You don't know that, and in fact what limited knowledge we currently have (weakly) points the other way.
@TheRealArchAngel Excellent questions and as you know the more you dig the more BS this all seems to be built on. Iagree on CO2 question but for argument sake will accept this 100ppm rise in CO2 the last 200 yrs. (I am with you their determining this is full of questions as like temp CO2 varies greatly and just taking it from one mountian top is full of holes). Even if true 100ppm increase has no effect and we are ignoring natural and certian temp change up to 3 deg C in little as 200 years
"but for argument sake will accept this 100ppm rise in CO2 the last 200 yrs."
Actually that is the general consensus of the opinion and predictions
"CO2 varies greatly and just taking it from one mountain top is full of holes":
That is why Imbuki was launched in January 2009 and CanX-2 in November 2008..to collect real world Co2 creation/in points,how co2 moves and drop out point in real world/real time to compare against predictions and computer simulations to see if they match
"Even if true 100ppm increase has no effect and we are ignoring natural and certian temp change up to 3 deg C in little as 200 years
MissingGWdotcom 15 hours ago"
Problem is the Ground based Weather stations data used for the so call\ed "AGT" is only about 40 in number and all in the Northern Hemisphere so what you have with that "AGT" is a +1.4 in the Northern Hemisphere ot Regional Temperature jump
Regional "Climate variability" swings in daily and trend temperatures 20 degrees either way
P.S. AGT or Average Global Tempatures mean nothing to Regional and area tempature swings and daily and trend tempature swings mean nothing for daily weather and trend weather....the real determiners of relative Ecology (e)(enviroment.plants.life) often mislabeled "climate"
Real "Climate"(C) is a Geological Feature determined by elevation and between what 2 lines of latitude a area falls (Tropics,Sub Tropics,Temperate,Polar,Sub-Polar,Highlands)
@werecow2003 for example the Anasazis Indians civilization in America southwest failed in 850 AD or he same time GISP shows us the temperature dropping 1 degree C. The Mayans had a failure 5200 years ago or same time GISP shows us temperature dropping almost 2 degrees C and the Egyptians stop building pyramids 4000 years ago for a few 100 years when there was another 1 degree C drop. What caused all this, I agree the sun is the major driving force just like today and ignored more and more byipcc
@werecow2003 You can talk about the five major ice ages the last 600,000 years blame the tilt or orbit but that theory has a lot of problems, the fact is even during the last ice age that ended about 14,000 years ago and lasted for almost a 100,000 years the ice core data shows the temp had a natural oscilation of 3 degrees C in little as 200 years even during an ice age where it is 15 degree C colder, go figure. Just like today and we are way overdue for a major natural swing in the NH.
@werecow2003 You need to read a great article by R M Carter entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate as it details all the scientific facts in easy to read format that proves man made global warming is a myth. Funny the you are like dumb people I ask for their proof of man made global warming and thier answer "well all sceintist say so", one not true and stupid.
Look how about just the facts? You dont even know the IPCCs own argument, I can tell you are in 2nd grade on this subject.
@werecow2003 Here is the IPCC proof, and unproven value disputed IR thoery and models that claim this small change in temp has an amplfying effec over time, and if true this system would have it tipping point a long time ago. That is the other things the IPCC makes no attempt to explain how the temp has went down in the past, even their dampen palo data shows the temp was higher than today 1000 and 2000 years ago, but it went back down and no explanation from the IPCC or room for it inthetheory
@werecow2003 Look you can believe in bad science all you want and many of these believer scientists will tell you the proof is shaking today but just give them a million$ and they will prove it because they just feel it is true and want to save the world, well one does I wil be the first in line to thank him, I have been looking for proof of man made global warmig for 30 years now.
Free country so believe in want you want, but know it just a belief based on unproven theories.
@werecow2003 Now lets say IR is true most agree the value would be in a couple of tenths one degree F, not C. Even if we could prove this which we cannot. It is their theory. A couple of tenths one degree F this is nothing in particualal when the ice corse show temperture natural oscialttes 3 degrees C and has for 10,000s of years in little as 200 year time frame. Thats the scam an unproven IR theory where the impact is in dispute and models that cant predict crapclaiming over time an amp effect
@werecow2003 I have read all this and I would suggest you read the IPCC 4th report chapters 3, 6 and 9 to understand their arguments seeing all the holes it is full of. For example the IPCC ignores the Vostok and GISP ice core showing a 3 degree C temp osillation in is little as 200 years is very normal but ignored by the IPCC because there mission is not to explain natural events so they just ignore it, oh got to love UN science.
@MissingGWdotcom Paleodata is used in establishing the range of climate sensitivity, and that certainly does include ice core data. What you call "normal" are rather dramatic natural shifts in climate. This is why some are concerned about tipping point scenarios having to do with a shutdown of the MOC - although that scenario is considered unlikely. I don't know how you get from that that this is some kind of scam.
@werecow2003 Yes that data works great till about 1000 years ago but ice cores are the only thing coing back 100,000 of years. And I know they love to blend all this data together to dampen the the sharp spikes seen in the ice cores, oh then they add a 40 year filter to cut off the spikes, all a nice trick to dampen the data. Funny lets use plant, trees, corel reefs, and ice cores add 40 year fitlers to disprove 1000 of temp changes seen in the ice cores upto 3 degrees C in little as 200 years
Well, another flaw in using Ice Cores as "proxies" is that the Ice is created by the ocean currents curning the super cooled water of the poles and so the Co2 enbeded in the ice is the co2 that was in the ocean current at the time, not the air that was above
That,and as I mentioned before, Co2 is hevier then air and tries to sink to the lowest point out of the Evaporation/percip[itation cycle or Ocean current convection(meaning co2 in Ice is moreleikey that caught in sea current convection)
@TheRealArchAngel Really, so 100s of miles away from the ocean in Greenland and Antarctica that data now does not count, funny, (These are very large land masses dude) oh the far left way find away to ignore it as the ice core data is include in all of the proxie data but it is just dampen down with poor data like tree ring data and 40 years filters.
You say the Media says the Scientist supposedly say the data means a certain thing
But the collection of studies the IPCC compiled like the Roman Church Compiled the Bible is dubious in trying to picemail something that none of the Scientists are even suggesting and would be hard pressed to even say for fear of their opinions being twisted (again)
The predictions of raising AGT providing more heat to power intensified storms does not = "prove AGW" for instance,it's obvious meteorology
Likewise the c13 to c14 ratio thing you are mentioning is not in Ice core records persay but in plans trapped in the ice v.s. living plants which seem to be ingesting more inorganic Co2 (C13 rich ) then organic co2 (c14 rich)
It was only suggested that a rise in c13 co2 might be from burning fossil fuels but the problem is Gasoline is rich in c7,c11,and c12 but has no c13 or c14 to magically make co2 with any c13/c14 ratio as a byproduct short of nuclear fusion or chemical agitation(smirk)
@TheRealArchAngel C14 has too short a half life (a little under 60000 years) to be used to reconstruct glacial/interglacial cycles. You're confusing different things. The ice cores contain samples of actual ancient air trapped in bubbles in the ice (from the time at which that ice gets compressed enough to trap the gas). That way we can directly sample the local atmospheric composition. (cont.)
Oops, Typo supposed to be c12 to c13 ratio with high c13 being associated with mineral or "inorganic" Co2
Also emphasis, Natural Gasoline has c7,c11,and c12 with other "volatiles" from C and in between but is refined into propane,butane,natural gas and other fractal derivatives (to valuable to ju8st burn) and the gas nowadays is engineered from dirivative fraction so thus doesn't contain c12 which is used in plastics and carbon fiber making instead(smirk)
@MissingGWdotcom Ice cores are not the only thing going back to 100000 years; there are borehole cores, paleosols and speleothems. They are the only direct source of ancient CO2 measurements, though, I'll give you that (although you can reconstruct those levels using proxy data - with considerable uncertainty).
@MissingGWdotcom Emiliano and Raymo used benthic forminifera from ocean sediment cores to reconstruct the ice age cycles before ice core data became available. Other people used fossilized corals to do the same thing. Speleothems have been used to reconstruct precipitation patterns during that time. Apparently you're the one unaware of the availability of such long term records, not I, so you might want to tone down on the scoffing.
@werecow2003 Swell, what do any of these things have to do with TEMPERTURE Records! The ice cores are clear there is a natural 3 degree oscilation that can happen in little as 200 years. Why are all these natural temp swings and the causes for those ignored? oh the because the IPCC says it is not their job to explain natural temp change but they are convinced with an uproven IR theory and nothing else, how funny!
