So typical of a denier to put up a bunch of graphical information without giving the sources or context.
This is a bunch of shit, and anyone willing to think for themselves and do the research on their own can see right through it.
I would feel sorry for those of you who accept this "on faith," but the planet is a bit too important. So if you all could just step the fuck out of the way that would be awesome. Thanks.
@progrocker69 Ok let me tell you this. Volcano's and every single living thing makes WAY more Co2 then us humans we actually cause a newt amount of Co2 compare to the Co2 nature creates. I feel sorry for you to believe in GB in dogma and i think it is absolutely selfish that people like you actually stop Africans from having electricity and let them only use expensive stuff like solar panels instead saying you cannot have electricity so how about YOU step the fuck away from the African dream.
@Illbohema You've just managed to piss me off big time, Sparky.
The amounts of CO2 produced by human activity vs. nature are freely available information. It's not nature which has spontaneously decided to nearly double atmospheric CO2 in the past century. Get your fucking facts straight, please.
Next, did you get the part in my first message about "the planet is a bit too important?" Implied in that statement is that the humans EVERYWHERE on the planet are also important. (continued)
@Illbohema You are trying to paint me as somebody who, for whatever reason, is not concerned about the plight of many African nations, based solely upon my insistence that AGW is real? Are you fucking SERIOUS?
I'm not the judgmental person in this dialogue, bub. Before you post at me again, may I suggest you try thinking first? Fuck you and your baseless accusations you jerk.
It's the sun, stupid. Following the Medieval Warming Period (about the same temps as now), there were a number of solar minimums between 1250 and 1850 (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder & Dalton) that caused the Little Ice Age (LIA). Since the LIA, there haven't been ANY solar minimums, so global temps have risen naturally. The current solar max peaked in 1990 & we seem to be in a new solar minimum, which explains why no warming since 1998. CO2 had NOTHING to do with it. CAGW is dead; see Climategate 2.0
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
global warming caused the 2010 Russian heatwave could bring closer the day when climate victims can sue oil firms…found that there is an 80 per cent chance that the temperature record would not have occurred without climate change…extreme events like the heatwave, most of the impact comes from crossing a threshold. Doing so is made much more likely by climate change’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.200-playing-the-climate-blame-game.html
The problem is the man made global warming people are motivated by political ideology and will ignore any logical arguments that don't fit into their narrative.
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed
‘their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records...study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter…Blogger Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That has repeatedly claimed that temperature data is unreliable’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn21074-sceptical-climate-scientists-concede-earth-has-warmed.html
Arctic ice hits second-lowest level, US scientists say
‘Sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2011 has passed its annual minimum, reaching the second-lowest level since satellite records began, US scientists say…the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says the minimum, reached on 9 September, was 4.33 million sq km’
‘stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London…Between 2007 and 2010, David Breashears retraced the steps of early photographic pioneers such as Major E O Wheeler, George Mallory and Vittorio Sella - to try to re-take their views of breathtaking glacial vistas’
My brother peer reviews a scientific journal. He told me that many times, the other peer reviewers don't even read the articles. They just sign off on their friends so called research. Forget peer reviewed journals on this topic. We need hard, cold facts, and there are none. At this point in time, all we have are predictions that rely on computer programs, and they don't prove anything. If we can't predict weather a week from now, how can we do it in 10 years or 100?.
'My brother peer reviews a scientific journal.' anybody can say anything on the internet, because if they don't back it up with evidence, they think they can get away with!
@blackadderthe4 He's a cardiologist, I'm a pediatrician. I guess I could be telling lies, but why? The news stunned me, even though I've read enough crappy journal articles to have guessed the truth. If you want to read a good synopsis of what is really known about global warming and CO2, check out this website and read the references. Then, come back and tell me about peer reviewing.
'but why?' false kudos! 'If we can't predict weather a week from now, how can we do it in 10 years or 100?' because we are talking CLIMATE and if you don't know the difference between weather and climate, then that means I have doubts about other things you say!
@blackadderthe4 I do know the difference between weather and climate. The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time. If we are bad at predicting the former, how bad do you think we are at predicting the latter? The earth's atmosphere is a chaotic, nonlinear, open system that no one truly understands. Period. Read more..
'we'd all still think the world was flat' wrong, the ancient Greeks/Egyptians had worked out the diameter of the world by about 300BC, but most people already knew it was round, by then anyhow!
'These gases absorb specific frequencies of infrared radiation-heat- that would otherwise escape into space. They re-radiate some of that energy towards Earth's surface...more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere means less escaping and a warmer planet'
‘Studies of the Earth’s past climate tells us whenever co2 levels have risen, the planet has warmed. Since the beginning of the industrial age in the 19th century, co2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 380ppm…while many factors affect our planet’s climate. There is overwhelming evidence that co2 is the prime cause of the recent warming’
‘Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published…by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase…problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published’
w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
2008 US military scientists proved the sun, not man, is the main cause, kept quiet. 2011, CERN scientists were gagged because the results were 'politically incorrect.'
Doctors have come up with cures to cancer and have been murdered, just as any scientist that proves Gore's 'paid-for' findings are not true have lost their careers.
Don't blindly accept what someone in authority tells you. Start using Google and seek the answers to questions you should be asking. Google "CERN scientists gagged"
Regarding most sunspot CO2 global warming science the dancing Wu-Shu Masters of Washington & Whitehall discovered that not only can you curve space & bend time you can also warp the laws of solar physics merely by getting tenured scientists to repeat unscientific drivel about magnetic anomalies causing sunspots rather than the other way round & as for the reality of the star beginning to burn it’s iron just believe what you’re told then dance & SHAKE YOUR BOOTY on cue.
OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted from CRU
'the myths that the data has been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says the university's vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide... released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
Find out how to profit from a forward contract in the carbon credit markets
Investment entry level from only 2000 Euros!The price of carbon is expected to double by 2013 and double again by 2020 according to research carried out by Sceptre, just complete the form on the right hand side to receive your FREE investment report and find out more
Most interesting, the author has discovered a whole new branch of dead end pseudo junk science of cherry picking!
It is one, which totally and absolutely defies all the known and tested laws of physics since Sir Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon. Also ignores the pioneering work of John Tyndall, who in 1858, investigate the properties of a gas called "carbon dioxide".
Those who have one foot in the canoe, and one foot in the boat, are going to fall into the river. - Tuscarora
@L0stInDespair Of course climate change is normal. That does not negate the fact that humans can alter it. The water level in any river goes up and down naturally, but that does not mean that if water is drained off or a dam is built that the level is NOT effected.
One day, not so far in our future, all the green plants of the world united in agreement when a couple of plants convinced all the rest of them that oxygen was a deadly gas and it needed to be reduced to save the planet they lived in and all life on it.
Hmmm, does that make sense? About as much sense as Al Gore's agenda of 'climate change' and reducing carbon dioxide.
@paulcoonan Kind of funny how the greenie weenies follow a person who flies his pesonel jet around the world, lives in a massive house, who drives gas guzzlers and cheats on his wife.......Then again who said greenie weenies are smart...
@avionicswirenut Gore is expected to be the first Carbon Billionaire. I would call that the biggest scam of all history! That is the way Gore should go down in the history books, as the biggest scam artist every known.
It amazed me that there actually people falling for this. In fact, the carbon trading industry is expected to profit $125 billion this year alone.
@paulcoonan That's just a strawman, a horrendous analogy. Climate change caused by man is endorsed by 97% of climatologists and there have been dozens of peer review papers in respectable journals on the subject. Your scientific illiteracy doesn't make it wrong.
@TheGamanic The climate scientists can be accused of being a part of the conspiracy by virtue of the lies, suppression of conflicting views and studies by their peers, and the outright fabrication of their reports (Jones and Climate-gate, and also the Hockey Stick study of tree rings in Russia).
Most of the peer reviews and studies were completed by about 60 scientists, while the names of the other scientists were, in many cases, simply added to lend credence to the reports.
