Three people are asked to describe an elephant. Each are only permitted to touch one part of the elephant to describe it... one the tail... one the body... and one the trunk... each will have a different description of the elephant. You must take all parts of the elephant into consideration. CO2 has very little if any long term effect on climate. Even the sun has short term radiant effect and the cycle does not coincide with the suns cycle... The effects are galactic and on a galactic cycle.
@frolly1000 No it hasn't. 2010 and 2005 were the hottest years on record. More misinformation from deniers.The next hottest 12 hottest years were all since 1998(the 3rd hottest year on record).
Professor Fred Singer: "They have Distorted the land surface temperature record by deleting of stations after 1975, distorted sea surface temperatures, engaged in hiding of data, destroying of evidence, evading freedom of information act, misused the peer review process, prevented the publication of critiques, pressured journal editors not to publish results from skeptics, and smeared opponents in a personal way accusing them of being in the pay of big oil." I'm only trying to warn you brother.
@champclay18 Firstly, let me say, I did not flag your comment as spam and it saddens me that it has been flagged.
Anyway Fred Singer haha! the only scientist in a remotely relevant field the deniers have(he's a physicist), who is renowned for citing old research and data that has long been discredited to support his claims. The most famous physicist in the world - Stephen Hawking - is firmly in my camp(i.e. he agrees with the scientific consensus that AGW is real) as are the majority of others.
@champclay18 Why even quote someone like Singer? All this is just disinformation. The CRU in East Anglia recieves 1000 requests for info a week(mostly from US deniers) - which they obviously cannot keep up with and so the deniers cry "They're withholding data!".
Today Russian scientists announced the discovery of giant methane plumes in the arctic where permafrost is melting. A real and predicted consequence of the amount of added CO2 we have put in the atmosphere. Wake up brother.
@practicepants Your a Fool and the best part is that you know that your full of shit. Be sure to tell the people you work for about me ok. Btw " Wake up brother" I love it!! :-)
@champclay18 Has it occured to you that the scum bags that are destroying the planet are doing it for profit? They will hang on to that postion of power until the bitter end. The world is already run by global corporations - they don't need to make this obvious to us by imposing a NWO. It's already here and has been for years. That is why we have to deal with the propaganda of the likes of the George Marshall Institute. Trust me, I'm no fool and clearly have more real info than you.
It has everthing to do with Taxes! Like I said The Agenda of "Global Warming" is one of taxation through the fraudulent implementation of “Carbon Taxes” and to further remove your rights and liberties as the billionaire bankers push forward their New World Order agenda. Not to mention the thousands of Climategate emails exposing the scam. The Big Picture to all of this is Global Governance and the creation of a One World Banking System.
The "political" side has altered all of the "science"
@champclay18 The political side does not change hard facts. Check out the George Marshall Institute or the Frasier Institute - these Exxon funded 'think tanks' are the source of nearly all the denier lines of argument. They have an agenda to distort the science.
Do you know what the GMI did before it was in the denier business? It was trying to convince the US public that smoking tobacco was harmless, despite over-whelming evidence to the contrary. And you think they're the good guys???
@practicepants No The point I've been tryin to make to you is that there is a much larger agenda at work here. You know on that "political side" (Which Btw is going to effect you a hell of alot quicker than any "Global Warming"). Now let me emphasize what is going on in this legislation. Scare Tactics are being used to implement “Carbon Taxes” Which is only but a small piece to a New World Order. Remember Al Gore is the guy who said he “Invented the Internet”. How does he pull off “Credibility”?
We don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's, we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase. There's money to be made and peasants to flog.
@champclay18 Medieval warm period was localised and not global. Cooiling was slight from the 40s to 80s and explained by sulphate aerosols - the overall trend is warming. The Sun has not correlated with climate change. Warming follows CO2 rise - the 'lag' is temporary(due to other factors such as end of ice ages explaining warming). CO2 rise has always been followed by global warming. These processes took thousands of years in the past, not less than a century as we have now.
@practicepants Capping carbon emissions will do nothing to change the climate, but it will further remove your rights and liberties as the billionaire bankers push forward their New World Order agenda. Even the “Scientists” that are on the payrolls will tell you that at most man creates 6% of carbon emissions. Even if every last man made emission were eliminated, it would not affect Global Temperatures.
@champclay18 The billionaire bankers and the billionaire oil barons(who are the same people), already own you. Isn't that obvious? That's why you buy into their line and not that of more easily scrutinised science. THEY WANT YOU RELIANT ON EVER MORE EXPENSIVE OIL.
CO2 in the atmosphere continues to have an effect for 30 years. 6% may not sound much, but it is 6% beyond the natural recapture rate and it's increase has an incremental effect.
@practicepants Global Warming is being used as a vehicle to implement more Government Fraud, and strip you of your remaining rights and liberties. So if you are buying into the lie that is being perpetuated in order to implement carbon taxes in the name of “Global Warming” please stop for a moment and do your own part to save the planet – quit breathing now! If you would just do this one simple thing we would completely eliminate the need to discuss this ridiculous assertion any further.
@champclay18 I'm not advocating taxes. I'm advocating changing what is socially acceptable. It used to be acceptable for the nuclear industry to dump high level radioactive waste in the sea. Thanks to scientists, it now isn't. If it became socially unacceptable for power stations not to fit carbon recapture systems(which are already available), that would come pretty close to stopping AGW.
Being taxed is a political issue - it doesn't alter any of the science.
Funny how Dr Richard Alley, whose data you use for this video contradicts pretty much everything you say in this video. Read Alley 2010 - History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights.
Sorry, this paper contains real science, so it's not the easiest reading in the world.
No 7 billion mouths to feed back then, gang. If we don't care about the billions of impoverished that require dwindling outputs of maize rice etc etc. then hotter and happier we go. You don't have to sell that huge S.U.V.! Just sell it to someone else, and invent better suntan lotion for the increased U.V. ray intensities. Who cares if bread'll cost $30 a loaf; just print more money and get Canada's tarsands just a HUMMIN!!!
Good stuff. Now however the earth is supporting 7 billionish humans to feed. Ominvores, they eat a lot of meat (see waistline graph). This means methane from cattle (lotsa - gr house gas, with CO2) impacts "Ozone Layer". The O.Z. layer has to stay put or U.V. rays degrade agriculture (7bill people, agri, eat), or 'growing stuff'. Medieval for us "this time" will mean 'no ozone'. Other warm ice-core periods, it's not clear why they were warm and not for nearly the length of current. cont.
@fuhmeregan And how do you plan on feeding 7 billion people if energy is so expensive that most economies break down? There are 1 billion people starving already WITHOUT carbon taxes!
CH4 is 22 times more effective than CO2 as a GWG. Is there a chart on that? Ecopolitical policies promote letting biomass rot rather than burning it, yet rotting releases CH4, which after 7-9 years oxidizes into CO2 anyway.
Oceans will slowly absorb CO2, even at high latitudes, eventually. More snow with warmer winters at the poles, increased albedo. Currents could radically shift causing less north south heat transport.
you seem to like to talk about mechanisms what do you think about Svensmarks mechanisms that Jones, Mann et al. diligently managed to keep from being "peer reviewed" for 18 mos. until climate gate. Now his work is getting a closer look. /watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
I find relevance in the fact that there were no factories or SUVs in medievel times. Does that prove that there is no anthroprogenic forcing? No, but it does mean that this time is not unprecendented. And that, even the "little ice age" was right smack dab in the middle of a general warming period.
> no AGW in 1800 and it was only begun to be noticed in 1900.
What I think you mean is that current temp reconstructions show warming since 1900. The historical commentary shows alternating alarmism from "we're gonna cook" to "we're gonna freeze".
Only in the 80's did we fixate on the "we're gonna cook" state. Then the Mann study "proved" chicken little was right, and turned doubters into heretics.
It was flawed, but once the religion takes hold it no longer matters.
Please look into the Mann and Briffa reconstructions and the criticisms related to the methods used. This is where the "hockey stick" comes from.
Also find a rural climate station in your area and see if you can find the temp it has recorded for the last 100 years. I'm guessing your temp station will show that the temp has been increasing at a constant rate since before people started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. My local ones do.
Isn't he just showing temperature data ending in 1900? We know that was a cold half century. But then 38 seconds in, he says the MWP was much warmer than what we're experiencing now. Where is the temperature data for "what we're experiencing now"? WHat would the chart look like if he showed recent data??
Climate is controlled by the oceans, not the atmosphere.
The oceans have 1,000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere. It means oceans can heat the air far more than air can heat the oceans. And it means carbon dioxide is not heating the oceans. Solar and geothermal energy heat the oceans.
@champclay18 carbon dioxide is denser than oxygen and other noble gases in the atmosphere thus it can hold more of the heat emitted from the sun or from the earth's core. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the hotter the atmosphere gets. Earth's massive bodies of water help to dissapate the heat but the cooling system the oceans use relies on the polar ice caps with are melting faster than they can re-freeze. Just like putting a lid on a heating pot of water, it will boil faster.