@werecow2003 sorry the tipping point has never happened depsite CO2 in the past being much higher and tempertures in the past being much higher, you are being fooled by IPCC UN trickery that is clear to see if you read their report as they admit to most.
@MissingGWdotcom What are you talking about? The tipping points that are seriously discussed in the literature have occurred many times in the past. You have D-O events, the Younger Dryas, all sorts of sudden, rapid changes. These are - I can only guess - the "sharp spikes" you were talking about before.
@werecow2003 Yes even during the Younger Dryas the temp in the ice cores SH and NH (northern hemisphere in case this is new to you) the temp oscilated 3 degree C too, lets look at the last 14,000 years since then and forget orbit, tilts and all that as it has nothing to do with today, that is a theory for triggering the huge ice ages we see every 20,000 years last 80,000 or so.
The GISP show the NH was 1 degree C higher, 1000 years ago, 2 degree 2000, and 3 degree for 3300 ago
@werecow2003 Even the palo data bears this out going back to 2000 years ago but they use all kinds of tricks to dampen the increases 1000 and 2000 years ago down. After 2000 and many say 1000years palo data sucks, and manns work is bearing this out as people are looking at it like Steve McIntyre work shows (thi is the giy in the climategate emails they want to beat up, go figure.
@werecow2003 Dude look at the Vostok and GISP temp data the last 14,000 years or SINCE the last ice age and ask yourself why do 4 reports of the IPCC reports ignore this data, the answer their job is not to explain natural temp changes, you have been scammed but can beleive in what you want, me I need to see facts, not uneducated BS you splat out like most here, but will give you a kudo you know more than most these dumb beleivers.
So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temp a few tenths of one degree F. A few degrees F is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the nuts say well CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do.
MissingGWdotcom what the fuck do global warming scientist have to gain from this??? I don't understand why would they make it up? You keep talking about it like its a forma conspiracy or sumtin and all I know is that they don't seem to have any financial ties or motives...like the economists you talk about...so who's the biased?
@timsgotaim Funny today most the funding into climate research private and public is going to groups supporting the climate scare. For example you have the IPCC in the UN as its job is to examine made made global warming as their mission claims they are not their to explain past natural temperature changes seen in the ice cores.
@timsgotaim I think you find these scientists on the global warming side motives vary greatly, for example several have admit they cannot prove man made global warming but they hope their research will be the one to prove it, some have political ideaologies that drive them and would like to see the gov using this issue to make policies as they really beleive man is going to destroy themselves if they do not. Many know which way the money is flowing and need those research dollars to survive...
@timsgotaim And depite all this money and research they still ignore 100s of sudden and drastic temp changes up to 3 degrees C in as little as 200 years seen 100s of times in the ice cores over the last 10,000 years or since the last ice age, the IPCC for example does not mention this anywhere in their 4th report but their job is not to explain past temp changes you know...
@timsgotaim But then the IPCC states several times in the 4th report the current temp change must be man because they cant explain it!!! Wow
Then they have made up values of IR based on the conclusion man's increase of 100 ppm CO2 did cause the .5 C warming so they give IR a number based on this, but what most the current warming was caused by the same natural forces that caused 100s of past temp changes and their value of IR is way off, like the cart before the hoarse.
@timsgotaim The the IPCC claims IR raises the temp an assigned amout from 100 ppm CO2 increase in 50,000 feet of athmosphere (in the lab it does nothing) now we can argue this IR value from .5 C (blaming man for all of todays temp increase) to .2 F temp increase from man as IR is not a perfect insulator as the IPCC claims but then IPCC trick is to claim their incomplete positive force models show an amplyfying effect on temp over time from this increase.
@MissingGWdotcom for some reason I just don't believe you .... I can't imagine that what you are saying has escaped the brilliant scientific minds of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and more universities that lead the world in climate change research...And You still fail to gimme any reason or motive for why they would be doing this
@timsgotaim Note Not all scientists agree on global warming as there are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning man-made global warming and in a petition more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. to reject Kyoto.
Another petition it was signed by 9,021 American PhD's and 22,051 additional American scientists. No not all of them are climatologist but many experts in related fields. For example those that study solar activity.
Petitions are as much politics as Consensus (rollseyes)
The real Scientists have gotten funding to launch Imbuki Co2 orbiter in Jan 2009 and Canx-2 Co2 orbiter in August 2008 They are both now gathering True CO2 consentration levels, where co2 really comes from,where it goes from 55,000= points to compare against the models
Nextgen weather sattilites soon to be lauched will then coorolinate with the Co2 orbitersto TEST if co2 effects Tempature,weather,and climate as claimed
@TheRealArchAngel Real Scientist, that is funny. Now CO2 is measure on a mtn in HI, this is what the IPCC refers to and they claim CO2 has increase 100 ppm, but again 100 ppm has no effect on temp in the lab, the IPCC uses tricks like IR and models to claim some unproven increas in temp from 100 ppm increase in CO2
@TheRealArchAngel Now measuring CO2 on a mtn is really BS because just imagine measuring temperture just on place on the earth, for example on forest floorsCO2 can vary 700 ppm, same with near oceans, and etc.
Did you know if the take 50 CO2 measurments in ice the get 50 answers? Then they average the 50 samples to get an average but the throw out the highs to get the lowest average.
Thankfully the US politicians in the Senate and House ask geoographers geology questions, Meterologists Meterology questions,and Oceanagraphers Oceanagraphy questions and take the Advice of a UN board headed by a Economist and filled with "experts" from government agencies and University facullty running glorified SimEarth Programs with a grain of salt,(smirk)
@TheRealArchAngel You really do not get it, there is no such thing as a climate expert as you would need to be an expert in every field. There are several issues right, you have the past, climate models, IR theory, ice cores, proxy data from tree rings to corel reefs, you have oceans, hell they are not even sure if clouds are a neg or pos feedback so you needs folks studing this, physics, economist, solar experts, biologiest, on and on,
It's why Meterologists, Ecologists,Geologists, Biologists, OCeanagraphers would actually need to work together to test the claims of the Ecionomist,University faculty,and Government apointed "climate Expert" like Obama's "Weather Cazr" that heads NOAA(smirk)
As car as cloauds,they are from the moisture climing with the evaporation percipitation cylce from the warm Thermocline interaction with the 32f upper tropposhere and cooling as wind and the rising updraft is creates (thermal to kenetic energy)
Also note the President can't ever leagally sign Kyoto or Copenhagen cause it would be Unconstitutional without 2/3 of the states, 2/3 of the House,and 2/3 of the Senate giving him permision to hand over the Federation of States Government Souvernty (FEDeral cgovernemtn) to the UN (States not in support might even break away from the Union)
@TheRealArchAngel What in the world are you speaking of? Us having a tready sign with one country, a much of countries or the whole damn world it is not turning over rights to the UN, (I guess you could write a treaty for that and I am sure the power hungry progressives that have it all figured out would like to have one) but that was not Kyoto or any climate bill, it is just a big ass bill for us.
Un wants to be a real world government and have taxing and regulatory powers. always has and this is just their latest angle
It's why they were pissed with Obama upserping Copenhagem by assigning eventual Clitamte monitoring and redistribution of weakth powers to the World bank instead of the UN
UN exists at the leaisure of the President of the US as does the World Bank..they need to remember their place
@TheRealArchAngel RIGHT ON!!!! It is all about power, you know this all started in the UK when UK prime minister Thatcher wanted to use this as the reason to build more nuke plants.
Silly thing about that is that it takes 20x more oila and coal to build a nuclar Plant and it will still 5x more oil and coal to run and maintain it then burning the oil or coal directly..difference it thaat oil and coal material is locked up in the cement, steel production,plastic,composites that make the nuclear rods, stoarge containers, and disposal/management site.(So we still be on Oil)
P.S. Besides the major disatvantage od Solar being "night time" and Major disadvantage of Wind being, the wind don't always blow, the materials to make and maintain solar panels and Windmills (lubercation,glass,steel,carbon fiber,plastic,rubber) likkwise uses and is made from oil and coal....Windmills and Solar Panels don't just "pop out the ass"
@timsgotaim Check out the book the Deniers which includes opinion man made Global Warming is BS including Edward Wegman, Richard Tol, Christopher Landsea, Duncan Wingham, Robert M. Carter, Richard Lindzen, Vincent R. Gray, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Tom Segalstad, Nir Shaviv, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Hendrik Tennekes, Freeman Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, David Bromwich, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Sami Solanki, Jasper Kirkby, Habibullo Abdussamatov, George Kukla, the late Rhodes Fairbridge,
@timsgotaim I believe the administrator of NASA Michael D. summed it up by stating Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical.