@BrianWheatley69 Give me one prospective paper that has been outright rejected by a journal because it held contrary views and wasn't shoddy science. It is easy to talk of suppression but can you support the claims? Furthermore, Jones didn't fabricate anything, Climategate was a manufactured fiasco by desperate deniers. Also I am not talking about the IPCC report for support, but peer reviewed papers and surveys which show that level of support for AGW time and time again
@mutantraver I have a degree in science and have witnessed the experiment first hand. The great thing about our modern information age is that you do not have to replicate every experiment to accept the results. You can look it up yourself. Just Google CO2 and the first entry will be Wiki. It says: "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared." Look it up yourself, READ IT! You may learn something
That’s really funny. Last I checked, the earth atmosphere is not sealed. Air rises, cools, moisture is released, and blows up mountains, down mountains, across oceans. Then the oceans circulate and the earth rotates and the suns magnetic field fluctuates. While that experiment is interesting it totally fails to represent how the atmosphere actually works.
Pardon the pun but you really should try thinking outside the box.
@TullyRiven Again, what I already said: There are many forcers in a climate, CO2 being just ONE of them. Another commenter incorrectly stated that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. I simply gave him an experiment that would falsify that assumption and gave a way to look up the correct information on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Is this a point you want to argue? Do you still consider yourself objective? This last statement shows your lack of objectivity as well as a lack of honesty.
@TullyRiven If you continue to be dishonest, claim I say things that I do not, and continually misrepresent the facts of what we already went over, then you are proving my point about the right wing being biased, blind, dishonest and purposefully putting out misinformation for it's own political agenda. I have not misrepresented your points, I have only refuted them. Stop misrepresenting what I write.
@coolgreyoneabby Mutantraver’s comment was removed so maybe some context was lost. The sealed glass box experiment definitely proves that CO2 captures extra heat so if he was denying that fact the experiment is relevant. I was commenting on the limitations of the experiment which may or may not have been germane.
You seem obsessed with politics and conspiracies. Save if for posters who deserve that treatment. My comment did not warrant the response.
@mutantraver Your statement is easily falsifiable. Place air in one sealed container and air plus elevated levels of CO2 in a second sealed container. Place in sunlight and measure the temperatures. The container with the elevated levels of CO2 gets warmer. You are proved wrong in the simplest of experiments.
@brospec LOL... Typical alarmist moron who can't refute facts. Bunch of unscientific morons getting swindled by old PhD farts who have a vested interest in causing panic.
‘Strong currents beneath the Pine Island glacier ice shelf in Antarctica are chiselling away at ice from below, speeding the entire glacier's melting…over a span of 15 years, Stan Jacobs of Columbia University in Palisades, New York, and colleagues discovered that melting beneath the shelf had increased by 50 per cent, although the local waters had warmed only 0.2 °C’
w ww.newscientist.c om/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/ocean-currents-chisel-glaciers.html
=) some ppl make me laugh no matter how much evidence you give them they still refuse to believe in intellectual argument and believe the ppl that have lied to them over and over are telling the truth.
Temperature leads CO2 in the past? I don't see why that is a problem. Infact it is exactly what you would expect, since past climate change events have been driven by changes in earths orbital and rotational parameters, exposing the North poll to more or less sun rays. So when the temps rose the CO2 acted as a feedback once the oceans warmed enough to give up their CO2. Now we are makiing CO2 the driver by pumping ages old CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
Typical theories proven wrong: 10. Planet Vulcan (nothing to do with Star Trek) 9. Spontaneous Generation 8. The Expanding Earth 7. The Phlogiston Theory 6. The Theory of Martian Canals 5. Luminiferous Aether 4. The Blank Slate Theory (psychology) 3. Phrenology 2. Einstein's Static Universe Theory 1. Cold Fusion How each was proven wrong is detailed at Toptenz . Try Google for the exact address.
@DrDelos Nope you were asked for an example of a theory that had been "proven" because you earlier claimed that AGW hadn't been proven when you full well know that no scientific theory is ever "proven". p.s. AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.
@SuckMyPhallus Could you "prove" that Napoloeon existed? No, but the evidence is overwhelming, the same applies to AGW. No scientific theory can be "proven", that suggests that no new contradictory evidence can change it, only a non scientist or a religious person asks for "proof". Scientists look at the the evidence to work out the most likely explanation for a theory. Have a look at my video on "proof" and climate change denial.
@checkyoursources CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and does not & CAN NOT absorb a wide spectrum of wavelengths that water vapor can. Furthermore, CO2 makes up only a small portion of atmospheric gas, and the amount man puts up in the atmosphere is way too little to have any effect on our climate.
Warming since the 1970-1997 was caused by the sun.
@SuckMyPhallus Name some data or peer reviewed papers that backs this: "Warming since the 1970-1997 was caused by the sun." Here are some papers/data that don't: PMOD data plots form the world radiation centre. "Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for just 15-20% of global warming" (Meehl 2004). "The sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades" (Lockwood 2008).After water vapour CO2 is the largest contributor to the GH effect.1.66 W/m2.
@checkyoursources Why don't you prove that CO2 caused the warming from 1970-1997? Meehl gave no scientific argument as to why there was warming. The temperature for all planets rose during that time period. Meehl just noted that the temperature increased and assumed that CO2 had something to do with it.
Your second quote supports what I said, not what you said.
How does CO2 as the 2nd largest contributor to the GH effect change that it is a weak greenhouse gas? CO2 does not absorb long waves.
@SuckMyPhallus Yet again asking for "proof"- very unscientific of you. Co2 is the most likely cause of warming: Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming. See Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007, Wang 2009.
@SuckMyPhallus Meehl and Lockwood among many others were merely falsifying the claim (your claim) that the Sun has been the primary driver of warming recently. you said: "How does CO2 as the 2nd largest contributor to the GH effect change that it is a weak greenhouse gas" - 1) describe "weak". 2) Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere but its GHG effect is less than 0.0000001% 3) In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a GHG that absorbed longwave radiation.
@nfhslugger It takes more than just a CO2 atmosphere to create the temperatures of different planets. Venus's atmosphere is almost all CO2, but it's atmospheric pressure is 95,000 millibars, both of which act together to push the temperature to more than 800 degrees. [Earth has an atmospheric pressure of 1,000.] Conversely, Mars has an atmosphere consisting of 95% CO2 yet an average temperature of 82 degrees below zero due to the thin envelope of gasses.
@DrDelos Co2 is the most likely primary driver of warming on Earth since the 1970's. You said "Mars has an atmosphere consisting of 95% CO2 yet an average temperature of 82 degrees below zero" - are you aware that 1) Without CO2 on Mars it would be much colder and 2) that mars is 230 million km from the sun i.e. The planet is also 1.52 times as far from the sun as Earth, resulting in just 43% of the amount of sunlight plus its atmosphere is thinner 3) That too much CO2 is bad for life on Earth
Explain: 1940 the industry really began the mass production of consumer objects such as Cars, which led to more CO2 to be produced yet the temperature fell FOR 40 YEARS! That is the COMPLETE opposite of what SHOULD have happened if the CO2 we release have any effect.
@checkyoursources Incorrect. The primary driver of warming on ALL planets near earth is the sun. The temperature on Mars and all the neighboring planets have increased along with earth's. CO2 does not control the temperature. Temperature controls CO2.
2) Incorrect again. No CO2 on Mars would mean the temperature on Mars was absolute zero 500-800 years back. Temperature controls CO2; not the other way around.
@SuckMyPhallus 1) The sun has been cooling for three decades (see PMOD TSI data from the world radiation centre) yet temps are rising, your theory has just been falsified. Venus is cooling, as is Saturn, we have a different orbit. Extra human Co2 amplifies the warming on Earth.
2) Co2 levels can be raised by warming BUT CO2 is a GHG so it can initiate it too o2 is a significant GHG?
p.s. you don't understand the diffference between % content in the atmosphere and % contribution to GH effect.
@checkyoursources 1)Incorrect. The temperatures have risen from 1997-2007 and scientists admit the sun is getting warmer and has been getting warmer for some time now. This fact is noted in numerous global warming alarmist papers. Stop making shit up.
2) Insignificant warming.