@champclay18 You are correct. The air is not heating the oceans. However heat trapped by carbon dioxide heats everything - air, land and water. Carbon dioxide is heating the oceans.
@practicepants The oceans of the world comprise some 70% of the Earth's surface. They are like the lungs of the Earth, absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. They have been doing this for billions of years and a rise in the amount of CO2 is essentially meaningless. The carbon dioxide global warming and climate change hoax and burning fossil fuel is a fraud. Many scientists have cited excellent scientific reasons why the carbon dioxide global climate change is a hoax.
@champclay18 "Many scientists have cited excellent scientific reasons why the carbon dioxide global climate change is a hoax" How many? I'll tell you - less than 1% believe climate change is not caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas - this has been known for over a hundred years. The carbon in the atmosphere is in fine balance with natural processes - it doesn't take much to alter that balance. Human beings have done this. This IS the scientific consensus. Why deny?
@practicepants The entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax. The data and the hypothesis do not hold together. Al Gore is a fraud and is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his own profile. Global warming is a made up agenda that is being used as a vehicle to promote higher taxes. The “Global Warming Agenda” is social engineering and politics- NOT SCIENCE!!! Co2 is a basic building block of life. Why deny?
@champclay18 Instead of worrying about Al Gore and conspiracy theories, just check ou the science. Please, please, please learn about the science - it is out there on the net in abundance.
99% of the arguments given by deniers can be traced back to the George Marshall Institute. Not a scientific institution, but a 'think tank' funded by Exxon and other oil backed funds. There is your conspiracy.
@practicepants Lol You do know humans are “Carbon Based” life forms? Your body mass is 18% Carbon. Co2 is used by plants along with sunshine and water in a process called “photosynthesis” in order to grow. Carbon Dioxide is what plants convert to oxygen. Co2 is a basic building block of life. Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Water and Sunlight! The Agenda of "Global Warming" is one of taxation through the fraudulent implementation of “Carbon Taxes”. Gore pushes Global Warming for personal profit period.
@champclay18 What has life being carbon based have to do with this? A diamond is made of carbon too, that doesn't mean it has the same properties as a tree, which is also made of carbon. Carbon dioxide absorbs and traps heat - this is very well established scientific fact. Saying it isn't is as ignorant as saying the Earth is flat.
Stop worrying about the politics and leartn the science.
@practicepants If Global Warming were a real, tangible, verifiable issue would the solution be more taxes? Does forcing Americans to comply with a made up “crisis” in order to further intrude on life and liberties and to collect additional taxes sound like the right way to “Save the Planet” to you? “Global Warming” is a lie that is being perpetuated in order to implement *Carbon Taxes*!! Why deny?
@champclay18 It has nothing to do with taxes. Maybe politicians are trying to rip off Americans(I don't care - I'm British). The point is - is climate change is happening? Is it caused by human activity? Science says yes to both. How we deal with it politically has no bearing on the facts.
What about China or India? Their scientists say AGW is real too.
@practicepants LOL "It has nothing to do with taxes" It has everthing to do with Taxes! Hmmm You say your British but yet you are unaware of Britain’s "Green Taxes"? Also your general lack of understanding of *World-Wide* Carbon Taxes is also very emusing to me. Not to mention the thousands of Climategate emails exposing the scam. It would appear that no amount of the evidence of fraud would ever be sufficient to convince you that you have been taken in by the greatest hoax of the modern era.
@champclay18 What taxes may or may not have been put in place, have nothing to do with the science. Can't you see that? Your argument is the equivalent of saying, 'Pharmaceutical companies rip eveyone off with over-charging for medical drugs, therefore it is a lie that there is any disease in the world'.
I agree, Carbon Credits are bullshit. That doesn't mean climate change is not real. It means capitalists have to make money out of everything, but doesn't xchange the facts.
@practicepants Scientists – yes real scientists not those on Government Payrolls… but those who do real science related directly to climate (And there are not that many worldwide) will tell you directly that carbon does not retain enough heat to absorb the suns energy. However they do measure solar radiation and can explain to you why and how an increase in solar radiation increases cloud cover and this water vapor will trap heat.
Basically the warming period now, may have been worse before, but in todays modern world with as many people as there are today, and our vulnerable resources, that little bit, is enough to be the wind that causes the house of cards that is our society to collapse. That's just my opinion, maybe i worry to much.
I'm talking about social collapse, such as anarchy, and the end of organized societies.
Idk when this "back then" time you refer to is, but humans only live to be as old as they do now because of modern medicine and sanitation. Such as antibiotics.
The planet is warming, it may not be human caused. it may have happened before, blah blah. That doesn't make the imminent danger go away, 100's of millions of people will die or be displaced. Climates will be altered, cities will have to ration water. Pandemics, riots, anarchy, looting, rape, murder, and wars. Eh, Worse case scenario stuff. Children today might be dumb-shits but they don't deserve to live in a bleak world surviving on a day to day basis like they did centuries ago.
@greyday741 Isnt it a bit egotistical to think we can stop the earth from doing what it wants. Change is a constant. Cities dont move, they've been destined to fall since day one.
@Mindshot08 Humanity has great potential. Our adaptability makes it so we don't notice the gradual changes soon enough to act on it. It's always some tomorrow yet to come, before we realize it, tomorrow was 2 weeks ago. Even if those cities crumple and our populations dwindle. We'd build back up again. I'd just be a shame. We could have gone out with more dignity if we had at least tried. Even if trying is just preparing, and then working with what we're given to just keep moving on.
Did you post that from your cave while pedalling a generator dressed in a goatskin? I thought not. Without burning coal and oil, you'd be dead in a week, cretin.
FunkyJB you are a moron- how can you do peer reviews when the data is withheld, altered, deleted or just made up? The whole AGW fiasco has been exposed as a scam to get the so-called 'scientists' big money from governments and global business - mostly the oil companies- the very people that you all hate so much! Hahahah! You've all been duped, you fools!
As I write this, your post is two weeks old, and it's still there. We are experiencing the coldest winter in the last 20 yrs. What will be obvious to us in a very few years may just be what is obvious to us now, AGW is a fraud! I don't doubt that you believe it though. I'll favorite this and check back every few months over the next few years. Your posts will never be erased either y'know.
Do you think the Northern Hemisphere is freezing and the Southern Hemisphere is boiling because the planet is cooling down and losing energy?? Please learn about how the planet's weather works. You seem to be interested. This isn't an ego contest.
I am a meteorologist, are you? Do you want to learn about what you're blabbing about? Do you think you're helping? Everyone needs to know about the mechanisms AND about how dangerous some proposed 'fixes' could be..
I have M.S. now but I do still hold an FAA commercial pilots certificate (of course no medical certificate) and did sit in a few meterology classes for a few semesters. But tell me about these proposed 'fixes' that you're concerned about.
I do see the meteorologists when the hurricanes are headed in from the Gulf Coast though. They say "The computer models are saying the hurricane could come in here and some computer models are saying that the hurricane could land there. That's because in 72 hrs we'll all know just how accurate those computer models were. And so it is with Manns models now that we have the ERBE satellite data. Is that not so?
But didn't gore say that the NORTH POLE ice will be gone in 7 yrs.? Lets be consistant here. Where did you go anyway? If people don't back down to your hubrisic posturing "I'm a meteorolist, are you?" bit, you disapear? I'm still waiting to hear about the dangerous 'fixes'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Just because climate has varied in the past does not mean that humans can't be driving climate today, This fallacy is demonstrated by the analogy that,"lightning has caused forest fires in the past therefore humans can't cause forest fires".
The physics is clear, CO2 bsorbs IR, so more CO2 =heating Earth
If you overlay the CO2 and Temp graphs that Al Gore had in "An Inconvenient Truth", you will see that CO2 lags behind Temperature by a few hundred years.
Don't be such a god damn egotist. Humans do not have the capability to fuck up the climate short of nuclear winter.
All the talk about thousands of years ago is irrelevant because of the impact of human activity! Duh!
We've looked for natural mechanisms returning us to the mean. It's not happening. The cooling mechanisms in your graphs are too weak and act too slowly vs human activity. Why don't you address this?
Regarding of this video - "Now one could nitpick the analysis by pointing out that it focuses on one location in Central Greenland. Temperature at a single location inevitably show greater variation than the global average. While Greenland showed strong warmth 1000 years ago, global temperature during the Medieval Warm Period was less than today."
For more - search in Google article "Hockey sticks, 'unprecedented warming' and past climate change"
The Y2K analogy is more appropriate than you think, considering the money spent by governments and the private sector in order to avert computer malfunctions. There was a real problem, just like there is here. The question is whether we find the solutions palatable or not.
With the amount of disinformation out there that prompted this video, we as a public are apparently not even ready for that. Still, I applaud the video makers for their attempt at arguing the science..