@timsgotaim Great paper by R M Carter entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate
Lets be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results......
MissingGWdotcom I'm not saying that...Why do you keep spewing random shit that has nothing to do with the question I asked you? Stop red herring the question and please tell me what is the MOTIVATION for all these scientist to gather and lead the world to cut back on fossil fuels and etc. WHY?
@timsgotaim What scientist are gathering to do this. Note here is a problem oil todauy is the cheapest most effiecient energy supply on earth. Increasing CO2 a mere 100 ppm is not effecting temperture so here is an idea let us make everyone poor to stop something that does not exist? But hay we see it many times on the left as they shut down food production prefering people starve to save a 1 inch fish. Again the economists listed global warming LAST in what is important and can help mankind.
Physists using early 19th Century GHG Theory and ignoring John Tyndalls work that created Modern Meerology and "Zeroth Law" of thermal Dynamics?
Sounds like Selecctive education..lol
GHG Theory, specifically CO2 feedback was a proposal by Svante in 1912 while "Zeroth law" of Thermal Dynamics was developed as all the claims of "GHG "amplification" was tested and the Evaporation/Precipitation cycle was discovered instead
P.S. Also as Physists and not Oceanagraphers or Geologists these people still talking about antiquated and disproven by modern Meterology and Oceanagpaphy "GHG theaory" forget there is a Second heat source besides the sun that has the power to raise ocean and atmospheric tempatures besides the sun
Ocean trenchs where plates are created and destroyed adds heats to ocean as does ocean volcanos and steam vents
TheRealArchAngel again you are acting as if every modern day scientists has not thought of this...Please someone please just tell me the MOTIVE for lying about global warming research...why would they all want to fool us?
p.s. Even The Physists willtell you it's very hard to separate supposed "AGW" from natural interglacial warming (12c-18c,currently 15c as been for last 10,000 years) and "climate variability"(periodic +20f to -20f regional tempatuire swings, including "Midevil warming" and "Mini Ice age")
yeah cuz physissts specialize in the earth's climate...if you watched this video you wuld see that ther is substantial evidence in support of global warming...but you will always dispute that
YOur "Climate Expert" Physists play with maathimatical formulas and Glorified SImEarth programs and don't know 1% what Ecologists,Meterologists,Geologists,Oceanagraphers know
Correlating the tempature data witrh CO2 Data does not equal Humans are causing Global warming by burning fossil fuels
ooo yeah jus the fact that there is nearly 7 billion humans burning shit that produces CO2 has nothing to do with the rising CO2 that is a greenhouse gas which causes heat to be trapped on Earth....keep commenting using useless red herring tactics about some random experiment or a case where numbers didn't add up (despite it working thousands of other times) because I don't care haha
@TheRealArchAngel They do isotopic analysis on the CO2 in the atmosphere to confirm that the increase comes from burning fossil fuels, and they further confirm it by measuring the change in oxygen content (oxygen goes down as CO2 goes up). You're demanding a standard of evidence that is completely unreasonable and practically impossible to meet.
Well since Co2 is a gas that is 1.2 times heavier then air I wonder where you head that from
There are no direct or regular measurements of CO2 other then the Keeling station on Mauna Loa
They use Ice Cores or plants as "proxies" for past co2 analysis.
Lighter then air Carbon Monoxide is the gas made by burning fossil fuels without a ECB and all of man's Co2 is still up there between the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere
Carbon monoxide man amkes can't spontaneously "oxidize to Co2"
"Carbon Monoxide is the gas made by burning fossil fuels without a ECB and all of man's Co2 is still up there between the upper stratos"
That should read "and all mans CO is still up there"
It is CO that is a deadly gas not CO2
It is CO that is lighter then air,CO2 is heavier then air
Neither CO2 or CO does jackshit for heat output of Earth's core, they are just byproductrs just like the heat that exits earth through plate tectonics and warms planet
@TheRealArchAngel Mauna Loa isn't the only station, there are dozens. The reason it's always used as an example is because it has the longest record. Dozens is still too few, mind you, which is why they're also using other methods. For example, see here: watch?v=fe0SHVZGE98
P.S. I don't care either cause Time did away with the "Burning fossil fuels is gonna put us in another Ice Age" nuts 30 years ago and despite the internet age allowing the AGW stupidity to spead around the world at the speed ofl ight time is still on Real Sciences side,not the political Environut activists tthinking taxing/regulationg "the problem" will solve it when that is what caused the Economic meltfdown in 2008 (smirk)
@TheRealArchAngel what world are you living in? The idea to invest and transition to cleaner burning fuels led to the economic recession is absurd...We all know why it happened...from bankers lending loans to people who could not afford it and then betting on loans using derivatives and other ridiculous money making schemes...Wow...just based of what you said I find it hard to believe you even know what your talking about
Ah, but why would the Insurance on the dirivatives and loans be called causing the potential "Economic Meltdown"?
Just for the heck of it?
NO, people in the Retail and service industry were laid of cause retail sales were down,because people were laid off in the Travel Industry because nobody was traveling or spending(let alone pay their mortgage) if they are laid off and had to choose betwe Gas or food which was drvenup with taxes
John Tyndall,a Physist, proved by tests that water vapor was the conductor of heat into the atmosphere and the other gases was negilble (CO2 at .038% has heat asorbtion potential of 1/10 of a degree...OH MY GOD! WERE GONNA DIE!!!)
In fact John Tyndalls work was pivital in the creation of Meterology and adding the "Zeroth Law" of thermaldynamics which classical GHG theory breaks
@timsgotaim For example GISP shows it was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 years ago and 3 degrees higher 3300 years ago with many ups and downs in between. There are no anti global warming groups at the UN being giving money to explian these past change as all the money is being used to ignore these facts.
@timsgotaim Right the big problem is scientist and researchers receiving $ billions to build models and support research. Yes there are some economist on the dole who do report some awful economic event from what they beleive is certian man made global warming causing something. However as far as I know the economist polled above were just economist doing what economist normaly do look at costs and revenue not looking at the cost of coral reefs all day.
However the models have been proven wrong again as they predicted a .2 to .7 C temp rise the last ten years, however the temp did not go up at all and many say it went down .2 C not up, the models missed this completely and the leaked emails call it a travesty and the fix the numbers to hide the decline!
Heres a thought!, Mesure the temperature on mars and look at the similarities of the temperature rise, Astronomers have said "Mars is heating up too". But dont stop there mesure the temperture on our moon and venus. On a side note Astronomers and cosmetologists say the whole universe is heating up. No mater what the "for" or "against" arguments are, you wont be able to stop the ipcc and such bodys plans(who I've read are paying scientists to get the result they want), their minds are made up.
man! take out all the BS. ,and look at the ice cores. for the first time in history there is radioactive fallout in them. the real ?? is WHY ICE MELTS. This radioactive fallout is world wide! they should call it microwave earth! That's what I call it! prove me wrong! check the numbers! and stay focused. Truth Scott (BUG)
Knox wins by Sheldon losing. Dr. Hansen plugged in a volcano in his early model. Mt. Pinatubo followed the prediction.
The response of different species of plants is not linear to increased CO2
Sheldon doesn't understand the Keeling Curve. Manmade CO2 is evident by telltale isotopes. Ralph Keeling is constructing a similar data set. It shows O2 decreasing exactly by the amount of fossil fuels consumed.
Nice vid...
katheryncruz24 3 months ago
Wow the skeptic is a fricking lawyer just what do you think he is going to say but his clients who are the polluters aren't doing anything wrong which would make them liable. This is a joke to even have a lawyer talk about anything other than a legal matter, and no even open his corrupt biased mouth about anything scientific.
egcroan 9 months ago
Anyone who would trust an Inter Governmental Panel on ANYTHING is very gullible to power-mongers and their agitprop.
addvoc8 10 months ago
Climate scientists should not give in to these bullshit debates. The GW-deniers do not deserve a platform. They already have their corporate-welfare-fed organizations where they are free to spout all the lies and garbage they want.