CO2 only accounts for 9% (Probably hugely inflated by alarmists, but I'll be lenient and give them it) of GH contribution. You do not understand the contribution humans make (<.1%) to the total amount of CO2 in the atm.
@SuckMyPhallus 1)I ask yet again for some sources from you:Name a solar TSI dataset that shows the sun has warming significantly enough to explain the warming since the 1970's between 1978-2010. Look up the PMOD dataset from the world radiation centre or the SORCE satellite plots from 2003 onwards, it clearly shows a decreasing TSI, not a warming one.2)NASA's IRIS satellite/Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite show how big an effect CO2 has.Increased CO2 = temp up = more water vapour, a GHG.
@SuckMyPhallus For those who can be bothered to actually look at evidence try this from NASA's SORCE satellite which has been measuring a falling TSI since 2003 and yet 2005/2010 were record warm years! (remove the spaces)
@SuckMyPhallus From your "mars is warming" nat geo source which you clearly didn't read in full: "His views (that Mars Melt Hints at Solar Cause for Warming), are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea that the sun is responsible just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
@checkyoursources LOL... And where is Wilson's proof? He disagreed and provided no proof to back his statement up. The observation, my friend, is that it is most likely the sun that has warmed this planet for most of the 20th century. Wilson is just using rhetoric. No proof, no substance.
@SuckMyPhallus 1) Science is about the most likely explanation, never, ever "proof". 2) In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. 3) See PMOD from the world radiation centre for confirmation if you can be bothered to check. 4) The following papers also state the recent warming since the 1970's is unexplained by the sun: Frolich 1998, Waple 1999, Solanki 2003, Stott 2003,Usoskin 2005, Foukal 2006, Ammann 2007,Lean 2008, Erlykin 2009.
@checkyoursources "Michael Smith, a California-based software engineer, who was instrumental, along with D'Aleo, in crunching the NOAA/NASA data and exposing the temperature tampering, says the historical climate data used by both agencies is obsolete by 20 years and is a mess."
@SuckMyPhallus Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. I suppose you think the earlier flowering of spring flowers putting them out of sink with bees are also "paid off"?!
@checkyoursources I'm very aware that there might have been temperature increase in 1975-1997. And why not? Did you check the video? The range of increase during that period isn't exactly that significant and when compared to warming/cooling trend for the past couple hundred years, there are no outliers.
@SuckMyPhallus 1) The rate of change is accelerating 2) Since the last ice age we have seen 6 degrees C change, the first 5 degrees took many thousands of years, the last degree took just 150 years 3) The majority of warming since the late 1970's is unexplained by the sun or orbital "wobbles" i.e. natural forcings so this is of concern. 4) "In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C above the 1961-90 mean and 0.01°C above the nominal temperature in 2005"- WMO 2011
@checkyoursources 1)Even if the rate is accelerating, that doesn't mean CO2 had anything to do with it. The temperature is decreasing, NOT increasing.
2)Stop referencing organizations that have been caught cooking temperature data.
3)We don't even know how the climate works. We can't even predict what the temperature of tomorrow will be. How can you be so sure the warming wasn't caused by just the sun? Link me one valid study that proves the sun's abnormal sunspots didn't cause warming.
@SuckMyPhallus It is clear that no amount of evidence from multiple reliable sources will convince you that Agw is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. Scientific papers that indicate the Sun is NOT responsible for the majority of warming since the 1970's: Frolich 1998, Waple 1999, Lean 1999, Stott 2003 , Usoskin 2005, Foukal 2006, Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2008, Erlykin 2009, Benestad 2009.
Explain where the World radiation centre has "cooked the data"?!
@SuckMyPhallus Every one of your statement is false. You have been watching too much Fox News. 1) CO2 is one of the forcing factors to climate. 2) Temps are increasing, not decreasing. 3) Repubs have accused organizations of cooking data, but even after bias's were removed, the data showed the same result. 4) We know quite a bit how climate works. Just because I can't tell you what the temp will be in three weeks, does not mean I can't tell you if it will be warmer or cooler in six months.
‘In February 2010, climate sceptics were crowing about apparent admissions from Phil Jones at the (CRU) UK, that warming trends over the period 1995 to 2009 were "not statistically significant”…sceptics including far-right media pundit Glenn Beck seized on Jones's admission,to support their contention that global warming had effectively come to a halt’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20571-recent-warming-trend-is-significant-after-all.html
While at the moment we may not be able to prove, without a doubt, the precise numbers showing how much CO2 produced by humans has directly changed the weather it is fair to say that CO2, car exhaust, and other air borne chemicals are not safe to breathe and can contribute to respiratory and other health problems.
There may be an error in the first graph: the red curve rises before the blue curve suggesting co2 rises before temperature. The second argument depends on model predictions which could be wrong. The final argument would appear to be the strongest, but it depends on what exactly the two graphs mean.
'Between March and the end of May Britain as a whole was also at its hottest and driest since 1910, which is as far back as those records go…only been 2in or 65mm of rain, which has led to dangerously low water levels in some of Britain's reservoirs as well as disasters like bushfires, which are usually associated with extremely dry countries like Australia'
w ww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393026/Barbecue-Britain-forecasters-say-set-sizzle-ALL-June-good-news-Glastonbury-Wimbledon.html
RECORD CARBON EMISSIONS mean 2 °C rise ever closer
‘James Lovelock...was too late to prevent "apocalyptic" climate change?...International Energy Agency's latest estimates of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, which hit record highs last year...last year's emissions...surpassed 2009 levels by 1.6Gt, hitting 30.6 Gt. This is close to the 32 Gt per year...cause warming of 2 °C...before 2020’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20525-record-carbon-emissions-mean-2-c-rise-ever-closer.html
‘Eugene Takle...is studying how climate change will influence the water flowing through the Mississippi river basin...the area is very sensitive to change, as it lies...and those from the Gulf of Mexico...one of Takle's models suggested flow at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers could increase by 50 per cent with climate change (Journal of Geophysical Research)’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21028143.800-reengineering-the-mississippis-flood-defences.html
@Desertphile The proof is pretty basic. There have been times in the past when CO2 in the atmosphere was many many times as high as it is now, yet the temperature was about the same as it is now. Conversely, there have been times when CO2 concentrations have been lower than now, yet the temperature has been higher than now. Ipso Facto.
@Desertphile Oh, I see. You live in a bizarro universe where we can't look at the past to understand the present. The present in your little world is whatever your political saviors TELL you it is. Go to wattsupwiththat and you can find at least 20 reasons the so-called global warming is taking place. There isn't agreement that we are warming and less agreement that CO2 is 'a cause' and even less agreement that we could do the slightest to mitigate lowering CO2 at all.
@DrDelos An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
@checkyoursources Now the science. ALL the models are merely THEORIES. None can be PROVEN in a scientific sense. Even if there was 100% perfect correlation of temp and CO2 (and there isn't) - Correlation does not prove causation. Never has, never will. Look it up, if you don't believe it. The info I posted in my first comment shows how lousy the correlation really is anyway.
@DrDelos "None can be PROVEN in a scientific sense". 1) No scientific theory is ever proven. 2) To suggest so is to say that you would ignore and future contradictory evidence. 3) Science is about the most likely explantaion and disproving alternatives, not "proof". 4) AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's based on the current available evidence. 5) Read my last comment again.
@checkyoursources Theories are proven and disproven all the time. You are obviously not a scientist and have very little in the way of an education in the sciences. GW can't be proven because we can't suck all the CO2 nout and see if the temperature goes down. Even then there are many other factors we can't control that would affect the outcome.
@DrDelos Are you seriously saying that CO2 isn't a very likely greenhouse gas based on the evidence from over 100 scientific papers?
Name a scientific theory that has been "proven" outright?
Theories are never "proven" as to suggest so is to pretend that contradictory evidence will not change or disprove a theory. Theories are the best, most likely explanation for an observation, they can be disproved but never ever "proved". I have a scientific degree and two post graduate ones actually.
@checkyoursources If you had any degree in any subject you would know that theories are proven and disproven every day. I won't waste my time on posers. [You don't even read the topics you are responding to.]