Reading all these comments makes me remember when I was worried about the world coming to an end to. My parents telling me of the up coming apocalypse(biblical,) schools telling me the earth was going to boil. I have seen these graphics before and they always make me marvel at just how insignificant .1 + or - .10 degrees over a 100 years is. Reality is, it helps nothing to get behind false assumptions. Think for yourself and go get a whopper for the homeless man in your neighborhood.
mistergarth wil be sending you an essay to be completed which requires you to answer four science related questions in under 500 characters. Be forewarned.
Nice to have some perspective on the global warming THEORY.
The comments posted here demonstrate how hard it for anyone to publish a view which contradicts the dogma from the church of climatolgy.
A climatologist who sees things differently finds it vitually impossible to get funding and his family bills don't get paid. Don't under-estimate how much this debate has been skewed by the $40 billion dollars studying AGW while natural climate variation has been ignored and unfunded.
The video is misleading, because it is well known that there have been significant temperature swings over the Greenland ice sheet. The "trick" in making temperature reconstructions is to combine data from many different sources and locations into a coherent global account.
This video fails because the maker is either dishonest, or most likely, simply misinformed.
@greenman3610 If you look at the source its from the NOAA, which is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce. We have NASA, also a department within the U.S. that has data supporting Global Warming... that is strange isn't it?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Uhmmm, no.
Just as I get medical info from the National Institute of Health, or the Center for Disease control.
While I know many such as yourself are content to get their info from Glenn Beck, I prefer to go to the professionals whose life's work it is to know these things.
@greenman3610 The Center for Disease Control is a federal agency... they'll say whatever the gov't tells them to say. I've also been a medical student since 2004 and just recently became a certified medical professional with AAPC.
I don't just get my content from Glenn Beck, I also watch CNN, occasionally MSNBC and I read informative e-mails from HuckPac and Americans for Prosperity. I then compare notes between these sources and find out who isn't telling the whole truth and who is lying.
The argument that NASA has been falsifying temperature readings for the last fifty years because "they'll say whatever the gov't tells them to say" is ludicrous. I say this with as much respect and desire for two way communication as I can muster. If there is a clandestine political agenda here since the fifties, how could it survive 10+ different presidents from opposing political parties while being kept under wraps? I'm sorry, but please elaborate your reasoning here. I'm not following.
Even though you have scientific data, it doesn't mean you can't be led to false conclusions. I said I was still on the fence on whether to believe or not warming is happening. Where I live they are calling for 14" of snow tomorrow... hardly sounds like warming at all.
Before there was any carbon emissions we had a ice age followed by a warming stage. I read one article stating there are 140,000 scientists who believe the Earth is going through its normal cycle.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Ah looked out the winder, an' it wuz snowin'!! Haow kin it be glowbull warmin!!! Huuweeee!"
Please. There's more moisture than usual in the air, particularly in the eastern US, due to an extremely warm november, warm great lakes with no ice cover.
A puff of cold air is all you need for massive precipitation.
Look for more extreme precipitation events of all types, rain, sleet, and yes, snow.
We know that CO2 produces a greenhouse effect, and we know that almost all of the CO2 increase over the last century and a half is due to human activity, because it's of a specific type that is released when burning fossil fuels (i.e. it is different to that normally found in the atmosphere).
Few, if any, of the people on that list are climatologists, and many aren't even scientists. There is an overwhelming consensus among the worlds climatologists.
Feel free to be the first to open up your checkbook and empty your checking account for your noble cause. It's not governments job to make the public pay for something that's immersed in controversy.
It's good to know that your objections are based on economics and not science, although I knew that already.
There is no controversy among the relevant scientists. The IPCC report is based on the work of thousands of scientists, and Nature looked at a random sample of nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers, none of which disgreed with the basic underpinnings of the science.
That you don't know this only speaks to your ignorance & is the reason that ethical politicians listen to the scientists.
Your deduction that I'm ignorant from reading a few of my sentences shows where the ignorance lies. I believe ALL have an equal say without judgment. Try working on that superiority complex. I'd love to see the world from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ass.
Let's talk about what YOU'VE done to save the planet... How much have YOU donated? You drive a car? Use a computer? Watch TV? If you use energy, you're a hypocrite.
You could well be an enlightened individual when talking about other issues, but as we are talking about the science of climate, and as what you have said about it is demonstrably ignorant, I am entirely justified in my conclusion.
And the idea that, if I use any energy, at all, I'm a hypocrite, is so transparently ridiculous, it isn't worth responding to. If our current energy sources are changing the climate, and that doesn't concern you, I have no choice but to conclude that you ignorant.
@FunkyJogaBonito What a crock! CO2 is CO2 is CO2. It doesn't matter where it comes from and one CO2 molecule is identical to all others. One Carbon (C) atom and two Oxygen (O) atoms. Bull-hockey pretend authoritative statements like yours simply displays either your ignorance, or your gullibility - you decide...
It appears that all of that head spinning has turned you in to an ignoramus, Rotorhead. You have surely heard of isotopes, no?
From the IPCC:
"The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon."
I'd say that you are both gullible and ignorant, based on your comment.
@FunkyJogaBonito yes, you go knock yourself out separating those isotopes, CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, oil sources, coal, CO2 liberated from oceans, etc. The isotope range is so wide it is IMPOSSIBLE to count just those from fossil fuels; the full range of isotopes is present in ALL the sources.. BTW it is all 'natural'.
Not even the demigods at completely debunked and fraudulent IPPC (International Panel of Petulant Clowns) can get a handle on that. Keep on drinkin' that cool-aid...
In actual fact, it has already been done, Rotorhead, but you wouldn't know that, because you would rather trust a computer scientist who runs a denialist website, than the peer-review process.
But let's test it. Please point to one peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal that argues against that conclusion. Just one will do, although that would hardly speak to a consensus, which is how science progresses.
And I'm not interested in blogs, or any other denialist website, either.
But if Global Warming is legit, why won't Al Gore have a debate? Why does he shut people's mic's off when they try to challenge his data?
If the data is undisputable then why the need to have a conference in Copenhagen to convince other countries? Why are there thousands of scientists who attest there is no global warming happening?
So you have some convincing arguments from both sides and I'm kinda just neutral on the subject.
The real debate has been going on for 150 years in the only place it counts, the refereed scientific literature.
If you don't believe the National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and every other professional scientific organization on the planet, why would you believe a non-scientist politician?
ie thousands of scientists, = fraud, google
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
I can rest better knowing that when 100's of millions of people are displaced or die as a result of this modern warming period that human's aren't the cause. It really does make it less horrific and more of a sort of tragedy.
So, if warming is a great and glorious thing, we should pollute more to accelerate this wonderful process?
But seriously, comparing modern warming, which is occurring on a human timescale, to prehistoric natural warming episodes, which occurred over thousands of years, is meaningless.
Comparing local events, like the Medieval warming period, to modern global warming is equally meaningless.
@mistergarth Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it's produced by every animal. It's also consumed by every plant. Life on Earth would not exist without Carbon Dioxide.
How is the comparison meaningless, the Earth doesn't work on a human time period, so why should the data?
The point in making a comparison is to show that even pre industrial revolution when a tiny amount of of Carbon Dioxide was being produced the temperature soared to above where it is now.
>Life on Earth would not exist without Carbon Dioxide...
True, but it does NOT logically follow that more is better. The world is full of substances that are needed in small doses, but dangerous or toxic in large ones.
Plants grow faster in a CO2 enriched environment, but the benefits are not spread evenly through the plant world. Some plants, mostly weeds, benefit a lot, while many of our crops get little benefit from more CO2.
>Earth doesn't work on a human time period, so why should the data?
Huh? Earth works on many timescales simultaneously. The key is that some processes occur relatively quickly, others slower. By looking at ancient, slow climate change this video opens a Pandora's Box of new variables which are not significant in annual or decadal climate trends. This video is comparing apples and oranges as if they were the same thing.
Like mistergarth said, we need CO2 but too much is dangerous. Just like drinking too much water will kill us, but we need water to survive, a high concentration of O2 can kill us because O2 is deadly to most living organisms, but we can't live without O2. So because something is required/beneficial, too much of it can be extremely dangerous. And we can see how the oceans are becoming more acidic because of increased CO2 which is dangerous for a lot of animals.
@fatmon, you're getting your man-made pollution sources mixed up.
As you surely must recall, it was particulate pollution from our dirty industries that caused acid rain, from which followed acidified lakes and oceans.
Yes, those industries installed scrubbers that cleaned up their emissions (and made the air SO clean that more sunlight now reaches the ground, resulting in... global warming!) Still, don't let CO2 take credit for THAT (acid oceans) man-made problem!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Um no, acid oceans are being caused by CO2. Its a basic chemical equilibrium, look it up. Not to say the other pollutants aren't causing problems as well, but CO2 does cause the oceans to become more acidic. It does the same thing in our blood, which is why CO2 is bad for us, it can cause us to become acidotic.