Should a professor from the geology department waste their time debating whether the earth is flat or round with some dumb christian or Flat Earth Society member? No!
deskset24 1 year ago
@deskset24 I agree this is not two equals debating, and I doubt this lawyer is anything but a liar.
egcroan 9 months ago
As for C14 in ice cores, that is used in recent work (by Lal et al) to reconstruct solar activity over the past 30000 years or so. Unfortunately they can't go back much further than that yet because of the short half-life. And of course, since it's a pretty new technique, there may be many caveats, among them interference from biological sources as the biosphere underwent significant changes over the measurement period.
werecow2003 1 year ago
(cont) The isotopic analysis I'm talking about has nothing to do with ice cores; it's measured directly today at stations such as that at Mauna Loa. They see a decrease in the C13 ratio. They also measure a slight but significant decrease in oxygen that is consistent with fossil fuel burning, and of course they can estimate how much we are burning directly at typical sources, as well as from knowledge about how much fossil fuel has been retrieved and sold.
werecow2003 1 year ago
They measured this and used it to Prove that "humans cause global warming by burning fossil fuels and releasing co2?"
Wouldn't it be easier to test if "burning" fossil fuels creates co2 instead of the heat and force that drives the machine?
Problem with the claim is Combustion isn't "burning" it's a exothermic reaction where the potential energy in the gasoline turns to heat and force within a small low oxygen area not allowing a "burn"
On ejection the caramelized gas can smolder to CO, though
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Of course they test what gasses are produced during fossil fuel combustion. The reason they need these atmospheric measurements is because the CO2 may go elsewhere, and in fact a lot of it does; nearly half of it ends up in ocean and land sinks.
werecow2003 1 year ago
Well, Imbuki and CanX_2 co2 orbiters are well into their "5 year mission" recording real co2 concentrations from 100,000 points on earth, monitoring to access where they come from,monitoring to access how it flows,and monitoring to access where it goes and to see if the way co2 wonders around in the real world matches all the predictions,estimates,mathematical formulas,and computer models
The first of the Next generation sattilites are being launched and they with the OCOs will test "AGW"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has any effect on temp as it has NONE in the lab. You must increase CO2 to 200,000 ppm to achieve a 3 degree C temp change in the lab, this is like getting $100 or $200,000, which would have more effect on your life?
There is no direct proof 100 ppm increase that is so small has any effect on temp. Just remember that believers.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
The fact is the IPCC argument is the following for man made global warming, it is an unproven IR theory that even if true the value is disputed, then they use models that have not been able to predict anything being positive loopback heavy that claim a small temperature increase from IR has an amplifying effect over time. If you believe in manmade global warming at least understand the unproven theories you are believing in. Us non believers need my than unproven theories – go figure
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom I'm not sure what you mean by an "IR theory". If you mean the basic radiative properties of greenhouse gasses like CO2, that is based on fundamental physics and it was demonstrated by Arrhenius more than 100 years ago, and by many others subsequently. That much is not controversial in the slightest. What complicates matters are the feedbacks, but paleodata suggests that uncertainty there may not be our friend (e.g. rapid changes during D-O events, meltwater pulse 1a, the PETM).
werecow2003 1 year ago
As someone that designs biospheres it irks me that people say "Green house effect" when a greenhouse creates a mini biosphere separate from the outside...it doesn't "trap heat" with it's glass or netting (a machine does that)
Likewise Earth's heat regulator is the Earth's core pluming and waning for last 4 billion years not the bullshit trace gases it emits with the heat during it's "pluming cycles" driving current Inter-glaciation cycle,earthquakes,&Iceland subduction volcanic awakening
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel The earth's internal heat contributes very little to the warming at the surface. I don't recall exactly, but I think it was on the order of 1 or 2%. The sun causes most of the warming, and GHGs just absorb heat radiation and reemit part of it back to earth, thereby warming it a bit more. And yeah, it's a bit of a misnomer. Archer uses the metaphor of a partially clogged drain; some water builds up in the sink until the pressure is such that flow in=out.
werecow2003 1 year ago
Correction, it's actually more on the order of 0.02%. Thus, the earth system receives nearly 5000 times the amount of energy from the sun than it does from the earth's internal heat - though obviously that heat is still very important for plate tectonics and volcanism, so it can still influence the climate indirectly.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Here is the problem you believers do not even know what your own argument is, damn it it is in the IPCC 4th report chapters 1, 6 and 9 explains it all. Takes about 2 hours to read darn it. You are correct CO2 is a greenhouse gas but in the lab it takes 200,000 PPM of CO2 (or 20%) to get a 3 degree C increase, NOTE 100 PPM HAS NO! I SAID NO AFFECT! Nothing of nothing is nothing!!!! We are talking about CO2 rising .01%!!! not 20%%%% like me giving you 100 dollars or 200,000!!!!! HELLO
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
So you have a scientist on the one hand laying out the state of knowledge, and a lawyer on the other throwing out utter BS at rates that would make Duane Gish proud. I can tell that he's never opened a paleoclimatology textbook in his life. And then you get two minutes of rebuttal time? This is the problem that scientists face in communicating this issue. It's really easy to make shit up, but it takes a lot of time to explain what makes it shit.
werecow2003 1 year ago
This was BEFORE the Leaked Emails from CRU that shows M.Mann and P.Jones 'fudging' data, and they even destroyed all the Original data.. Wooops.
Ipcc is a joke.... Google CRU Emails ..
Google : Post Glacial Rebound ..
FromDimmuLand 1 year ago
@FromDimmuLand Do you seriously think a few angry emails written by a handful of people trump 97% of publishing climate scientists, every significant scientific body in the world, and decades of work by thousands of researchers?
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Ofcourse, I believe the group that Do NOT stand to make Billions in Tax scams more than the ones who Gets all those Billions of Tax Dollahs.. Any Day of the Week....
FromDimmuLand 1 year ago
@FromDimmuLand You might want to look at the funding sources of those spreading climate change doubt.
But either way, you shouldn't take the word of any politician, be it Gore or Inhoffe. Listen to the people who study this stuff instead - but when you do, do not take the word of any single scientist, but look at the aggregate, the preponderance of evidence, as Schneider liked to say.
werecow2003 1 year ago
Belief is for religion,"Truth" is for philosophy and "debate" is for politics
Test the fucker
re-test the fucker
test all other explanations
That is the true Scientific Method
The Eggheads have made their case with their glorified Sim\Earth,predictions and mathematical formulas
Now the "grunts"(like me) have 10 billion (in just the US) to verify,Tests,re-test and Falsify "AGW" with Imbuki and CanX-2 tracking CO2 in real time to see if comes out from,moves and goes into where Eggheads claim
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
UN is nothing BUT an entity for the Bankers to protect Them from Us..
Co2 is a life giving gas, all plants needs it, and the Warming you are lieing about is realy Your Nuclear Bomb Tests work.... Stop Lieing .............
Talk about Post Glacial Rebound, that is the Problem, NOT CO2 .........
FromDimmuLand 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man-made global warming is a scam.
GETole 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man-made global warming is a scam.
GETole 1 year ago
Man-made global warming is a scam.
GETole 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man-made global warming is a scam.
GETole 1 year ago
Man-made global warming is a scam.
GETole 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nuclear fallout has caused the ice to melt. Now where in Post Glacial Rebound. the oceans are not rising ie sea level. the ocean floor is sinking. PROVE ME WRONG!! Scott (BUG) watch my vids. I made one for this vid. too
believersunderground 2 years ago
Comment removed
HadasahB 11 months ago
@believersunderground You certainly do upset some folks don't you, bro? Although if they hated the Master they must hate his friends, eh? Be strong and very brave, there really only One to please!