Global warming is merely an excuse to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world. The left has tried is for well over a hundred years and the only thing that changes is the vehicle they use. John Cook is a useful idiot, btw.
@DrDelos Nope, theories are only ever disproven, NOT "proven". No theory is ever proven outright with 100% certainty that the results will be the same whenever and wherever you try it. I suggest you look up falsification and karl popper for more info. You have yet to provide evidence for your view that AGW is not the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's or provide a more likely alternative. Your ad hominem weaken your argument. Please try to be objective.
@Desertphile Wrong, ninny. The current climate ups and downs are meaningless without comparisons to earlier climate norms. Think about it a little. You couldn't tell if our current climate was warmer or colder than the past unless you had stats from the past to tell you what 'normal' was. The entire difference in temperature that all this GW talk concerns is only ONE degree C over the past 100 years. (Give or take a little based on location.)
@DrDelos ; Wrong, brainfart. The current global temperature anomaly has been compared to the past 800,000+ years. Think about what you are asserting before making yourself look silly.
@Desertphile What's with the childish name calling? (Yes, you started it. and continue it.) If you want to go back 800,000 years, you are going to see a 27 degree (F) variation with the warmest being 130,000 years ago at 8.1 degrees (F) warmer than now. The ice core charts are all over the 'Net.
@DrDelos ; What's with the lying and bullshit? If all of the world's scientists are wrong, then step forward and correct them. Good luck with that, clown.
@Desertphile If you have been brainwashed so completely that you are incapable of doing your own research from original sources then you are just one more of what Lenin called "useful idiots". The world is what it is, in most part, due to people who have the tools they need but are too lazy to use them. Research the story of Helicobacter pylori. More than 99.9% of doctors refused to believe it was the cause of ulcers. They were proven wrong by the .01% that researched it anyway.
@DrDelos 1) CO2 is not the only driver of climate, in the past the Sun played a more significant role.
2) When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also much much lower.
3) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; human emissions are now the most likely dominant forcing.
4) Despite 2010 being a significant La Nina year and the sun being at a solar minimum 2010 was on average a record warm year globally. i.e. most likely culprit = human GHG's
@checkyoursources Isn't it an amazing coincidence that the Sun heats Earth when CO2 doesn't and has lower output when CO2 is growing? Watch the video above once more. There is no scientific evidence that anthropomorphic GHG is causing global warming. There are only THEORIES that it does. Even the alarmists admit that the tiny % increase in CO2 could not cause warming so they say that the effect is amplified by positive feedbacks. Trouble is that there isn't agreement that there ARE + feedbacks
@DrDelos An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming. Gravity and Evolution are also "theories" to but I wouldn't argue them.
@checkyoursources The 'models' used to predict AGW have been shown to be off by half the predicted temperature increase based upon how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere. Your so-called empirical 'evidence' is not provable, testable evidence. It consists of non-hard data that has been contorted, massaged, tweaked and screwed around with by people who stand to gain directly by scaring governments into believing their house of cards.
@DrDelos Please try not to allow your political persuasions to make you lose your objectivity. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Interestingly no-one has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
@checkyoursources First the politics: In the 70s and 80s I was watching the science exploring GW and then AGW. The people crying wolf told us that there was GW and it was AGW. Next they told us that AGW could be stopped. The solution? Everybody produce less CO2. So far so good - nothing fishy yet. BUT THEN they tell us that the developed countries need to slash CO2 emissions but the LARGEST producers of CO2 (China and the 3rd world) were exempt. Knock knock anybody home? Pretty obvious to me
@DrDelos Wrong, the US has produced 3 times more CO2 than China over the last 100 years. Also per capita emissions are 4 times higher in the US. Do some research.
@checkyoursources I am not talking about the last 100 years because nothing in the past can be changed. You are just parroting the left wing talking points. If you could think for YOURSELF, you would realize the logic behind what I said and not just look up your pat answer to the facts. The left CLEARLY couldn't care less about GW, they are just looking for an excuse to grab totalitarian POWER over the entire planet. Nothing we could do would stop CO2 production to any meaningful degree.
@DrDelos You sound like a defeatist, not a scientist. There are many things we can do to reduce our amplification of climate change, it doesn't even require politics to do so. Keep your political views out of this, it will distort any objectivty you might have.
@checkyoursources The IPCC once declared that there are 11 important factors involved in GW and science has a POOR understanding of 10 of them. The significance of that is if any of those factors don't work in the way the models predict, the fraudulent mess falls apart. Example? Some GW alarmists claim that clouds are a positive feedback, but they admit that they REALLY DON'T KNOW for sure. If they were a positive feedback there would have been a GW on the order of 100 - 800 degrees long ago.
@DrDelos You said: "The IPCC once declared that there are 11 important factors involved in GW and science has a POOR understanding of 10 of them"- please provide a source.
Clouds and CO2 are not the only drivers of climate. GHG's and feedbacks from human activities are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. What level of confidence would you act at because if its 100% then you aren't a scientist.
When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower and vice versa. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate. Many factors can drive climate. Climate reacts to whatever is forcing it to at the time
Currently the primary driver is most likely to be human GHG's and associated feedbacks.
@DrDelos When CO2 was higher than now in the distant past on Earth our orbit was different and the Sun's TSI was lower. and vice versa. next denier opinion and non sequitur please...
@warmasterguy1 Yes it is true that other factors can increase temperatures. However CO2 controls the largest temperature factor which is water vapor. I personally looked all through out the IPCC's website and they did not have any matching graphs. In fact they agree with 99% of the worlds leading scientists that there is climate change because of CO2. The world is not going to catch on fire but, is slowly warming and glaciers that have been around for 15-20 MILLION years are just about melted.
@4amorphotos A lot of these graphs came from the IPCC, the organization that runs the majority of review upon modern climate data. The Vostok ice core sample graph originally was used by the climate change scientists to show a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature, though under closer examination it is apparent that temperature rose about 800 years before the CO2 levels corresponded with them.
Green house gases are not blamed for global warming, they are the CAUSE of it, as evidence by science time and time again. Peers review the science in search for the truth, they confirm that co2 causes global warming.
w ww.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011110v/Our_World_The_Vanishing_Antarctica/
‘Richard Wilson travels to the West Antarctic Ice Shelf to see the work of the British scientists who are investigating changes to the shape of the ice - and the possible consequences for our world’ In other words climate change and what is in store for us!
‘world's oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect… when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found…increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters’
w w w .newscientist.c om/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought. html
In the interest of credible scholarly inquiry, this video needs to cite its sources beyond "Adapted from a paper by David Evans"; date, publisher, title?
Viewers be warned: Those graphs are potentially pulled out of context or improperly used. So it's a to-the-point presentation with unsound evidence.
Even undergraduate college students are expected to cite the sources of the information they present and give a descriptive title that's relevant to the data presented for all of their graphs.
'it is a mistake to assume that energy sources like wind and waves are renewable. Build enough wind farms...we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change’
w w w.newscientist.c o m/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html
Which confirms what I’ve being saying along, there are too many people in this world using up too much of the Earth’s resources, of course there is always nuclear!
There is a flaw in trying to understand the behaviour of a complex system with feedbacks, by trying to use a set of gloabal equations. Just as an analysis of combustion in an engine, or the folding of a protein, time steps from one state to another state have to be done, with the equations/feedbacks applying between cells over time- a computer model is used. Just as a physicist can't predict turbulent flow over an aircraft wing from one equation, neither can climate be predicted so simply.
@indulis1 No. There is no flaw. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a universal law and can be applied to any body that absorbs and emits radiation. I just took the calculated radiative forcing in the Dessler paper and converted it into temperature increase using that aforementioned law. The IPCC are the ones using simplistic, physics-conflicting equations (like their famous GW = 0.75RF equation) to calculate the astronomically large and unpredictable variables that determine the earth's temperature.
@CHIPSTERO7 You are missing the point, unless you believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the ONLY law that applies to the interlinked systems that govern the atmosphere or climate. The earth is not a single homogenous perfect sphere. Modeling interlinked factors cannot be done with a single equation, any more than you can predict the optimal shape of an aircraft wing by applying a single equation- hence the need for time-stepped interlinked, "finite element" analysis by computer.