@mistergarth, we have been quite effective in cleaning up our pollution. So many pollution control devices (scrubbers) have been installed that our air is TOO clean, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface, resulting in... global warming. So say the "scientists" affirming global warming.
But CO2 is NOT "dirty." It is not a "pollutant." We can spend billions of dollars containing or preventing it, but these would be dollars better spent elsewhere.
In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time.
Excellent! With some pauses for explanation, my third grader (who was terrified after seeing Al Gore's movie) understood this. And, he isn't scared any more. Thank you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LOL!!! The graphs only plot temperatures up to 1900. They left out over a century of warming. Talk about hiding data. They left out 109 years. And none of the gullible right-wingers noticed.'.
Oh we noticed. Some of us have been 'ranting' about these graphs for years. If you plotted our number of arguments on a graph it would also look like a hockey stick
Nothing is as easy to distort as taking a small (a couple hundred years) portion of climate data out of the huge historical past.
We know there is global warming, all our wooly mammoths are gone hunted down by paleo-indians in their Sport Utility Vehicles spewing carbon out of their exhausts.
You missed it. It was right in front of your face and you missed it.
He said in the video why the plot only went to 1900. The ice cores aren't reliable data that recently. Just like in 1900, the 1800 core samples weren't reliable data.
The right-wingers "didn't notice" because they didn't HAVE to - it was covered in the video.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TUnderbakke:He said in the video why the plot only went to 1900.".
You point is correct. Your point is also irrelevant. Claiming that it isn't abnormally warm in 2009 because it was warmer in 1000 or in 1200 B.C. than it was in 1900 is simply laughable. There is nothing in this presentation that falsifies the "hockey stick" because it doesn't include the period in which the warming has been the most rapid, which is after 1970..
Haven't you gotten your enviro fascist update? You don't call it Global Warming anymore, it's Climate Change!! That way we can point to this decade's cooling trend and blame that on increasing CO2 as well.
In the 70's they were calling it global cooling!!!
Dumb-shit doomsayers / alarmists were calling for an ice age, when we are really due for one anyways... Whatever crap they can pervert towards getting folks on-board of their "agenda"...
Look at the illustrious career of J Holdren.
BTW, Holdren is now one of Obama's science advisers - what a dipstick!
Interesting video, docattheautopsy. Ignore the zealots on both sides. Your video is a challenge, and you did a good job presenting the information cleanly.
BTW, who was one of the biggest forces pushing for NAFTA, another scam that looted America of many of it's jobs back in the early 90's?
Al Gore.
He seems to be a crook profiteering (quite handsomely, thank you) as the mouthpiece for every Bildburger scam that he can. No wonder his body has all the appearance of someone who drinks quite excessively: maybe it's the only way he can live with his whoring, soul-less self.
Global Warming is the new religion/cult which, like all others, is a tool used by its inventors for reasons of financial and power seeking motives and is effective because it appeals to man's (and woman's) ego: we're SOOOO important that we can alter an entire planet's weather! (granted it was around for billions of years before us and had drastic warming/cooling trends w/o our grandiose imput)
I got news for the Global Warming Cultists: you're all mortal, will die one day and turn to dust
Three people are asked to describe an elephant. Each are only permitted to touch one part of the elephant to describe it... one the tail... one the body... and one the trunk... each will have a different description of the elephant. You must take all parts of the elephant into consideration. CO2 has very little if any long term effect on climate. Even the sun has short term radiant effect and the cycle does not coincide with the suns cycle... The effects are galactic and on a galactic cycle.
TheTimeTraveler2025 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheTimeTraveler2025 2 weeks ago
@frolly1000
Here we go again... another cherry picker.
If its not the data it's he context.
MWP was only warmer in the northern hemisphere... you should know that.
you're full of shit!... you just makin' shit up... actually no, you're not that clever... you are merely parroting your mis-informers.
And yes of course the earth was warmer in the past... for most of it it wasn't habitable by humans... or other animals.
For most the rest of it, sea level was 60ft higher than it is now.
There goes NY
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@frolly1000 Why not use charts that include up to 2011?
They are available you know.
WAS the MWP warmer than now?
watch?v=3AzimS2D7WA
Hmmm... seems your parroting a crock
watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
My guess is you've been snuffling around with 'watts up with that' or lord monkton or some other equally inaccurate source.
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@frolly1000 watch out... it is well known these carts are cherry picked.
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@frolly1000 Where is the evidence? 29,000 peer reviewed papers and over one hundred years of accepted scientific theory.
You believe what you do either through wishful thinking, political affiliation, working for oil lobbies, or because you're just plain stupid.
practicepants 1 month ago
@frolly1000 No it hasn't. 2010 and 2005 were the hottest years on record. More misinformation from deniers.The next hottest 12 hottest years were all since 1998(the 3rd hottest year on record).
practicepants 1 month ago
watts up with this???
its a lie that's what... you should show data up to the present.
Try this actual data
watch?v=Kr02VF3ralc&feature=g-vrec&context=G2db7a2dRVAAAAAAAABg
you guys continue to prove yourself a pack of liars!
bernzeppi 1 month ago
Hang on!
At 0:37, the video shows a graph of a 'hockey stick' going from MWP to 1800 (end of little ice age)
At this point the narrator says "notice the MWP is much warmer than now"
What a crock!
You guys are so desperate!
Amateur!
bernzeppi 2 months ago
Too bad AGW is NOT about the hockey stick. watch?v=uHhLcoPT9KM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
bernzeppi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Professor Fred Singer: "They have Distorted the land surface temperature record by deleting of stations after 1975, distorted sea surface temperatures, engaged in hiding of data, destroying of evidence, evading freedom of information act, misused the peer review process, prevented the publication of critiques, pressured journal editors not to publish results from skeptics, and smeared opponents in a personal way accusing them of being in the pay of big oil." I'm only trying to warn you brother.
champclay18 3 months ago
@champclay18 Firstly, let me say, I did not flag your comment as spam and it saddens me that it has been flagged.
Anyway Fred Singer haha! the only scientist in a remotely relevant field the deniers have(he's a physicist), who is renowned for citing old research and data that has long been discredited to support his claims. The most famous physicist in the world - Stephen Hawking - is firmly in my camp(i.e. he agrees with the scientific consensus that AGW is real) as are the majority of others.
practicepants 3 months ago
@champclay18 Why even quote someone like Singer? All this is just disinformation. The CRU in East Anglia recieves 1000 requests for info a week(mostly from US deniers) - which they obviously cannot keep up with and so the deniers cry "They're withholding data!".
Today Russian scientists announced the discovery of giant methane plumes in the arctic where permafrost is melting. A real and predicted consequence of the amount of added CO2 we have put in the atmosphere. Wake up brother.
practicepants 2 months ago
@practicepants Your a Fool and the best part is that you know that your full of shit. Be sure to tell the people you work for about me ok. Btw " Wake up brother" I love it!! :-)
champclay18 2 months ago
@champclay18 Has it occured to you that the scum bags that are destroying the planet are doing it for profit? They will hang on to that postion of power until the bitter end. The world is already run by global corporations - they don't need to make this obvious to us by imposing a NWO. It's already here and has been for years. That is why we have to deal with the propaganda of the likes of the George Marshall Institute. Trust me, I'm no fool and clearly have more real info than you.
practicepants 2 months ago
It has everthing to do with Taxes! Like I said The Agenda of "Global Warming" is one of taxation through the fraudulent implementation of “Carbon Taxes” and to further remove your rights and liberties as the billionaire bankers push forward their New World Order agenda. Not to mention the thousands of Climategate emails exposing the scam. The Big Picture to all of this is Global Governance and the creation of a One World Banking System.
The "political" side has altered all of the "science"
champclay18 3 months ago
@champclay18 The political side does not change hard facts. Check out the George Marshall Institute or the Frasier Institute - these Exxon funded 'think tanks' are the source of nearly all the denier lines of argument. They have an agenda to distort the science.
Do you know what the GMI did before it was in the denier business? It was trying to convince the US public that smoking tobacco was harmless, despite over-whelming evidence to the contrary. And you think they're the good guys???
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants No The point I've been tryin to make to you is that there is a much larger agenda at work here. You know on that "political side" (Which Btw is going to effect you a hell of alot quicker than any "Global Warming"). Now let me emphasize what is going on in this legislation. Scare Tactics are being used to implement “Carbon Taxes” Which is only but a small piece to a New World Order. Remember Al Gore is the guy who said he “Invented the Internet”. How does he pull off “Credibility”?
champclay18 3 months ago
We don't want to hear about the medieval warm period, we don't want to hear about how temperatures dropped as carbon emissions increased for four decades from the 40's to the 80's, we don't want to hear about how the troposphere shows no build up of greenhouse gases, we don't want to hear about sun activity and its direct correlation with climate change, we don't want to hear about arctic ice samples showing how CO2 lags behind temperature increase. There's money to be made and peasants to flog.
champclay18 3 months ago 3
@champclay18 Medieval warm period was localised and not global. Cooiling was slight from the 40s to 80s and explained by sulphate aerosols - the overall trend is warming. The Sun has not correlated with climate change. Warming follows CO2 rise - the 'lag' is temporary(due to other factors such as end of ice ages explaining warming). CO2 rise has always been followed by global warming. These processes took thousands of years in the past, not less than a century as we have now.