HadasahB 11 months ago
Comment removed
believersunderground 2 years ago
Lets just say co2 does harm the earth, if the volcano in Italy 20 years ago created 20 years worth of the worlds combined co2 emissions surely wasting all this time and money on reducing it is pointless and just supressing the population during an economic crisis? surely we should be using this horrible green tax to not prevent something we cannot stop but to survive the effects....destroying free market and a one world government wont solve anything
sy2pie 2 years ago
@sy2pie Humans put out roughly 130 times as much CO2 annually as volcanoes do.
werecow2003 1 year ago
No with a broken EBC Humans emmit Carbon Monoxide,not Carbon Dioxide
And considering there is only 1.2 trillion tons of Co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air and the rise in co2 is 500 billion tons in the last 150 years most of the Environuts estimate of how much co2 humans magically make by using "evil oil" is grossly overestimated
With proper ECB CO2 in exhauist from aor intake and additives is 68 grams to 323 grams a gallon not "19lb a gallon"
CO2 costs $10 a pressurized pound
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
CO2 costs $10 a pressurized pound
I truely wish the Environuts were right cause that would mean I'd have a goldmine in my exhaust
Imagine, making $190 of Co2 with $3.57 of gasoline (Chi-ching)
Co2 is a clean burning fuel at 2000 degrees
Co2 is use in "CO2 punk" for driving pistions,some air bag/emergengy equip[met, air guns,soda machines and even model engines
Co2 mixed with a diacid turns into plastic
Co2 is used to decaffinate coffee
co2 is fuel in plasma cutters and gas lasers
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
It continues to amaze me that people like MissingGWdotcom continue to offer up arguments proclaiming climate change skepticism yet provide no peer-reviewed data. More than 98% of climate science experts are in agreement that AGW is real and that we must act now. In fact, the arguments he does provide have been debunked countless times. He's a fossil fuel industry shill.
sTevefor3 2 years ago
The IPCC does claim the current temp rise must be man because the cant explain it, but they cant explain any of the 100s of drastic and sudden temp changes seen in the GISP and Vostok ice cores since the last ice age, as much as 3 degree C in 200 years is common but the IPCC makes no mention of this data and simply ignores it in their 4th report as they want you to believe any temp change is abnormal, that is a lie.
See the ice cores graphs at my site, same as my name.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
The UN wants $60 billion to figure how the climate really works, good idea as long as the IPCC is no part of it and a bipartisan panel is interpreting the data.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
A recent meeting of top economists were asked to spend a $1 trillion on the best things to help mankind and reducing CO2 came in dead last! First was disease (Aids), followed by things like malnutrition, free trade, malaria, new food technologies, clean water and water technologies, migration, lower cost government, infant mortality, health services, and then dead last at #15 was lowering CO2.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I think it is important to understand the IPCCs proof of man made global warming. There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm in the lab to see a 3 degree C change. Global warming nuts then say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
@MissingGWdotcom "No direct proof"
This is false. They've now directly measured outgoing longwave radiation at CO2 associated bandwidths decreasing at the top of the atmosphere into space, while the downward longwave radiation at those bandwidths coming from the atmosphere at the surface has simultaneously increased. That is as direct as you can get - it's CO2 trapping heat. See Wang 2009, Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Philipona 2004 and Evans 2006. I can send you links if you're interested.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Funny even if IR were true the amount of the value is disputed. Now the IPCC claims the value is .5 degree C for 100ppm increase in CO2 and there proof is what they claim is today's observed value (.5 C from 100 ppm co2), Go figure but then they go on to say it has to be the total value because they have no other explanation but then again they state their mission in not to explain natural events, lolol, all a big scam
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom You seem to be convinced that either climate scientists are complete blabbering idiots or that they're all involved in some kind of evil socialist plot. I can't really help you with that, but I can say that you're creating a giant straw man regarding how climate sensitivity is estimated. A huge deal of work goes into that topic, using models, paleodata, experimental data, the historical record, and our understanding of the physics.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 There is no such things as a climate scientist, there a people that do models, some do tree rings, some coral reefs, some thermal dynamics, some ocean currents and on and on and on. Dr Mann studies tree rings and badly, he is not an all knowing climate scientist, no one is. Same for the rest at the CRU. Fact is many scientists know the weakness of the IPCC science and have signed petitions disagreeing with it.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom That's like saying there's no such thing as a linguist because some focus on morphology and some on grammar. No one is claiming that Mann or Jones or any individual scientist is all-knowing, but the preponderance of evidence points decisively in one direction.
Regarding the petitions, I can only assume that the Oregon Petition is one of those. Do yourself a favor and check the credentials of the people on those lists. Most are not publishing climate scientists.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Your just upset because you are one of these fools that thinks there is an all knowing climate scientist, LMAO!!! No such thing dude it is made up of 1000s of fields, Mann studies tree rings and poorly but he is your nuts GLOBAL MAN MADE CLIMATE expert, cracks me up.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Look if you want ot believe in an unproven IR theory and models that say the small temp change from IR has an amplifying effect over time but these models have not been able to predict crap, and the fact the IPCC does not even try to explain natural temp changes then hay be my guest many do, in particular those getting research $.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 But until I see some real proof a 100 ppm increase in C02 has any effect and the temp change today is natual and needed I am not drinking the koolaid sorry.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom The difference in CO2 between the ice ages and interglacials was around 100 ppm. The sun drove the initial changes there due to orbital variations (Milankovic), but you need GHG and albedo feedbacks to get the numbers right - solar forcing comes nowhere near the level of forcing required. There are other events, such as the PETM, that similarly show a likely correlation (in this case with methane). See Cronin's textbook Paleoclimates (2009).
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 God I get so bored teaching beleivers their own darn argument, Funny on CO2, you know how the measure CO2, on a mountian somewhere in HI. but do you think that measurement is the same all over the planet, no not even close for example in a forest and near ocean in can rise 700, 800, 1100 ppm. Funny measuring CO2 like this would be like measuring temp from just one place and making that the benchmark, but we do with C02, but more great science, but lets say it is true up 100 ppm
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Really orbital variation please do tell, there is all kinds of debate in this area as well as most say a change in tilt or orbit whatever it was would not have enough effect to make any differance. Just like all this crap we do not know shit and are in second grade, look go beleive in whatever you want but it is just a belief at this point in history.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Oh good solar forcing, funny the IPCCs has cut the suns effect drasticaly from one report to the next, meanwhile the evideance is showing more and more it is the driving force, but the IPCC claims their job is not to explain natural change but blame eveything today on man because they cant explain it what a scam.
You have been scammed and if you start thinking critical and look at the other side you will see the huge ass holes.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Funny have you ever looked at the Vostok or GISP data, the two oldest and most studied ice cores in the world? For example the GISP show the NH was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree C 2000 years ago and 3 degree C 3300 years ago with many ups and downs in between. If you look at major events in history
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Honestly, I am more interested in the real time co2 measurements Imbuki launched in Jan 2009 and CanX-2 launched in Nov 2008 is collecting from 100,000 points on earth to:1
1) Get a more accurate co2 world concentration
2) Track Co2 flow (where it comes from,where it goes)
3) and with Next generation weather sattilites being launched starting july 2010 TEST
a)If local Co2 consentration effects tempature
b If eloevated tempatuire from Co2 effects weather
c)If Co2 effected weather Changes CLimate
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel I think you'll like this project then: watch?v=fe0SHVZGE98
werecow2003 1 year ago
Sorting through Vulcan with subjective data is a problem cause there are still to many variables to fill in with suggestive guess work
Imbuki and CanX-2 will give us actual Co2 creation points,real time Co2 movements(if any) and where CO2 goes
With the Next generation weather satellites we can use IMbuki and and CanX-2
to test
1) If local Co2 concentrations effect local temperature as the Eggheads claim?
2) Does local Co2 effect weather through temperature as claimed by Eggheads?
(Hint:no)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Hint: no"
There is uncertainty on issues like storm intensity, although there is some tentative evidence that hurricane intensity may have increased - as is predicted from theory. But that's certainly not a settled issue, as any educated person will admit.
However, you can't then jump the gun and say right now "we're going to test it, and the answer is going to be no". You don't know that, and in fact what limited knowledge we currently have (weakly) points the other way.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Excellent questions and as you know the more you dig the more BS this all seems to be built on. Iagree on CO2 question but for argument sake will accept this 100ppm rise in CO2 the last 200 yrs. (I am with you their determining this is full of questions as like temp CO2 varies greatly and just taking it from one mountian top is full of holes). Even if true 100ppm increase has no effect and we are ignoring natural and certian temp change up to 3 deg C in little as 200 years
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
"but for argument sake will accept this 100ppm rise in CO2 the last 200 yrs."