@indulis1 The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be applied to any body if we know the emissivity/absorptivity of the body. We do not need to model interlinked factors as you suggest. We just need to know the surface temperature of the earth or the atmospheric greenhouse (which is a grey body and can be generalised). The temperature of the earth is 288K and the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us 390.11W/sq.m. Therefore any radiative-input to the climate-system can be converted into temperature by the S-B law.
In any case, let us say that Dessler is correct and clouds are currently behaving as a positive feedback, from my understanding his calculated radiative forcing comes to only 0.75W/sq.m. According to the S-B law the overall atmospheric greenhouse effect represents 150.3W/sq.m which is responsible for keeping the surface-temperature 33C warming than it otherwise would be. Hence Dessler's calculation which is a fixed-permanent is only enough to produce a 0.16C temperature-increment at the surface.
@CHIPSTERO7 No one is arguing that clouds are a significant contributor to warming. They are simply very unlikely to do what you say they will. Stop or limit (significantly) AGW.
@rugbyguy59 From my consideration of Henry;s Constant it would absorb nearly all of the anthropogenic CO2 since there is fixed equilibrium between a gas in water and its partial pressure and Henry’'s law applies to the oceans just as it applies to a glass of water. Of course the law is affected by different things, such as salinity, chemical associations and temperature among other things. I should also note that the average atmospheric lifespan for an individual CO2 molecule is about 4/5 years.
@CHIPSTERO7 You would sound much more like a true skeptical if you told the whole story. Yes an individual CO2 molecule has an average atmospheric lifespan of about 4/5 years. But where does it go? Much of it just swaps places with a CO2 atom from the ocean. Some other is taken up by plants, but in the end plants, even trees, die and release the CO2. The real warming potential of CO2 is in the hundreds of years.
@rugbyguy59 Let me guess. You simply parroted what you heard on Sceptical Science? Stratification shouldn't affect the partitioning ratio. As the partial pressure increases it creates a disequilibrium in the partitioning ratio which would increase the transfer rate of atmospheric CO2 down to the ocean to equalize the activities. And the oceans have approximately 150,000 gigatonnes of suspended CO2 which strongly suggests that it can cope with the 29 gigatonnes of CO2 that we produce every year.
@CHIPSTERO7 No I paraphrased two articles. One by David Archer (University of Chicago)and the other by David Mackie (University of Otago). Both are computational ocean chemists.
Somehow I don't think your credentials measure up.
@CHIPSTERO7 Your consideration of Henry's constant is also limited by only knowing part of the story. The uptake of CO2 by the ocean can be quite quick. But stratification of the ocean, in part due to warming, is slows CO2 invasion by slowing the rate at which deep waters replenish surface waters. The top layer is getting full and is creating a bottleneck for CO2 to enter the ocean. There already some preliminary studies indicating the ocean may be slowing its uptake despite Henry.
@CHIPSTERO7 Poor wording. That fast and not with rising ocean temperatures. The oceans are a bit more complex than a glass of water. Funny how all those oceanographers and climate scientists, who all know Henry's Law, come to a different conclusion.
Eventually the ocean will very likely absorb all the CO2, but in the meantime it's not going to be very good for us.
@CHIPSTERO7 Me explain? That's a laugh. If you want to select the outlier and ignore the vast majority you need to explain why everyone else is wrong and your man is right?
NASA is accountable to the American government. Are you suggesting every American administrations has the same agenda on AGW and are politically pushing NASA in the same direction?
IPCC was set up to assess the science on AGW. It does. The results are supported by numerous scientific bodies. That's one big conspiracy there
@rugbyguy59 You say "I do read about the work of Svensmark, Segalstad, and Soon". I'm glad you understand what's wrong. Care to explain? And I disagree with you on NASA and the IPCC. NASA is an unaccountable agency of the US government. It is not an independent scientific institution, and the IPCC is a political-arm of the UN. The IPCC's mandate specifically states they were set-up to analyse the effects of anthropogenic global warming. So, the worse things get, the more funding they receive.
@rugbyguy59 You wrote: "The scientific community knows that the oceans can't absorb that much". Oh really? The oceans currently have around 150,000 gigatonnes of dissolved CO2 and the approximate human contribution to the atmosphere annually is a mere 29 gigatonnes. The 98% absorption of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is in accordance with Henry Law's which dictates that the concentration of a gas dissolved in water is proportional to its partial pressure and the partition-ratio for CO2 is 1;50.
@rugbyguy59 Dessler concludes that the short-term effect is positive to the tune of 0.74. However the overall net-effect is negative. Quote from the paper "The reflection of solar energy back to space dominates, and the net effect of clouds is to reduce the net flux of incoming energy by ~20W/m2". Thus without clouds to reflect the incoming solar radiation the surface temperature would rise by approximately 4.4C. The positive effect is 0.74W/m2 deducted from overall negative feedback of 20W/m2.
So typical of a denier to put up a bunch of graphical information without giving the sources or context.
This is a bunch of shit, and anyone willing to think for themselves and do the research on their own can see right through it.
I would feel sorry for those of you who accept this "on faith," but the planet is a bit too important. So if you all could just step the fuck out of the way that would be awesome. Thanks.
progrocker69 1 week ago
@progrocker69 Ok let me tell you this. Volcano's and every single living thing makes WAY more Co2 then us humans we actually cause a newt amount of Co2 compare to the Co2 nature creates. I feel sorry for you to believe in GB in dogma and i think it is absolutely selfish that people like you actually stop Africans from having electricity and let them only use expensive stuff like solar panels instead saying you cannot have electricity so how about YOU step the fuck away from the African dream.
Illbohema 3 days ago
@Illbohema You've just managed to piss me off big time, Sparky.
The amounts of CO2 produced by human activity vs. nature are freely available information. It's not nature which has spontaneously decided to nearly double atmospheric CO2 in the past century. Get your fucking facts straight, please.
Next, did you get the part in my first message about "the planet is a bit too important?" Implied in that statement is that the humans EVERYWHERE on the planet are also important. (continued)
progrocker69 3 days ago
@Illbohema You are trying to paint me as somebody who, for whatever reason, is not concerned about the plight of many African nations, based solely upon my insistence that AGW is real? Are you fucking SERIOUS?
I'm not the judgmental person in this dialogue, bub. Before you post at me again, may I suggest you try thinking first? Fuck you and your baseless accusations you jerk.
progrocker69 3 days ago
@progrocker69 Go on...
Illbohema 3 days ago
Green is the new Red.
USA4July1776 2 weeks ago in playlist Global Warming and other nonsense
This has been flagged as spam show
It's the sun, stupid. Following the Medieval Warming Period (about the same temps as now), there were a number of solar minimums between 1250 and 1850 (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder & Dalton) that caused the Little Ice Age (LIA). Since the LIA, there haven't been ANY solar minimums, so global temps have risen naturally. The current solar max peaked in 1990 & we seem to be in a new solar minimum, which explains why no warming since 1998. CO2 had NOTHING to do with it. CAGW is dead; see Climategate 2.0
samuraiconservative 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'climategate emails 2.0' debunked here
watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beware the ides of March!