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants Capping carbon emissions will do nothing to change the climate, but it will further remove your rights and liberties as the billionaire bankers push forward their New World Order agenda. Even the “Scientists” that are on the payrolls will tell you that at most man creates 6% of carbon emissions. Even if every last man made emission were eliminated, it would not affect Global Temperatures.
champclay18 3 months ago 2
@champclay18 The billionaire bankers and the billionaire oil barons(who are the same people), already own you. Isn't that obvious? That's why you buy into their line and not that of more easily scrutinised science. THEY WANT YOU RELIANT ON EVER MORE EXPENSIVE OIL.
CO2 in the atmosphere continues to have an effect for 30 years. 6% may not sound much, but it is 6% beyond the natural recapture rate and it's increase has an incremental effect.
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants Global Warming is being used as a vehicle to implement more Government Fraud, and strip you of your remaining rights and liberties. So if you are buying into the lie that is being perpetuated in order to implement carbon taxes in the name of “Global Warming” please stop for a moment and do your own part to save the planet – quit breathing now! If you would just do this one simple thing we would completely eliminate the need to discuss this ridiculous assertion any further.
champclay18 3 months ago 2
@champclay18 I'm not advocating taxes. I'm advocating changing what is socially acceptable. It used to be acceptable for the nuclear industry to dump high level radioactive waste in the sea. Thanks to scientists, it now isn't. If it became socially unacceptable for power stations not to fit carbon recapture systems(which are already available), that would come pretty close to stopping AGW.
Being taxed is a political issue - it doesn't alter any of the science.
practicepants 3 months ago
Um...the medieaval warming period was localised, not global. The whole argument presented here is erroneous and irrelevant.
practicepants 3 months ago
You manipulated the axises of the graphs! Watch the y-axis over time if you don't believe me.
saucepile 4 months ago
Good on you, greenman3610
Keep up the good work!
TheMrSirCharles 9 months ago
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
greenman3610 1 year ago
watch from 0:50 to 1:08
RylerTelevision 1 year ago
Funny how Dr Richard Alley, whose data you use for this video contradicts pretty much everything you say in this video. Read Alley 2010 - History of the Greenland Ice Sheet: paleoclimatic insights.
Sorry, this paper contains real science, so it's not the easiest reading in the world.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Before you claim to know what is going on with the climate you should spend a few hours reading through the "skepticalscience" website.
katakanadian 1 year ago
Anyone remember the days when scientists used to tell us that we were well over due for an ice age???
NicosMind 1 year ago
No 7 billion mouths to feed back then, gang. If we don't care about the billions of impoverished that require dwindling outputs of maize rice etc etc. then hotter and happier we go. You don't have to sell that huge S.U.V.! Just sell it to someone else, and invent better suntan lotion for the increased U.V. ray intensities. Who cares if bread'll cost $30 a loaf; just print more money and get Canada's tarsands just a HUMMIN!!!
fuhmeregan 1 year ago
Good stuff. Now however the earth is supporting 7 billionish humans to feed. Ominvores, they eat a lot of meat (see waistline graph). This means methane from cattle (lotsa - gr house gas, with CO2) impacts "Ozone Layer". The O.Z. layer has to stay put or U.V. rays degrade agriculture (7bill people, agri, eat), or 'growing stuff'. Medieval for us "this time" will mean 'no ozone'. Other warm ice-core periods, it's not clear why they were warm and not for nearly the length of current. cont.
fuhmeregan 1 year ago
@fuhmeregan
So do you do your part and eat vegetarian or do you eat meat while telling the world eating meat causes global warming?
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
@fuhmeregan And how do you plan on feeding 7 billion people if energy is so expensive that most economies break down? There are 1 billion people starving already WITHOUT carbon taxes!
Rho1811 1 year ago
Fred Flintstone and his Dinosaurs, sometime soon after Noah's Flood--which made the Grand Canyon, invented Global Warming as a scam.
zpike3 2 years ago
huaaahuaahaha
szcz 2 years ago
CH4 is 22 times more effective than CO2 as a GWG. Is there a chart on that? Ecopolitical policies promote letting biomass rot rather than burning it, yet rotting releases CH4, which after 7-9 years oxidizes into CO2 anyway.
randydutton1 2 years ago 2
I've seen a graph elsewhere correlating CO2 vs. previous warming periods.
Whether increased CO2 caused the warming, or the warming caused the CO2 levels to rise --- what caused the subsequent crash in temperatures?
Obliviously the long term Milanković is the key driver. It is so repetitive and predictable over hundreds of thousands of years.
tokyojohn1234 2 years ago 2
Oceans will slowly absorb CO2, even at high latitudes, eventually. More snow with warmer winters at the poles, increased albedo. Currents could radically shift causing less north south heat transport.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
What is the relevance of this video? There was no AGW in 1800 and it was only begun to be noticed in 1900.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
@jerbiebarb: re: mechanisms
you seem to like to talk about mechanisms what do you think about Svensmarks mechanisms that Jones, Mann et al. diligently managed to keep from being "peer reviewed" for 18 mos. until climate gate. Now his work is getting a closer look. /watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago 3
I find relevance in the fact that there were no factories or SUVs in medievel times. Does that prove that there is no anthroprogenic forcing? No, but it does mean that this time is not unprecendented. And that, even the "little ice age" was right smack dab in the middle of a general warming period.
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago 3
Their is several ways to mesure that back in time useing various decay models for extra confirmation.
koopmannster 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ jerbiebarb
> no AGW in 1800 and it was only begun to be noticed in 1900.
What I think you mean is that current temp reconstructions show warming since 1900. The historical commentary shows alternating alarmism from "we're gonna cook" to "we're gonna freeze".
Only in the 80's did we fixate on the "we're gonna cook" state. Then the Mann study "proved" chicken little was right, and turned doubters into heretics.
It was flawed, but once the religion takes hold it no longer matters.
sdkee 2 years ago
@ jerbiebarb
To follow up:
Please look into the Mann and Briffa reconstructions and the criticisms related to the methods used. This is where the "hockey stick" comes from.
Also find a rural climate station in your area and see if you can find the temp it has recorded for the last 100 years. I'm guessing your temp station will show that the temp has been increasing at a constant rate since before people started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. My local ones do.
sdkee 2 years ago 2
There was no AGW 1,000 years ago even thou it was Hotter then. Think that is his point. Hotter with LESS CO2......
camcheck 2 years ago 2
Isn't he just showing temperature data ending in 1900? We know that was a cold half century. But then 38 seconds in, he says the MWP was much warmer than what we're experiencing now. Where is the temperature data for "what we're experiencing now"? WHat would the chart look like if he showed recent data??
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
Climate is controlled by the oceans, not the atmosphere.
The oceans have 1,000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere. It means oceans can heat the air far more than air can heat the oceans. And it means carbon dioxide is not heating the oceans. Solar and geothermal energy heat the oceans.
champclay18 2 years ago 16
@champclay18 carbon dioxide is denser than oxygen and other noble gases in the atmosphere thus it can hold more of the heat emitted from the sun or from the earth's core. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the hotter the atmosphere gets. Earth's massive bodies of water help to dissapate the heat but the cooling system the oceans use relies on the polar ice caps with are melting faster than they can re-freeze. Just like putting a lid on a heating pot of water, it will boil faster.
MetalGuitarist99 1 year ago
@champclay18 You are correct. The air is not heating the oceans. However heat trapped by carbon dioxide heats everything - air, land and water. Carbon dioxide is heating the oceans.
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants The oceans of the world comprise some 70% of the Earth's surface. They are like the lungs of the Earth, absorbing and releasing carbon dioxide. They have been doing this for billions of years and a rise in the amount of CO2 is essentially meaningless. The carbon dioxide global warming and climate change hoax and burning fossil fuel is a fraud. Many scientists have cited excellent scientific reasons why the carbon dioxide global climate change is a hoax.
champclay18 3 months ago 4
@champclay18 "Many scientists have cited excellent scientific reasons why the carbon dioxide global climate change is a hoax" How many? I'll tell you - less than 1% believe climate change is not caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide is greenhouse gas - this has been known for over a hundred years. The carbon in the atmosphere is in fine balance with natural processes - it doesn't take much to alter that balance. Human beings have done this. This IS the scientific consensus. Why deny?