Actually that is the general consensus of the opinion and predictions
"CO2 varies greatly and just taking it from one mountain top is full of holes":
That is why Imbuki was launched in January 2009 and CanX-2 in November 2008..to collect real world Co2 creation/in points,how co2 moves and drop out point in real world/real time to compare against predictions and computer simulations to see if they match
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Even if true 100ppm increase has no effect and we are ignoring natural and certian temp change up to 3 deg C in little as 200 years
MissingGWdotcom 15 hours ago"
Problem is the Ground based Weather stations data used for the so call\ed "AGT" is only about 40 in number and all in the Northern Hemisphere so what you have with that "AGT" is a +1.4 in the Northern Hemisphere ot Regional Temperature jump
Regional "Climate variability" swings in daily and trend temperatures 20 degrees either way
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
P.S. AGT or Average Global Tempatures mean nothing to Regional and area tempature swings and daily and trend tempature swings mean nothing for daily weather and trend weather....the real determiners of relative Ecology (e)(enviroment.plants.life) often mislabeled "climate"
Real "Climate"(C) is a Geological Feature determined by elevation and between what 2 lines of latitude a area falls (Tropics,Sub Tropics,Temperate,Polar,Sub-Polar,Highlands)
Eg,despite Snow Vegas is Temperate(C) Desert(E)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@werecow2003 for example the Anasazis Indians civilization in America southwest failed in 850 AD or he same time GISP shows us the temperature dropping 1 degree C. The Mayans had a failure 5200 years ago or same time GISP shows us temperature dropping almost 2 degrees C and the Egyptians stop building pyramids 4000 years ago for a few 100 years when there was another 1 degree C drop. What caused all this, I agree the sun is the major driving force just like today and ignored more and more byipcc
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 You can talk about the five major ice ages the last 600,000 years blame the tilt or orbit but that theory has a lot of problems, the fact is even during the last ice age that ended about 14,000 years ago and lasted for almost a 100,000 years the ice core data shows the temp had a natural oscilation of 3 degrees C in little as 200 years even during an ice age where it is 15 degree C colder, go figure. Just like today and we are way overdue for a major natural swing in the NH.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 You need to read a great article by R M Carter entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate as it details all the scientific facts in easy to read format that proves man made global warming is a myth. Funny the you are like dumb people I ask for their proof of man made global warming and thier answer "well all sceintist say so", one not true and stupid.
Look how about just the facts? You dont even know the IPCCs own argument, I can tell you are in 2nd grade on this subject.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Here is the IPCC proof, and unproven value disputed IR thoery and models that claim this small change in temp has an amplfying effec over time, and if true this system would have it tipping point a long time ago. That is the other things the IPCC makes no attempt to explain how the temp has went down in the past, even their dampen palo data shows the temp was higher than today 1000 and 2000 years ago, but it went back down and no explanation from the IPCC or room for it inthetheory
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Look you can believe in bad science all you want and many of these believer scientists will tell you the proof is shaking today but just give them a million$ and they will prove it because they just feel it is true and want to save the world, well one does I wil be the first in line to thank him, I have been looking for proof of man made global warmig for 30 years now.
Free country so believe in want you want, but know it just a belief based on unproven theories.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Now lets say IR is true most agree the value would be in a couple of tenths one degree F, not C. Even if we could prove this which we cannot. It is their theory. A couple of tenths one degree F this is nothing in particualal when the ice corse show temperture natural oscialttes 3 degrees C and has for 10,000s of years in little as 200 year time frame. Thats the scam an unproven IR theory where the impact is in dispute and models that cant predict crapclaiming over time an amp effect
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 I have read all this and I would suggest you read the IPCC 4th report chapters 3, 6 and 9 to understand their arguments seeing all the holes it is full of. For example the IPCC ignores the Vostok and GISP ice core showing a 3 degree C temp osillation in is little as 200 years is very normal but ignored by the IPCC because there mission is not to explain natural events so they just ignore it, oh got to love UN science.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom Paleodata is used in establishing the range of climate sensitivity, and that certainly does include ice core data. What you call "normal" are rather dramatic natural shifts in climate. This is why some are concerned about tipping point scenarios having to do with a shutdown of the MOC - although that scenario is considered unlikely. I don't know how you get from that that this is some kind of scam.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Yes that data works great till about 1000 years ago but ice cores are the only thing coing back 100,000 of years. And I know they love to blend all this data together to dampen the the sharp spikes seen in the ice cores, oh then they add a 40 year filter to cut off the spikes, all a nice trick to dampen the data. Funny lets use plant, trees, corel reefs, and ice cores add 40 year fitlers to disprove 1000 of temp changes seen in the ice cores upto 3 degrees C in little as 200 years
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Well, another flaw in using Ice Cores as "proxies" is that the Ice is created by the ocean currents curning the super cooled water of the poles and so the Co2 enbeded in the ice is the co2 that was in the ocean current at the time, not the air that was above
That,and as I mentioned before, Co2 is hevier then air and tries to sink to the lowest point out of the Evaporation/percip[itation cycle or Ocean current convection(meaning co2 in Ice is moreleikey that caught in sea current convection)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Really, so 100s of miles away from the ocean in Greenland and Antarctica that data now does not count, funny, (These are very large land masses dude) oh the far left way find away to ignore it as the ice core data is include in all of the proxie data but it is just dampen down with poor data like tree ring data and 40 years filters.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
You say the Media says the Scientist supposedly say the data means a certain thing
But the collection of studies the IPCC compiled like the Roman Church Compiled the Bible is dubious in trying to picemail something that none of the Scientists are even suggesting and would be hard pressed to even say for fear of their opinions being twisted (again)
The predictions of raising AGT providing more heat to power intensified storms does not = "prove AGW" for instance,it's obvious meteorology
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Likewise the c13 to c14 ratio thing you are mentioning is not in Ice core records persay but in plans trapped in the ice v.s. living plants which seem to be ingesting more inorganic Co2 (C13 rich ) then organic co2 (c14 rich)
It was only suggested that a rise in c13 co2 might be from burning fossil fuels but the problem is Gasoline is rich in c7,c11,and c12 but has no c13 or c14 to magically make co2 with any c13/c14 ratio as a byproduct short of nuclear fusion or chemical agitation(smirk)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel C14 has too short a half life (a little under 60000 years) to be used to reconstruct glacial/interglacial cycles. You're confusing different things. The ice cores contain samples of actual ancient air trapped in bubbles in the ice (from the time at which that ice gets compressed enough to trap the gas). That way we can directly sample the local atmospheric composition. (cont.)
werecow2003 1 year ago
Oops, Typo supposed to be c12 to c13 ratio with high c13 being associated with mineral or "inorganic" Co2
Also emphasis, Natural Gasoline has c7,c11,and c12 with other "volatiles" from C and in between but is refined into propane,butane,natural gas and other fractal derivatives (to valuable to ju8st burn) and the gas nowadays is engineered from dirivative fraction so thus doesn't contain c12 which is used in plastics and carbon fiber making instead(smirk)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom Ice cores are not the only thing going back to 100000 years; there are borehole cores, paleosols and speleothems. They are the only direct source of ancient CO2 measurements, though, I'll give you that (although you can reconstruct those levels using proxy data - with considerable uncertainty).
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Oh fun do tell what boreholes are telling us, you dont even know what the most studied ice cores are telling us and asking questions.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom Emiliano and Raymo used benthic forminifera from ocean sediment cores to reconstruct the ice age cycles before ice core data became available. Other people used fossilized corals to do the same thing. Speleothems have been used to reconstruct precipitation patterns during that time. Apparently you're the one unaware of the availability of such long term records, not I, so you might want to tone down on the scoffing.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Swell, what do any of these things have to do with TEMPERTURE Records! The ice cores are clear there is a natural 3 degree oscilation that can happen in little as 200 years. Why are all these natural temp swings and the causes for those ignored? oh the because the IPCC says it is not their job to explain natural temp change but they are convinced with an uproven IR theory and nothing else, how funny!
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 sorry the tipping point has never happened depsite CO2 in the past being much higher and tempertures in the past being much higher, you are being fooled by IPCC UN trickery that is clear to see if you read their report as they admit to most.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom What are you talking about? The tipping points that are seriously discussed in the literature have occurred many times in the past. You have D-O events, the Younger Dryas, all sorts of sudden, rapid changes. These are - I can only guess - the "sharp spikes" you were talking about before.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Yes even during the Younger Dryas the temp in the ice cores SH and NH (northern hemisphere in case this is new to you) the temp oscilated 3 degree C too, lets look at the last 14,000 years since then and forget orbit, tilts and all that as it has nothing to do with today, that is a theory for triggering the huge ice ages we see every 20,000 years last 80,000 or so.