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
‘Playing the climate blame game
global warming caused the 2010 Russian heatwave could bring closer the day when climate victims can sue oil firms…found that there is an 80 per cent chance that the temperature record would not have occurred without climate change…extreme events like the heatwave, most of the impact comes from crossing a threshold. Doing so is made much more likely by climate change’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.200-playing-the-climate-blame-game.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
The problem is the man made global warming people are motivated by political ideology and will ignore any logical arguments that don't fit into their narrative.
anywayokay 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How climate change deniers spread confusion and misinformation, as they used to in the tobacco industry and the cancer it caused
watch?v=B4j5IzhEmXQ
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed
‘their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records...study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter…Blogger Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That has repeatedly claimed that temperature data is unreliable’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn21074-sceptical-climate-scientists-concede-earth-has-warmed.html
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
is there any reason to believe this guy's assertions?
macroman52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Arctic ice hits second-lowest level, US scientists say
‘Sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2011 has passed its annual minimum, reaching the second-lowest level since satellite records began, US scientists say…the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says the minimum, reached on 9 September, was 4.33 million sq km’
w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14945773
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
‘stunning images from high in the Himalayas - showing the extent by which many glaciers have shrunk in the past 80 years or so - have gone on display at the Royal Geographical Society in central London…Between 2007 and 2010, David Breashears retraced the steps of early photographic pioneers such as Major E O Wheeler, George Mallory and Vittorio Sella - to try to re-take their views of breathtaking glacial vistas’
w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15216875
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
I see nothing conclusive.
manoffireandlight 3 months ago
My brother peer reviews a scientific journal. He told me that many times, the other peer reviewers don't even read the articles. They just sign off on their friends so called research. Forget peer reviewed journals on this topic. We need hard, cold facts, and there are none. At this point in time, all we have are predictions that rely on computer programs, and they don't prove anything. If we can't predict weather a week from now, how can we do it in 10 years or 100?.
maryfay53 3 months ago
@maryfay53
'My brother peer reviews a scientific journal.' anybody can say anything on the internet, because if they don't back it up with evidence, they think they can get away with!
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
@blackadderthe4 He's a cardiologist, I'm a pediatrician. I guess I could be telling lies, but why? The news stunned me, even though I've read enough crappy journal articles to have guessed the truth. If you want to read a good synopsis of what is really known about global warming and CO2, check out this website and read the references. Then, come back and tell me about peer reviewing.
maryfay53 3 months ago
@maryfay53
'but why?' false kudos! 'If we can't predict weather a week from now, how can we do it in 10 years or 100?' because we are talking CLIMATE and if you don't know the difference between weather and climate, then that means I have doubts about other things you say!
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
@blackadderthe4 I do know the difference between weather and climate. The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time. If we are bad at predicting the former, how bad do you think we are at predicting the latter? The earth's atmosphere is a chaotic, nonlinear, open system that no one truly understands. Period. Read more..
maryfay53 3 months ago
@maryfay53
'The earth's atmosphere is a chaotic, nonlinear, open system that no one truly understands. Period. Read more..' No you read and watch more
watch?v=SfN9F9dvjaQ
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
@maryfay53
'we'd all still think the world was flat' wrong, the ancient Greeks/Egyptians had worked out the diameter of the world by about 300BC, but most people already knew it was round, by then anyhow!
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maryfay53
'These gases absorb specific frequencies of infrared radiation-heat- that would otherwise escape into space. They re-radiate some of that energy towards Earth's surface...more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere means less escaping and a warmer planet'
NewScientist
Volume 212
No 2835
Page 37
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maryfay53
‘Studies of the Earth’s past climate tells us whenever co2 levels have risen, the planet has warmed. Since the beginning of the industrial age in the 19th century, co2 levels have increased from 280ppm to 380ppm…while many factors affect our planet’s climate. There is overwhelming evidence that co2 is the prime cause of the recent warming’
NewScientist
Volume 212
No 2835
Page 37
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Record UK temperature for October set at 29.9C
Temperatures in England topped those in Athens, Los Angeles and Barcelona’
h tp://w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15137832
OK you deniers, where has your new ‘LIA’ gone to?
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
Comment removed
robzed2 4 months ago
‘Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published…by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase…problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published’
w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
@blackadderthe4
And
'A Dessler has just had a paper printed in 'Geophysical Review Letters' addressing Spencer et al's paper AND claims by Lindzen.
Here is a summary:
watch?v=C2ngavUkmis
Skeptical Science has a great page on the subject too'
Reposted from
Herecomesthefatlady
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
2008 US military scientists proved the sun, not man, is the main cause, kept quiet. 2011, CERN scientists were gagged because the results were 'politically incorrect.'
Doctors have come up with cures to cancer and have been murdered, just as any scientist that proves Gore's 'paid-for' findings are not true have lost their careers.
Don't blindly accept what someone in authority tells you. Start using Google and seek the answers to questions you should be asking. Google "CERN scientists gagged"
paulcoonan 5 months ago
Regarding most sunspot CO2 global warming science the dancing Wu-Shu Masters of Washington & Whitehall discovered that not only can you curve space & bend time you can also warp the laws of solar physics merely by getting tenured scientists to repeat unscientific drivel about magnetic anomalies causing sunspots rather than the other way round & as for the reality of the star beginning to burn it’s iron just believe what you’re told then dance & SHAKE YOUR BOOTY on cue.
spacelizardlaw 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted from CRU
'the myths that the data has been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says the university's vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide... released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html
blackadderthe4 6 months ago
Nice clip
firepowerjohan 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 6 months ago in playlist co2 based global warming ? Klimawandel, co2 verursacht?
This has been flagged as spam show
Why dont the following web adverts surprise me?
Find out how to profit from a forward contract in the carbon credit markets
Investment entry level from only 2000 Euros!The price of carbon is expected to double by 2013 and double again by 2020 according to research carried out by Sceptre, just complete the form on the right hand side to receive your FREE investment report and find out more
unreal22000 6 months ago
Most interesting, the author has discovered a whole new branch of dead end pseudo junk science of cherry picking!
It is one, which totally and absolutely defies all the known and tested laws of physics since Sir Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon. Also ignores the pioneering work of John Tyndall, who in 1858, investigate the properties of a gas called "carbon dioxide".
Those who have one foot in the canoe, and one foot in the boat, are going to fall into the river. - Tuscarora
paradoxofdenial 6 months ago
Yes, climate change is natural when it happens over long periods of time. Not when it changes within a few decades
amsaldy 6 months ago
people are idiots, its not the world warming up we have to worry about, we have to worry about our climate changing
amsaldy 6 months ago
@amsaldy climate change is normal...natural
L0stInDespair 6 months ago
@L0stInDespair Of course climate change is normal. That does not negate the fact that humans can alter it. The water level in any river goes up and down naturally, but that does not mean that if water is drained off or a dam is built that the level is NOT effected.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
One day, not so far in our future, all the green plants of the world united in agreement when a couple of plants convinced all the rest of them that oxygen was a deadly gas and it needed to be reduced to save the planet they lived in and all life on it.
Hmmm, does that make sense? About as much sense as Al Gore's agenda of 'climate change' and reducing carbon dioxide.
paulcoonan 6 months ago 7
@paulcoonan Kind of funny how the greenie weenies follow a person who flies his pesonel jet around the world, lives in a massive house, who drives gas guzzlers and cheats on his wife.......Then again who said greenie weenies are smart...
avionicswirenut 6 months ago 5
@avionicswirenut Gore is expected to be the first Carbon Billionaire. I would call that the biggest scam of all history! That is the way Gore should go down in the history books, as the biggest scam artist every known.
It amazed me that there actually people falling for this. In fact, the carbon trading industry is expected to profit $125 billion this year alone.
paulcoonan 6 months ago 2
@paulcoonan That's just a strawman, a horrendous analogy. Climate change caused by man is endorsed by 97% of climatologists and there have been dozens of peer review papers in respectable journals on the subject. Your scientific illiteracy doesn't make it wrong.
TheGamanic 5 months ago
@TheGamanic The climate scientists can be accused of being a part of the conspiracy by virtue of the lies, suppression of conflicting views and studies by their peers, and the outright fabrication of their reports (Jones and Climate-gate, and also the Hockey Stick study of tree rings in Russia).
Most of the peer reviews and studies were completed by about 60 scientists, while the names of the other scientists were, in many cases, simply added to lend credence to the reports.