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants The entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax. The data and the hypothesis do not hold together. Al Gore is a fraud and is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his own profile. Global warming is a made up agenda that is being used as a vehicle to promote higher taxes. The “Global Warming Agenda” is social engineering and politics- NOT SCIENCE!!! Co2 is a basic building block of life. Why deny?
champclay18 3 months ago 6
@champclay18 Instead of worrying about Al Gore and conspiracy theories, just check ou the science. Please, please, please learn about the science - it is out there on the net in abundance.
99% of the arguments given by deniers can be traced back to the George Marshall Institute. Not a scientific institution, but a 'think tank' funded by Exxon and other oil backed funds. There is your conspiracy.
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants Lol You do know humans are “Carbon Based” life forms? Your body mass is 18% Carbon. Co2 is used by plants along with sunshine and water in a process called “photosynthesis” in order to grow. Carbon Dioxide is what plants convert to oxygen. Co2 is a basic building block of life. Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Water and Sunlight! The Agenda of "Global Warming" is one of taxation through the fraudulent implementation of “Carbon Taxes”. Gore pushes Global Warming for personal profit period.
champclay18 3 months ago 5
@champclay18 What has life being carbon based have to do with this? A diamond is made of carbon too, that doesn't mean it has the same properties as a tree, which is also made of carbon. Carbon dioxide absorbs and traps heat - this is very well established scientific fact. Saying it isn't is as ignorant as saying the Earth is flat.
Stop worrying about the politics and leartn the science.
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants If Global Warming were a real, tangible, verifiable issue would the solution be more taxes? Does forcing Americans to comply with a made up “crisis” in order to further intrude on life and liberties and to collect additional taxes sound like the right way to “Save the Planet” to you? “Global Warming” is a lie that is being perpetuated in order to implement *Carbon Taxes*!! Why deny?
champclay18 3 months ago 4
@champclay18 It has nothing to do with taxes. Maybe politicians are trying to rip off Americans(I don't care - I'm British). The point is - is climate change is happening? Is it caused by human activity? Science says yes to both. How we deal with it politically has no bearing on the facts.
What about China or India? Their scientists say AGW is real too.
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants LOL "It has nothing to do with taxes" It has everthing to do with Taxes! Hmmm You say your British but yet you are unaware of Britain’s "Green Taxes"? Also your general lack of understanding of *World-Wide* Carbon Taxes is also very emusing to me. Not to mention the thousands of Climategate emails exposing the scam. It would appear that no amount of the evidence of fraud would ever be sufficient to convince you that you have been taken in by the greatest hoax of the modern era.
champclay18 3 months ago 3
@champclay18 What taxes may or may not have been put in place, have nothing to do with the science. Can't you see that? Your argument is the equivalent of saying, 'Pharmaceutical companies rip eveyone off with over-charging for medical drugs, therefore it is a lie that there is any disease in the world'.
I agree, Carbon Credits are bullshit. That doesn't mean climate change is not real. It means capitalists have to make money out of everything, but doesn't xchange the facts.
practicepants 3 months ago
@practicepants Scientists – yes real scientists not those on Government Payrolls… but those who do real science related directly to climate (And there are not that many worldwide) will tell you directly that carbon does not retain enough heat to absorb the suns energy. However they do measure solar radiation and can explain to you why and how an increase in solar radiation increases cloud cover and this water vapor will trap heat.
champclay18 3 months ago 2
Basically the warming period now, may have been worse before, but in todays modern world with as many people as there are today, and our vulnerable resources, that little bit, is enough to be the wind that causes the house of cards that is our society to collapse. That's just my opinion, maybe i worry to much.
greyday741 2 years ago
You say " WORSE " .... The people back then would have said " BETTER ". They lived longer in a warmer world.
uboat21 2 years ago 2
I'm talking about social collapse, such as anarchy, and the end of organized societies.
Idk when this "back then" time you refer to is, but humans only live to be as old as they do now because of modern medicine and sanitation. Such as antibiotics.
greyday741 2 years ago
The planet is warming, it may not be human caused. it may have happened before, blah blah. That doesn't make the imminent danger go away, 100's of millions of people will die or be displaced. Climates will be altered, cities will have to ration water. Pandemics, riots, anarchy, looting, rape, murder, and wars. Eh, Worse case scenario stuff. Children today might be dumb-shits but they don't deserve to live in a bleak world surviving on a day to day basis like they did centuries ago.
greyday741 2 years ago
@greyday741 Isnt it a bit egotistical to think we can stop the earth from doing what it wants. Change is a constant. Cities dont move, they've been destined to fall since day one.
mindshot08 2 years ago
@Mindshot08 Humanity has great potential. Our adaptability makes it so we don't notice the gradual changes soon enough to act on it. It's always some tomorrow yet to come, before we realize it, tomorrow was 2 weeks ago. Even if those cities crumple and our populations dwindle. We'd build back up again. I'd just be a shame. We could have gone out with more dignity if we had at least tried. Even if trying is just preparing, and then working with what we're given to just keep moving on.
greyday741 2 years ago
I think my global warming is broken; I'm taking it back to Walmart for a refund... must've been made in China...
roguescientist 2 years ago 12
Hypocrisy defined: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
This isn't you? To claim CO2 is killing the planet yet your consumption habits contribute to this? Sincerely, are you in denial and hypocritical?
You said, "I have no choice but to conclude..." Isn't this flawed thought? We always have choices... ALWAYS.
With LOVE and NO malice intended: Please do yourself a favor and seek professional help.
styleomatic 2 years ago
Did you post that from your cave while pedalling a generator dressed in a goatskin? I thought not. Without burning coal and oil, you'd be dead in a week, cretin.
AlanFrance1 2 years ago 3
FunkyJB you are a moron- how can you do peer reviews when the data is withheld, altered, deleted or just made up? The whole AGW fiasco has been exposed as a scam to get the so-called 'scientists' big money from governments and global business - mostly the oil companies- the very people that you all hate so much! Hahahah! You've all been duped, you fools!
AlanFrance1 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You deniers are so silly when we know that AGW will be obvious to everyone within a very few years. Do you guys think your posts will be erased? LoL
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
@jerbiebarb: re: posts being ereased..
As I write this, your post is two weeks old, and it's still there. We are experiencing the coldest winter in the last 20 yrs. What will be obvious to us in a very few years may just be what is obvious to us now, AGW is a fraud! I don't doubt that you believe it though. I'll favorite this and check back every few months over the next few years. Your posts will never be erased either y'know.
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago
Do you think the Northern Hemisphere is freezing and the Southern Hemisphere is boiling because the planet is cooling down and losing energy?? Please learn about how the planet's weather works. You seem to be interested. This isn't an ego contest.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
Yes! I do. Please don't posture by politely asking me to "please learn about how the planets weather works". Thank you.
Yes, I know this is more than an ego contest, TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake.
I'll see you right here in about a year.
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago
I am a meteorologist, are you? Do you want to learn about what you're blabbing about? Do you think you're helping? Everyone needs to know about the mechanisms AND about how dangerous some proposed 'fixes' could be..
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
I have M.S. now but I do still hold an FAA commercial pilots certificate (of course no medical certificate) and did sit in a few meterology classes for a few semesters. But tell me about these proposed 'fixes' that you're concerned about.
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago
I do see the meteorologists when the hurricanes are headed in from the Gulf Coast though. They say "The computer models are saying the hurricane could come in here and some computer models are saying that the hurricane could land there. That's because in 72 hrs we'll all know just how accurate those computer models were. And so it is with Manns models now that we have the ERBE satellite data. Is that not so?
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago
But didn't gore say that the NORTH POLE ice will be gone in 7 yrs.? Lets be consistant here. Where did you go anyway? If people don't back down to your hubrisic posturing "I'm a meteorolist, are you?" bit, you disapear? I'm still waiting to hear about the dangerous 'fixes'.
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just because climate has varied in the past does not mean that humans can't be driving climate today, This fallacy is demonstrated by the analogy that,"lightning has caused forest fires in the past therefore humans can't cause forest fires".
The physics is clear, CO2 bsorbs IR, so more CO2 =heating Earth
loveofphysics 2 years ago
@loveofphysics so true.
xchaoslight 2 years ago
@loveofphysics Yer shittin me, right?
Correlation =/= Causation blah blah.
CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause.
If you overlay the CO2 and Temp graphs that Al Gore had in "An Inconvenient Truth", you will see that CO2 lags behind Temperature by a few hundred years.
Don't be such a god damn egotist. Humans do not have the capability to fuck up the climate short of nuclear winter.
XgenArea51 2 years ago 4
"CO2 lags behind Temperature"
Like seltzer water.
hrb266 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Am I ugly? i still have my virginity at 19 and its depressing!
cameroncarina37 2 years ago
Nothing to see here, move along to the next video, this is all false, move along people, move along.... (sarc)
jjhays36 2 years ago
That is a funny comment!
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
GW worshipers are driven by fear as are other doomsday beliefs. This is living as a spiritual and intellectual dwarf.
Fear is a great motivator isn't it? Everything from,"what will people think," to "what if someone finds out about ....."
Bertrand Russel said this:
Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.