The GISP show the NH was 1 degree C higher, 1000 years ago, 2 degree 2000, and 3 degree for 3300 ago
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Even the palo data bears this out going back to 2000 years ago but they use all kinds of tricks to dampen the increases 1000 and 2000 years ago down. After 2000 and many say 1000years palo data sucks, and manns work is bearing this out as people are looking at it like Steve McIntyre work shows (thi is the giy in the climategate emails they want to beat up, go figure.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@werecow2003 Dude look at the Vostok and GISP temp data the last 14,000 years or SINCE the last ice age and ask yourself why do 4 reports of the IPCC reports ignore this data, the answer their job is not to explain natural temp changes, you have been scammed but can beleive in what you want, me I need to see facts, not uneducated BS you splat out like most here, but will give you a kudo you know more than most these dumb beleivers.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
No, Infared light rays and Thermal Radiation are 2 different things
Outside of Earths' Electromagnetic field the tempature can be between 2500f and 7500f but the earth's EM deflects the bulk of the "Solar wind"
The Exoshpere and Thermosphere absord enogh heat so that Shguttle Spacewalks and Moon landings experience 250f days
There is no heat making it down by the mesosphere that can have -140 degrees moments
Heat Rises, Cold falls
99% of heat comes from earth's core,not sun's UV rays(1%)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temp a few tenths of one degree F. A few degrees F is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the nuts say well CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
MissingGWdotcom what the fuck do global warming scientist have to gain from this??? I don't understand why would they make it up? You keep talking about it like its a forma conspiracy or sumtin and all I know is that they don't seem to have any financial ties or motives...like the economists you talk about...so who's the biased?
timsgotaim 1 year ago
@timsgotaim Funny today most the funding into climate research private and public is going to groups supporting the climate scare. For example you have the IPCC in the UN as its job is to examine made made global warming as their mission claims they are not their to explain past natural temperature changes seen in the ice cores.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom you still didn't answer my question..enough red herring
timsgotaim 1 year ago
@timsgotaim I think you find these scientists on the global warming side motives vary greatly, for example several have admit they cannot prove man made global warming but they hope their research will be the one to prove it, some have political ideaologies that drive them and would like to see the gov using this issue to make policies as they really beleive man is going to destroy themselves if they do not. Many know which way the money is flowing and need those research dollars to survive...
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim And depite all this money and research they still ignore 100s of sudden and drastic temp changes up to 3 degrees C in as little as 200 years seen 100s of times in the ice cores over the last 10,000 years or since the last ice age, the IPCC for example does not mention this anywhere in their 4th report but their job is not to explain past temp changes you know...
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim But then the IPCC states several times in the 4th report the current temp change must be man because they cant explain it!!! Wow
Then they have made up values of IR based on the conclusion man's increase of 100 ppm CO2 did cause the .5 C warming so they give IR a number based on this, but what most the current warming was caused by the same natural forces that caused 100s of past temp changes and their value of IR is way off, like the cart before the hoarse.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim The the IPCC claims IR raises the temp an assigned amout from 100 ppm CO2 increase in 50,000 feet of athmosphere (in the lab it does nothing) now we can argue this IR value from .5 C (blaming man for all of todays temp increase) to .2 F temp increase from man as IR is not a perfect insulator as the IPCC claims but then IPCC trick is to claim their incomplete positive force models show an amplyfying effect on temp over time from this increase.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom for some reason I just don't believe you .... I can't imagine that what you are saying has escaped the brilliant scientific minds of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and more universities that lead the world in climate change research...And You still fail to gimme any reason or motive for why they would be doing this
timsgotaim 1 year ago
@timsgotaim Note Not all scientists agree on global warming as there are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning man-made global warming and in a petition more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. to reject Kyoto.
Another petition it was signed by 9,021 American PhD's and 22,051 additional American scientists. No not all of them are climatologist but many experts in related fields. For example those that study solar activity.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Petitions are as much politics as Consensus (rollseyes)
The real Scientists have gotten funding to launch Imbuki Co2 orbiter in Jan 2009 and Canx-2 Co2 orbiter in August 2008 They are both now gathering True CO2 consentration levels, where co2 really comes from,where it goes from 55,000= points to compare against the models
Nextgen weather sattilites soon to be lauched will then coorolinate with the Co2 orbitersto TEST if co2 effects Tempature,weather,and climate as claimed
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Real Scientists? that is funny. Funny on CO2
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Real Scientist, that is funny. Now CO2 is measure on a mtn in HI, this is what the IPCC refers to and they claim CO2 has increase 100 ppm, but again 100 ppm has no effect on temp in the lab, the IPCC uses tricks like IR and models to claim some unproven increas in temp from 100 ppm increase in CO2
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Now measuring CO2 on a mtn is really BS because just imagine measuring temperture just on place on the earth, for example on forest floorsCO2 can vary 700 ppm, same with near oceans, and etc.
Did you know if the take 50 CO2 measurments in ice the get 50 answers? Then they average the 50 samples to get an average but the throw out the highs to get the lowest average.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel They have more tricks than GOD
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Thankfully the US politicians in the Senate and House ask geoographers geology questions, Meterologists Meterology questions,and Oceanagraphers Oceanagraphy questions and take the Advice of a UN board headed by a Economist and filled with "experts" from government agencies and University facullty running glorified SimEarth Programs with a grain of salt,(smirk)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel You really do not get it, there is no such thing as a climate expert as you would need to be an expert in every field. There are several issues right, you have the past, climate models, IR theory, ice cores, proxy data from tree rings to corel reefs, you have oceans, hell they are not even sure if clouds are a neg or pos feedback so you needs folks studing this, physics, economist, solar experts, biologiest, on and on,
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
It's why Meterologists, Ecologists,Geologists, Biologists, OCeanagraphers would actually need to work together to test the claims of the Ecionomist,University faculty,and Government apointed "climate Expert" like Obama's "Weather Cazr" that heads NOAA(smirk)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
As car as cloauds,they are from the moisture climing with the evaporation percipitation cylce from the warm Thermocline interaction with the 32f upper tropposhere and cooling as wind and the rising updraft is creates (thermal to kenetic energy)
watch?v=ajQ3hm5JidU&feature
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Also note the President can't ever leagally sign Kyoto or Copenhagen cause it would be Unconstitutional without 2/3 of the states, 2/3 of the House,and 2/3 of the Senate giving him permision to hand over the Federation of States Government Souvernty (FEDeral cgovernemtn) to the UN (States not in support might even break away from the Union)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel What in the world are you speaking of? Us having a tready sign with one country, a much of countries or the whole damn world it is not turning over rights to the UN, (I guess you could write a treaty for that and I am sure the power hungry progressives that have it all figured out would like to have one) but that was not Kyoto or any climate bill, it is just a big ass bill for us.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Un wants to be a real world government and have taxing and regulatory powers. always has and this is just their latest angle
It's why they were pissed with Obama upserping Copenhagem by assigning eventual Clitamte monitoring and redistribution of weakth powers to the World bank instead of the UN
UN exists at the leaisure of the President of the US as does the World Bank..they need to remember their place
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel RIGHT ON!!!! It is all about power, you know this all started in the UK when UK prime minister Thatcher wanted to use this as the reason to build more nuke plants.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Silly thing about that is that it takes 20x more oila and coal to build a nuclar Plant and it will still 5x more oil and coal to run and maintain it then burning the oil or coal directly..difference it thaat oil and coal material is locked up in the cement, steel production,plastic,composites that make the nuclear rods, stoarge containers, and disposal/management site.(So we still be on Oil)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
P.S. Besides the major disatvantage od Solar being "night time" and Major disadvantage of Wind being, the wind don't always blow, the materials to make and maintain solar panels and Windmills (lubercation,glass,steel,carbon fiber,plastic,rubber) likkwise uses and is made from oil and coal....Windmills and Solar Panels don't just "pop out the ass"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@timsgotaim Check out the book the Deniers which includes opinion man made Global Warming is BS including Edward Wegman, Richard Tol, Christopher Landsea, Duncan Wingham, Robert M. Carter, Richard Lindzen, Vincent R. Gray, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Tom Segalstad, Nir Shaviv, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Hendrik Tennekes, Freeman Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, David Bromwich, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, Sami Solanki, Jasper Kirkby, Habibullo Abdussamatov, George Kukla, the late Rhodes Fairbridge,
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim I believe the administrator of NASA Michael D. summed it up by stating Unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim Great paper by R M Carter entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate
Lets be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results......