BrianWheatley69 4 months ago
@BrianWheatley69 Give me one prospective paper that has been outright rejected by a journal because it held contrary views and wasn't shoddy science. It is easy to talk of suppression but can you support the claims? Furthermore, Jones didn't fabricate anything, Climategate was a manufactured fiasco by desperate deniers. Also I am not talking about the IPCC report for support, but peer reviewed papers and surveys which show that level of support for AGW time and time again
TheGamanic 4 months ago
@mutantraver I have a degree in science and have witnessed the experiment first hand. The great thing about our modern information age is that you do not have to replicate every experiment to accept the results. You can look it up yourself. Just Google CO2 and the first entry will be Wiki. It says: "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared." Look it up yourself, READ IT! You may learn something
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby “air in one sealed container”
That’s really funny. Last I checked, the earth atmosphere is not sealed. Air rises, cools, moisture is released, and blows up mountains, down mountains, across oceans. Then the oceans circulate and the earth rotates and the suns magnetic field fluctuates. While that experiment is interesting it totally fails to represent how the atmosphere actually works.
Pardon the pun but you really should try thinking outside the box.
TullyRiven 6 months ago
@TullyRiven Again, what I already said: There are many forcers in a climate, CO2 being just ONE of them. Another commenter incorrectly stated that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas. I simply gave him an experiment that would falsify that assumption and gave a way to look up the correct information on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Is this a point you want to argue? Do you still consider yourself objective? This last statement shows your lack of objectivity as well as a lack of honesty.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@TullyRiven If you continue to be dishonest, claim I say things that I do not, and continually misrepresent the facts of what we already went over, then you are proving my point about the right wing being biased, blind, dishonest and purposefully putting out misinformation for it's own political agenda. I have not misrepresented your points, I have only refuted them. Stop misrepresenting what I write.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby Mutantraver’s comment was removed so maybe some context was lost. The sealed glass box experiment definitely proves that CO2 captures extra heat so if he was denying that fact the experiment is relevant. I was commenting on the limitations of the experiment which may or may not have been germane.
You seem obsessed with politics and conspiracies. Save if for posters who deserve that treatment. My comment did not warrant the response.
TullyRiven 6 months ago
@mutantraver Yes, that is exactly what happens. Your smugness is only exceeded by your scientific ignorance.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@mutantraver Your statement is easily falsifiable. Place air in one sealed container and air plus elevated levels of CO2 in a second sealed container. Place in sunlight and measure the temperatures. The container with the elevated levels of CO2 gets warmer. You are proved wrong in the simplest of experiments.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
Stupid , scientifically illiterate bullshit. Is the deniar industry really this moronic?
brospec 7 months ago
@brospec LOL... Typical alarmist moron who can't refute facts. Bunch of unscientific morons getting swindled by old PhD farts who have a vested interest in causing panic.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Strong currents beneath the Pine Island glacier ice shelf in Antarctica are chiselling away at ice from below, speeding the entire glacier's melting…over a span of 15 years, Stan Jacobs of Columbia University in Palisades, New York, and colleagues discovered that melting beneath the shelf had increased by 50 per cent, although the local waters had warmed only 0.2 °C’
w ww.newscientist.c om/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/ocean-currents-chisel-glaciers.html
blackadderthe4 7 months ago
=) some ppl make me laugh no matter how much evidence you give them they still refuse to believe in intellectual argument and believe the ppl that have lied to them over and over are telling the truth.
MaximumKahnage 7 months ago
Temperature leads CO2 in the past? I don't see why that is a problem. Infact it is exactly what you would expect, since past climate change events have been driven by changes in earths orbital and rotational parameters, exposing the North poll to more or less sun rays. So when the temps rose the CO2 acted as a feedback once the oceans warmed enough to give up their CO2. Now we are makiing CO2 the driver by pumping ages old CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
AtomSmash3r 7 months ago 2
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos Nope you were asked for an example of a theory that had been "proven" because you earlier claimed that AGW hadn't been proven when you full well know that no scientific theory is ever "proven". p.s. AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources Can you please prove your last statement? I call bull shit.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus Could you "prove" that Napoloeon existed? No, but the evidence is overwhelming, the same applies to AGW. No scientific theory can be "proven", that suggests that no new contradictory evidence can change it, only a non scientist or a religious person asks for "proof". Scientists look at the the evidence to work out the most likely explanation for a theory. Have a look at my video on "proof" and climate change denial.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and does not & CAN NOT absorb a wide spectrum of wavelengths that water vapor can. Furthermore, CO2 makes up only a small portion of atmospheric gas, and the amount man puts up in the atmosphere is way too little to have any effect on our climate.
Warming since the 1970-1997 was caused by the sun.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus Name some data or peer reviewed papers that backs this: "Warming since the 1970-1997 was caused by the sun." Here are some papers/data that don't: PMOD data plots form the world radiation centre. "Over the past century, this increase in TSI is responsible for just 15-20% of global warming" (Meehl 2004). "The sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades" (Lockwood 2008).After water vapour CO2 is the largest contributor to the GH effect.1.66 W/m2.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources Why don't you prove that CO2 caused the warming from 1970-1997? Meehl gave no scientific argument as to why there was warming. The temperature for all planets rose during that time period. Meehl just noted that the temperature increased and assumed that CO2 had something to do with it.
Your second quote supports what I said, not what you said.
How does CO2 as the 2nd largest contributor to the GH effect change that it is a weak greenhouse gas? CO2 does not absorb long waves.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus Yet again asking for "proof"- very unscientific of you. Co2 is the most likely cause of warming: Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming. See Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007, Wang 2009.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus Meehl and Lockwood among many others were merely falsifying the claim (your claim) that the Sun has been the primary driver of warming recently. you said: "How does CO2 as the 2nd largest contributor to the GH effect change that it is a weak greenhouse gas" - 1) describe "weak". 2) Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere but its GHG effect is less than 0.0000001% 3) In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a GHG that absorbed longwave radiation.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
CO2 is a GHG. Venus has an atmosphere mostly composed of CO2, which is why it is hotter then Mercury...a lot hotter.
nfhslugger 7 months ago
@nfhslugger It takes more than just a CO2 atmosphere to create the temperatures of different planets. Venus's atmosphere is almost all CO2, but it's atmospheric pressure is 95,000 millibars, both of which act together to push the temperature to more than 800 degrees. [Earth has an atmospheric pressure of 1,000.] Conversely, Mars has an atmosphere consisting of 95% CO2 yet an average temperature of 82 degrees below zero due to the thin envelope of gasses.
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos Co2 is the most likely primary driver of warming on Earth since the 1970's. You said "Mars has an atmosphere consisting of 95% CO2 yet an average temperature of 82 degrees below zero" - are you aware that 1) Without CO2 on Mars it would be much colder and 2) that mars is 230 million km from the sun i.e. The planet is also 1.52 times as far from the sun as Earth, resulting in just 43% of the amount of sunlight plus its atmosphere is thinner 3) That too much CO2 is bad for life on Earth
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources
Explain: 1940 the industry really began the mass production of consumer objects such as Cars, which led to more CO2 to be produced yet the temperature fell FOR 40 YEARS! That is the COMPLETE opposite of what SHOULD have happened if the CO2 we release have any effect.
is1337Correct 7 months ago
@checkyoursources Incorrect. The primary driver of warming on ALL planets near earth is the sun. The temperature on Mars and all the neighboring planets have increased along with earth's. CO2 does not control the temperature. Temperature controls CO2.
2) Incorrect again. No CO2 on Mars would mean the temperature on Mars was absolute zero 500-800 years back. Temperature controls CO2; not the other way around.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus 1) The sun has been cooling for three decades (see PMOD TSI data from the world radiation centre) yet temps are rising, your theory has just been falsified. Venus is cooling, as is Saturn, we have a different orbit. Extra human Co2 amplifies the warming on Earth.
2) Co2 levels can be raised by warming BUT CO2 is a GHG so it can initiate it too o2 is a significant GHG?
p.s. you don't understand the diffference between % content in the atmosphere and % contribution to GH effect.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources 1)Incorrect. The temperatures have risen from 1997-2007 and scientists admit the sun is getting warmer and has been getting warmer for some time now. This fact is noted in numerous global warming alarmist papers. Stop making shit up.
2) Insignificant warming.