Since when are we NOT allowed to think GW doesn't exist? I'm not buying in to any of that shit.
styleomatic 2 years ago 4
All the talk about thousands of years ago is irrelevant because of the impact of human activity! Duh!
We've looked for natural mechanisms returning us to the mean. It's not happening. The cooling mechanisms in your graphs are too weak and act too slowly vs human activity. Why don't you address this?
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
@jerbiebarb : Its called a base line. Duh.
putittogether 2 years ago
@putittogether
In meteorology we select baselines that support our arguments.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
You say "much warmer than what we're experiencing now" at 36 secs. The chart doesn't show the last century!
Why are you so anti-science? What is the point? Go into religion.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
Regarding of this video - "Now one could nitpick the analysis by pointing out that it focuses on one location in Central Greenland. Temperature at a single location inevitably show greater variation than the global average. While Greenland showed strong warmth 1000 years ago, global temperature during the Medieval Warm Period was less than today."
For more - search in Google article "Hockey sticks, 'unprecedented warming' and past climate change"
starrdreams 2 years ago
During Y2K we had a term for these kind of alarmists. It was "Doomers". Seems it is still appropriate.
thefirstdaveprime 2 years ago 3
@thefirstdaveprime
The Y2K analogy is more appropriate than you think, considering the money spent by governments and the private sector in order to avert computer malfunctions. There was a real problem, just like there is here. The question is whether we find the solutions palatable or not.
With the amount of disinformation out there that prompted this video, we as a public are apparently not even ready for that. Still, I applaud the video makers for their attempt at arguing the science..
dropkicktype 2 years ago
Reading all these comments makes me remember when I was worried about the world coming to an end to. My parents telling me of the up coming apocalypse(biblical,) schools telling me the earth was going to boil. I have seen these graphics before and they always make me marvel at just how insignificant .1 + or - .10 degrees over a 100 years is. Reality is, it helps nothing to get behind false assumptions. Think for yourself and go get a whopper for the homeless man in your neighborhood.
detest4321 2 years ago
?v=QU-97Z8f8dI
MMouthPeach 2 years ago
?3Fv%3DQU-97Z8f8dI
MMouthPeach 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
%3Fv%3DQU-97Z8f8dI
MMouthPeach 2 years ago
mistergarth would like you to visit his website, be sure to tell him how smart he is.
His screename and page can be found five posts down.
MMouthPeach 2 years ago
mistergarth wil be sending you an essay to be completed which requires you to answer four science related questions in under 500 characters. Be forewarned.
MMouthPeach 2 years ago
Excellent video.
DanMorin007 2 years ago 2
Nice to have some perspective on the global warming THEORY.
The comments posted here demonstrate how hard it for anyone to publish a view which contradicts the dogma from the church of climatolgy.
A climatologist who sees things differently finds it vitually impossible to get funding and his family bills don't get paid. Don't under-estimate how much this debate has been skewed by the $40 billion dollars studying AGW while natural climate variation has been ignored and unfunded.
yt555555 2 years ago 9
That is politics for you!
The IPCC is leading the charge - right over the cliff.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
The video is misleading, because it is well known that there have been significant temperature swings over the Greenland ice sheet. The "trick" in making temperature reconstructions is to combine data from many different sources and locations into a coherent global account.
This video fails because the maker is either dishonest, or most likely, simply misinformed.
for a little more on Greenland temp swings,
watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8
greenman3610 2 years ago
@greenman3610 If you look at the source its from the NOAA, which is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce. We have NASA, also a department within the U.S. that has data supporting Global Warming... that is strange isn't it?
PurpleJacketJoker 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Uhmmm, no.
Just as I get medical info from the National Institute of Health, or the Center for Disease control.
While I know many such as yourself are content to get their info from Glenn Beck, I prefer to go to the professionals whose life's work it is to know these things.
greenman3610 2 years ago
@greenman3610 The Center for Disease Control is a federal agency... they'll say whatever the gov't tells them to say. I've also been a medical student since 2004 and just recently became a certified medical professional with AAPC.
I don't just get my content from Glenn Beck, I also watch CNN, occasionally MSNBC and I read informative e-mails from HuckPac and Americans for Prosperity. I then compare notes between these sources and find out who isn't telling the whole truth and who is lying.
PurpleJacketJoker 2 years ago
The argument that NASA has been falsifying temperature readings for the last fifty years because "they'll say whatever the gov't tells them to say" is ludicrous. I say this with as much respect and desire for two way communication as I can muster. If there is a clandestine political agenda here since the fifties, how could it survive 10+ different presidents from opposing political parties while being kept under wraps? I'm sorry, but please elaborate your reasoning here. I'm not following.
dropkicktype 2 years ago
Even though you have scientific data, it doesn't mean you can't be led to false conclusions. I said I was still on the fence on whether to believe or not warming is happening. Where I live they are calling for 14" of snow tomorrow... hardly sounds like warming at all.
Before there was any carbon emissions we had a ice age followed by a warming stage. I read one article stating there are 140,000 scientists who believe the Earth is going through its normal cycle.
PurpleJacketJoker 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Ah looked out the winder, an' it wuz snowin'!! Haow kin it be glowbull warmin!!! Huuweeee!"
Please. There's more moisture than usual in the air, particularly in the eastern US, due to an extremely warm november, warm great lakes with no ice cover.
A puff of cold air is all you need for massive precipitation.
Look for more extreme precipitation events of all types, rain, sleet, and yes, snow.
greenman3610 2 years ago
We know that CO2 produces a greenhouse effect, and we know that almost all of the CO2 increase over the last century and a half is due to human activity, because it's of a specific type that is released when burning fossil fuels (i.e. it is different to that normally found in the atmosphere).
Few, if any, of the people on that list are climatologists, and many aren't even scientists. There is an overwhelming consensus among the worlds climatologists.
FunkyJogaBonito 2 years ago
Feel free to be the first to open up your checkbook and empty your checking account for your noble cause. It's not governments job to make the public pay for something that's immersed in controversy.
styleomatic 2 years ago
It's good to know that your objections are based on economics and not science, although I knew that already.
There is no controversy among the relevant scientists. The IPCC report is based on the work of thousands of scientists, and Nature looked at a random sample of nearly a thousand peer-reviewed papers, none of which disgreed with the basic underpinnings of the science.
That you don't know this only speaks to your ignorance & is the reason that ethical politicians listen to the scientists.
FunkyJogaBonito 2 years ago
"Ethical Politicians?" OMG, you're dreaming.
Your deduction that I'm ignorant from reading a few of my sentences shows where the ignorance lies. I believe ALL have an equal say without judgment. Try working on that superiority complex. I'd love to see the world from your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ass.
Let's talk about what YOU'VE done to save the planet... How much have YOU donated? You drive a car? Use a computer? Watch TV? If you use energy, you're a hypocrite.
styleomatic 2 years ago
You could well be an enlightened individual when talking about other issues, but as we are talking about the science of climate, and as what you have said about it is demonstrably ignorant, I am entirely justified in my conclusion.
And the idea that, if I use any energy, at all, I'm a hypocrite, is so transparently ridiculous, it isn't worth responding to. If our current energy sources are changing the climate, and that doesn't concern you, I have no choice but to conclude that you ignorant.
FunkyJogaBonito 2 years ago
@FunkyJogaBonito What a crock! CO2 is CO2 is CO2. It doesn't matter where it comes from and one CO2 molecule is identical to all others. One Carbon (C) atom and two Oxygen (O) atoms. Bull-hockey pretend authoritative statements like yours simply displays either your ignorance, or your gullibility - you decide...
SheesH! . . !!!
Rotorhead124 2 years ago
It appears that all of that head spinning has turned you in to an ignoramus, Rotorhead. You have surely heard of isotopes, no?
From the IPCC:
"The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to be caused by human activities because the character of CO2 in the atmosphere, in particular the ratio of its heavy to light carbon atoms, has changed in a way that can be attributed to addition of fossil fuel carbon."
I'd say that you are both gullible and ignorant, based on your comment.
FunkyJogaBonito 2 years ago
@FunkyJogaBonito yes, you go knock yourself out separating those isotopes, CO2 from forest fires, volcanoes, oil sources, coal, CO2 liberated from oceans, etc. The isotope range is so wide it is IMPOSSIBLE to count just those from fossil fuels; the full range of isotopes is present in ALL the sources.. BTW it is all 'natural'.
Not even the demigods at completely debunked and fraudulent IPPC (International Panel of Petulant Clowns) can get a handle on that. Keep on drinkin' that cool-aid...
Rotorhead124 2 years ago 2
In actual fact, it has already been done, Rotorhead, but you wouldn't know that, because you would rather trust a computer scientist who runs a denialist website, than the peer-review process.
But let's test it. Please point to one peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal that argues against that conclusion. Just one will do, although that would hardly speak to a consensus, which is how science progresses.
And I'm not interested in blogs, or any other denialist website, either.