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim Note The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus
If your argument is ALL SCIENTIST say it is true, then you really have no argument.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
MissingGWdotcom I'm not saying that...Why do you keep spewing random shit that has nothing to do with the question I asked you? Stop red herring the question and please tell me what is the MOTIVATION for all these scientist to gather and lead the world to cut back on fossil fuels and etc. WHY?
timsgotaim 1 year ago
@timsgotaim What scientist are gathering to do this. Note here is a problem oil todauy is the cheapest most effiecient energy supply on earth. Increasing CO2 a mere 100 ppm is not effecting temperture so here is an idea let us make everyone poor to stop something that does not exist? But hay we see it many times on the left as they shut down food production prefering people starve to save a 1 inch fish. Again the economists listed global warming LAST in what is important and can help mankind.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Physists using early 19th Century GHG Theory and ignoring John Tyndalls work that created Modern Meerology and "Zeroth Law" of thermal Dynamics?
Sounds like Selecctive education..lol
GHG Theory, specifically CO2 feedback was a proposal by Svante in 1912 while "Zeroth law" of Thermal Dynamics was developed as all the claims of "GHG "amplification" was tested and the Evaporation/Precipitation cycle was discovered instead
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
P.S. Also as Physists and not Oceanagraphers or Geologists these people still talking about antiquated and disproven by modern Meterology and Oceanagpaphy "GHG theaory" forget there is a Second heat source besides the sun that has the power to raise ocean and atmospheric tempatures besides the sun
Ocean trenchs where plates are created and destroyed adds heats to ocean as does ocean volcanos and steam vents
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
TheRealArchAngel again you are acting as if every modern day scientists has not thought of this...Please someone please just tell me the MOTIVE for lying about global warming research...why would they all want to fool us?
timsgotaim 1 year ago
They aren't "lying", thry are presenting a hypothises....one that still needs to be verified and tested to rule out all other possibilities
This is where CanX-2 co2 orbiter,the Imbuki C02 orbiter,and Nextgen Sattilites come in
They will verify and test if the claims are true
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
p.s. Even The Physists willtell you it's very hard to separate supposed "AGW" from natural interglacial warming (12c-18c,currently 15c as been for last 10,000 years) and "climate variability"(periodic +20f to -20f regional tempatuire swings, including "Midevil warming" and "Mini Ice age")
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
yeah cuz physissts specialize in the earth's climate...if you watched this video you wuld see that ther is substantial evidence in support of global warming...but you will always dispute that
timsgotaim 1 year ago
YOur "Climate Expert" Physists play with maathimatical formulas and Glorified SImEarth programs and don't know 1% what Ecologists,Meterologists,Geologists,Oceanagraphers know
Correlating the tempature data witrh CO2 Data does not equal Humans are causing Global warming by burning fossil fuels
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Put a gasometer on everything to see if it "makes" as much co2 as claimed(hint:no)
Test if 20 gallons of CO2 can asorb more heat then 10 gallons of co2 from the same heat source as claimed(hint:no)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
ooo yeah jus the fact that there is nearly 7 billion humans burning shit that produces CO2 has nothing to do with the rising CO2 that is a greenhouse gas which causes heat to be trapped on Earth....keep commenting using useless red herring tactics about some random experiment or a case where numbers didn't add up (despite it working thousands of other times) because I don't care haha
timsgotaim 1 year ago
Hey, until the fucken "experts" stick a gasometer on every car,truck,airplane,boat,and train to prove they create any amount of CO2 it's a"estimate"
In fact here is a car on a gasometer (hint it isn't 20 gallons of CO2 from 1 gallon of gas it's more like 68-328 grams from air intake and additives)
MYTHBUSTERS DIESEL DIARIES
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs&feature
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel They do isotopic analysis on the CO2 in the atmosphere to confirm that the increase comes from burning fossil fuels, and they further confirm it by measuring the change in oxygen content (oxygen goes down as CO2 goes up). You're demanding a standard of evidence that is completely unreasonable and practically impossible to meet.
werecow2003 1 year ago
Well since Co2 is a gas that is 1.2 times heavier then air I wonder where you head that from
There are no direct or regular measurements of CO2 other then the Keeling station on Mauna Loa
They use Ice Cores or plants as "proxies" for past co2 analysis.
Lighter then air Carbon Monoxide is the gas made by burning fossil fuels without a ECB and all of man's Co2 is still up there between the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere
Carbon monoxide man amkes can't spontaneously "oxidize to Co2"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Whoops,
See even I made the switcharoo error
"Carbon Monoxide is the gas made by burning fossil fuels without a ECB and all of man's Co2 is still up there between the upper stratos"
That should read "and all mans CO is still up there"
It is CO that is a deadly gas not CO2
It is CO that is lighter then air,CO2 is heavier then air
Neither CO2 or CO does jackshit for heat output of Earth's core, they are just byproductrs just like the heat that exits earth through plate tectonics and warms planet
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Mauna Loa isn't the only station, there are dozens. The reason it's always used as an example is because it has the longest record. Dozens is still too few, mind you, which is why they're also using other methods. For example, see here: watch?v=fe0SHVZGE98
werecow2003 1 year ago
P.S. I don't care either cause Time did away with the "Burning fossil fuels is gonna put us in another Ice Age" nuts 30 years ago and despite the internet age allowing the AGW stupidity to spead around the world at the speed ofl ight time is still on Real Sciences side,not the political Environut activists tthinking taxing/regulationg "the problem" will solve it when that is what caused the Economic meltfdown in 2008 (smirk)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel what world are you living in? The idea to invest and transition to cleaner burning fuels led to the economic recession is absurd...We all know why it happened...from bankers lending loans to people who could not afford it and then betting on loans using derivatives and other ridiculous money making schemes...Wow...just based of what you said I find it hard to believe you even know what your talking about
timsgotaim 1 year ago
Ah, but why would the Insurance on the dirivatives and loans be called causing the potential "Economic Meltdown"?
Just for the heck of it?
NO, people in the Retail and service industry were laid of cause retail sales were down,because people were laid off in the Travel Industry because nobody was traveling or spending(let alone pay their mortgage) if they are laid off and had to choose betwe Gas or food which was drvenup with taxes
It was called the "Biofuel Inititive"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
John Tyndall,a Physist, proved by tests that water vapor was the conductor of heat into the atmosphere and the other gases was negilble (CO2 at .038% has heat asorbtion potential of 1/10 of a degree...OH MY GOD! WERE GONNA DIE!!!)
In fact John Tyndalls work was pivital in the creation of Meterology and adding the "Zeroth Law" of thermaldynamics which classical GHG theory breaks
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Meterology: Heat and Weather
watch?v=ajQ3hm5JidU&feature
Geology:What is Climate(it ain't from GHGs)
watch?v=95TtXYjOEv4&feature
Ocean Conveyer:Global Warming and Mass extinction
watch?v=MZbsMlr9WRI&feature
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@timsgotaim But the problem with their incomplete positive loopback biased models is they just missed the last 15 years!
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim For example GISP shows it was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 years ago and 3 degrees higher 3300 years ago with many ups and downs in between. There are no anti global warming groups at the UN being giving money to explian these past change as all the money is being used to ignore these facts.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@timsgotaim Right the big problem is scientist and researchers receiving $ billions to build models and support research. Yes there are some economist on the dole who do report some awful economic event from what they beleive is certian man made global warming causing something. However as far as I know the economist polled above were just economist doing what economist normaly do look at costs and revenue not looking at the cost of coral reefs all day.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
However the models have been proven wrong again as they predicted a .2 to .7 C temp rise the last ten years, however the temp did not go up at all and many say it went down .2 C not up, the models missed this completely and the leaked emails call it a travesty and the fix the numbers to hide the decline!
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Heres a thought!, Mesure the temperature on mars and look at the similarities of the temperature rise, Astronomers have said "Mars is heating up too". But dont stop there mesure the temperture on our moon and venus. On a side note Astronomers and cosmetologists say the whole universe is heating up. No mater what the "for" or "against" arguments are, you wont be able to stop the ipcc and such bodys plans(who I've read are paying scientists to get the result they want), their minds are made up.
TheTempestSpark 2 years ago
man! take out all the BS. ,and look at the ice cores. for the first time in history there is radioactive fallout in them. the real ?? is WHY ICE MELTS. This radioactive fallout is world wide! they should call it microwave earth! That's what I call it! prove me wrong! check the numbers! and stay focused. Truth Scott (BUG)
believersunderground 2 years ago
Knox wins by Sheldon losing. Dr. Hansen plugged in a volcano in his early model. Mt. Pinatubo followed the prediction.
The response of different species of plants is not linear to increased CO2
Sheldon doesn't understand the Keeling Curve. Manmade CO2 is evident by telltale isotopes. Ralph Keeling is constructing a similar data set. It shows O2 decreasing exactly by the amount of fossil fuels consumed.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago 2