FunkyJogaBonito 2 years ago
Then go choke yourself and save the rest of us your filthy CO2 ;p
DarkMuu666 2 years ago
@FunkyJogaBonito False assumptions. See my comment to loveofphysics.
XgenArea51 2 years ago
But if Global Warming is legit, why won't Al Gore have a debate? Why does he shut people's mic's off when they try to challenge his data?
If the data is undisputable then why the need to have a conference in Copenhagen to convince other countries? Why are there thousands of scientists who attest there is no global warming happening?
So you have some convincing arguments from both sides and I'm kinda just neutral on the subject.
PurpleJacketJoker 2 years ago 3
The real debate has been going on for 150 years in the only place it counts, the refereed scientific literature.
If you don't believe the National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and every other professional scientific organization on the planet, why would you believe a non-scientist politician?
ie thousands of scientists, = fraud, google
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
and watch for my next vid
greenman3610 2 years ago
@PurpleJacketJoker
Check your personal messages. I appreciate you taking the time you took to write a thoughtful reply.
dropkicktype 2 years ago
I can rest better knowing that when 100's of millions of people are displaced or die as a result of this modern warming period that human's aren't the cause. It really does make it less horrific and more of a sort of tragedy.
greyday741 2 years ago
So, if warming is a great and glorious thing, we should pollute more to accelerate this wonderful process?
But seriously, comparing modern warming, which is occurring on a human timescale, to prehistoric natural warming episodes, which occurred over thousands of years, is meaningless.
Comparing local events, like the Medieval warming period, to modern global warming is equally meaningless.
mistergarth 2 years ago
@mistergarth Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, it's produced by every animal. It's also consumed by every plant. Life on Earth would not exist without Carbon Dioxide.
How is the comparison meaningless, the Earth doesn't work on a human time period, so why should the data?
The point in making a comparison is to show that even pre industrial revolution when a tiny amount of of Carbon Dioxide was being produced the temperature soared to above where it is now.
tobykenyon 2 years ago 3
>Life on Earth would not exist without Carbon Dioxide...
True, but it does NOT logically follow that more is better. The world is full of substances that are needed in small doses, but dangerous or toxic in large ones.
Plants grow faster in a CO2 enriched environment, but the benefits are not spread evenly through the plant world. Some plants, mostly weeds, benefit a lot, while many of our crops get little benefit from more CO2.
mistergarth 2 years ago
>Earth doesn't work on a human time period, so why should the data?
Huh? Earth works on many timescales simultaneously. The key is that some processes occur relatively quickly, others slower. By looking at ancient, slow climate change this video opens a Pandora's Box of new variables which are not significant in annual or decadal climate trends. This video is comparing apples and oranges as if they were the same thing.
mistergarth 2 years ago
Like mistergarth said, we need CO2 but too much is dangerous. Just like drinking too much water will kill us, but we need water to survive, a high concentration of O2 can kill us because O2 is deadly to most living organisms, but we can't live without O2. So because something is required/beneficial, too much of it can be extremely dangerous. And we can see how the oceans are becoming more acidic because of increased CO2 which is dangerous for a lot of animals.
fatmon 2 years ago
@fatmon, you're getting your man-made pollution sources mixed up.
As you surely must recall, it was particulate pollution from our dirty industries that caused acid rain, from which followed acidified lakes and oceans.
Yes, those industries installed scrubbers that cleaned up their emissions (and made the air SO clean that more sunlight now reaches the ground, resulting in... global warming!) Still, don't let CO2 take credit for THAT (acid oceans) man-made problem!
minowekay 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Um no, acid oceans are being caused by CO2. Its a basic chemical equilibrium, look it up. Not to say the other pollutants aren't causing problems as well, but CO2 does cause the oceans to become more acidic. It does the same thing in our blood, which is why CO2 is bad for us, it can cause us to become acidotic.
fatmon 2 years ago
@mistergarth, we have been quite effective in cleaning up our pollution. So many pollution control devices (scrubbers) have been installed that our air is TOO clean, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface, resulting in... global warming. So say the "scientists" affirming global warming.
But CO2 is NOT "dirty." It is not a "pollutant." We can spend billions of dollars containing or preventing it, but these would be dollars better spent elsewhere.
Not that we care about wasting money.
minowekay 2 years ago
Great video, but can you please tell us where you got the statistics from? I'd like to validate them before I pass the video around.
ErikNikolai 2 years ago
dude what the fuck.
You fucked your graph up just as bad as the communists.
Fucking asshole.
Zaknefain69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This entire video is garbage. Do you people just make this stuff up and change it to your own needs, like the bible?
JimmysCrackhorn 2 years ago
go back to your crack jimbo
roguescientist 2 years ago
Re: Mann Hockey stick
In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago 5
Excellent! With some pauses for explanation, my third grader (who was terrified after seeing Al Gore's movie) understood this. And, he isn't scared any more. Thank you.
JenPhD 2 years ago 7
Jen, their intentions are exactly that -
SCARE TACTICS!
The G'oracle, et. al., want to scare us into submission. Its like a hat trick, slight of hand, etc..
Attempting to distract us... and passing BS like cap and trade bill, making some backdoor deal in Copenhagen, etc...
"Something is very rotten in the state of Denmark"
Hopefully we can all smell it by now
roguescientist 2 years ago 12
Facts and Logic = Liberal Kryptonite.
st4ticblu3 2 years ago 9
I'm going back to drying my foods for storage. The real threat is the coming global wars against everything that moves.
hobo59 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LOL!!! The graphs only plot temperatures up to 1900. They left out over a century of warming. Talk about hiding data. They left out 109 years. And none of the gullible right-wingers noticed.'.
ThisSystemSux 2 years ago
Dumb Ass, the point was all you dim left GW followers are ONLY using data sine 1900 and ignoring the rest.
Greg78X 2 years ago 9
Oh we noticed. Some of us have been 'ranting' about these graphs for years. If you plotted our number of arguments on a graph it would also look like a hockey stick
Nothing is as easy to distort as taking a small (a couple hundred years) portion of climate data out of the huge historical past.
We know there is global warming, all our wooly mammoths are gone hunted down by paleo-indians in their Sport Utility Vehicles spewing carbon out of their exhausts.
cucullin789 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
haraldschilly 2 years ago
I thought the reason there were no temps after 1900 was because the ice cores weren't thick enough for measurements yet.
sunkist1976 2 years ago 5
You missed it. It was right in front of your face and you missed it.
He said in the video why the plot only went to 1900. The ice cores aren't reliable data that recently. Just like in 1900, the 1800 core samples weren't reliable data.
The right-wingers "didn't notice" because they didn't HAVE to - it was covered in the video.
TUnderbakke 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TUnderbakke:He said in the video why the plot only went to 1900.".
You point is correct. Your point is also irrelevant. Claiming that it isn't abnormally warm in 2009 because it was warmer in 1000 or in 1200 B.C. than it was in 1900 is simply laughable. There is nothing in this presentation that falsifies the "hockey stick" because it doesn't include the period in which the warming has been the most rapid, which is after 1970..
"
ThisSystemSux 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Damn this video is stupid. There's a reason it's called Global Warming, not Greenland Warming, retard!
djhakase 2 years ago
As I am sure you know the NOAA ice core sample is the Back bone of GW.
Greg78X 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
haraldschilly 2 years ago
Haven't you gotten your enviro fascist update? You don't call it Global Warming anymore, it's Climate Change!! That way we can point to this decade's cooling trend and blame that on increasing CO2 as well.
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago 12
In the 70's they were calling it global cooling!!!
Dumb-shit doomsayers / alarmists were calling for an ice age, when we are really due for one anyways... Whatever crap they can pervert towards getting folks on-board of their "agenda"...
Look at the illustrious career of J Holdren.
BTW, Holdren is now one of Obama's science advisers - what a dipstick!
Go figure... politicians such!
roguescientist 2 years ago
Interesting video, docattheautopsy. Ignore the zealots on both sides. Your video is a challenge, and you did a good job presenting the information cleanly.
littlebeartoe 2 years ago
BTW, who was one of the biggest forces pushing for NAFTA, another scam that looted America of many of it's jobs back in the early 90's?
Al Gore.
He seems to be a crook profiteering (quite handsomely, thank you) as the mouthpiece for every Bildburger scam that he can. No wonder his body has all the appearance of someone who drinks quite excessively: maybe it's the only way he can live with his whoring, soul-less self.
zflynn2 2 years ago 2
Global Warming is the new religion/cult which, like all others, is a tool used by its inventors for reasons of financial and power seeking motives and is effective because it appeals to man's (and woman's) ego: we're SOOOO important that we can alter an entire planet's weather! (granted it was around for billions of years before us and had drastic warming/cooling trends w/o our grandiose imput)
I got news for the Global Warming Cultists: you're all mortal, will die one day and turn to dust
zflynn2 2 years ago 2
There is no global warming or problem with the climate.
dontletithappen 2 years ago 3