CO2 only accounts for 9% (Probably hugely inflated by alarmists, but I'll be lenient and give them it) of GH contribution. You do not understand the contribution humans make (<.1%) to the total amount of CO2 in the atm.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus 1)I ask yet again for some sources from you:Name a solar TSI dataset that shows the sun has warming significantly enough to explain the warming since the 1970's between 1978-2010. Look up the PMOD dataset from the world radiation centre or the SORCE satellite plots from 2003 onwards, it clearly shows a decreasing TSI, not a warming one.2)NASA's IRIS satellite/Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite show how big an effect CO2 has.Increased CO2 = temp up = more water vapour, a GHG.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus For those who can be bothered to actually look at evidence try this from NASA's SORCE satellite which has been measuring a falling TSI since 2003 and yet 2005/2010 were record warm years! (remove the spaces)
lasp.colorado. edu/ sorce/total_ solar_ irradiance_ plots/ images/ tim_ level3_ tsi_ 24hour_ 640x 480. png
checkyoursources 7 months ago
Comment removed
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@checkyoursources Checkyoursources, I suggest you check your sources:
future pundit . com / archives / 002242 . html
news . nationalgeographic . com / news / 2007/02/070228 - mars - warming . html
I wouldn't trust NASA with anything that involves temperature:
iceagenow . com / NASA_NOAA_cooking_the_data.htm
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus From your "mars is warming" nat geo source which you clearly didn't read in full: "His views (that Mars Melt Hints at Solar Cause for Warming), are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea that the sun is responsible just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources LOL... And where is Wilson's proof? He disagreed and provided no proof to back his statement up. The observation, my friend, is that it is most likely the sun that has warmed this planet for most of the 20th century. Wilson is just using rhetoric. No proof, no substance.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuckMyPhallus 1) Science is about the most likely explanation, never, ever "proof". 2) In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. 3) See PMOD from the world radiation centre for confirmation if you can be bothered to check. 4) The following papers also state the recent warming since the 1970's is unexplained by the sun: Frolich 1998, Waple 1999, Solanki 2003, Stott 2003,Usoskin 2005, Foukal 2006, Ammann 2007,Lean 2008, Erlykin 2009.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources "Michael Smith, a California-based software engineer, who was instrumental, along with D'Aleo, in crunching the NOAA/NASA data and exposing the temperature tampering, says the historical climate data used by both agencies is obsolete by 20 years and is a mess."
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. I suppose you think the earlier flowering of spring flowers putting them out of sink with bees are also "paid off"?!
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources I'm very aware that there might have been temperature increase in 1975-1997. And why not? Did you check the video? The range of increase during that period isn't exactly that significant and when compared to warming/cooling trend for the past couple hundred years, there are no outliers.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus 1) The rate of change is accelerating 2) Since the last ice age we have seen 6 degrees C change, the first 5 degrees took many thousands of years, the last degree took just 150 years 3) The majority of warming since the late 1970's is unexplained by the sun or orbital "wobbles" i.e. natural forcings so this is of concern. 4) "In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C above the 1961-90 mean and 0.01°C above the nominal temperature in 2005"- WMO 2011
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources 1)Even if the rate is accelerating, that doesn't mean CO2 had anything to do with it. The temperature is decreasing, NOT increasing.
2)Stop referencing organizations that have been caught cooking temperature data.
3)We don't even know how the climate works. We can't even predict what the temperature of tomorrow will be. How can you be so sure the warming wasn't caused by just the sun? Link me one valid study that proves the sun's abnormal sunspots didn't cause warming.
SuckMyPhallus 7 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus It is clear that no amount of evidence from multiple reliable sources will convince you that Agw is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. Scientific papers that indicate the Sun is NOT responsible for the majority of warming since the 1970's: Frolich 1998, Waple 1999, Lean 1999, Stott 2003 , Usoskin 2005, Foukal 2006, Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2008, Erlykin 2009, Benestad 2009.
Explain where the World radiation centre has "cooked the data"?!
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus Every one of your statement is false. You have been watching too much Fox News. 1) CO2 is one of the forcing factors to climate. 2) Temps are increasing, not decreasing. 3) Repubs have accused organizations of cooking data, but even after bias's were removed, the data showed the same result. 4) We know quite a bit how climate works. Just because I can't tell you what the temp will be in three weeks, does not mean I can't tell you if it will be warmer or cooler in six months.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@SuckMyPhallus You asked for it, so you should watch it: Potholer54: climate change the objections.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Recent warming trend is significant after all
‘In February 2010, climate sceptics were crowing about apparent admissions from Phil Jones at the (CRU) UK, that warming trends over the period 1995 to 2009 were "not statistically significant”…sceptics including far-right media pundit Glenn Beck seized on Jones's admission,to support their contention that global warming had effectively come to a halt’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20571-recent-warming-trend-is-significant-after-all.html
blackadderthe4 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
* NASA:
data.giss.nasa[dot]gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
* NOAA
climate[dot]gov/#climateWatch
*HadCRUT:
metoffice[dot]gov[dot]uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison[dot]html
Yep the planet is warming!
checkyoursources 7 months ago
While at the moment we may not be able to prove, without a doubt, the precise numbers showing how much CO2 produced by humans has directly changed the weather it is fair to say that CO2, car exhaust, and other air borne chemicals are not safe to breathe and can contribute to respiratory and other health problems.
oeckstei 7 months ago
There may be an error in the first graph: the red curve rises before the blue curve suggesting co2 rises before temperature. The second argument depends on model predictions which could be wrong. The final argument would appear to be the strongest, but it depends on what exactly the two graphs mean.
27182818R 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RocketMan007100 ; "The narrator said CO2 has been increasing since 1980...."
Since 1880.
Desertphile 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Between March and the end of May Britain as a whole was also at its hottest and driest since 1910, which is as far back as those records go…only been 2in or 65mm of rain, which has led to dangerously low water levels in some of Britain's reservoirs as well as disasters like bushfires, which are usually associated with extremely dry countries like Australia'
w ww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393026/Barbecue-Britain-forecasters-say-set-sizzle-ALL-June-good-news-Glastonbury-Wimbledon.html
blackadderthe4 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RECORD CARBON EMISSIONS mean 2 °C rise ever closer
‘James Lovelock...was too late to prevent "apocalyptic" climate change?...International Energy Agency's latest estimates of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, which hit record highs last year...last year's emissions...surpassed 2009 levels by 1.6Gt, hitting 30.6 Gt. This is close to the 32 Gt per year...cause warming of 2 °C...before 2020’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20525-record-carbon-emissions-mean-2-c-rise-ever-closer.html
blackadderthe4 8 months ago
Thank you. The truth lies in the science.
heavym3tal 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Eugene Takle...is studying how climate change will influence the water flowing through the Mississippi river basin...the area is very sensitive to change, as it lies...and those from the Gulf of Mexico...one of Takle's models suggested flow at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers could increase by 50 per cent with climate change (Journal of Geophysical Research)’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21028143.800-reengineering-the-mississippis-flood-defences.html
blackadderthe4 8 months ago
Oil lover.
yomajo 8 months ago
@yomajo Tree huger
rcman123 8 months ago
@rcman123 chicken fucker
jffryh 8 months ago
Okay, so I watched the video twice. Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 has not raised Earth's average temperature?
Desertphile 8 months ago
@Desertphile The proof is pretty basic. There have been times in the past when CO2 in the atmosphere was many many times as high as it is now, yet the temperature was about the same as it is now. Conversely, there have been times when CO2 concentrations have been lower than now, yet the temperature has been higher than now. Ipso Facto.
DrDelos 8 months ago
@DrDelos ; Idiot. The subject is the current global temperature anomaly. =ONLY= the increase in CO2 explains it.
Desertphile 8 months ago
@Desertphile Oh, I see. You live in a bizarro universe where we can't look at the past to understand the present. The present in your little world is whatever your political saviors TELL you it is. Go to wattsupwiththat and you can find at least 20 reasons the so-called global warming is taking place. There isn't agreement that we are warming and less agreement that CO2 is 'a cause' and even less agreement that we could do the slightest to mitigate lowering CO2 at all.
DrDelos 8 months ago
@DrDelos An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources Now the science. ALL the models are merely THEORIES. None can be PROVEN in a scientific sense. Even if there was 100% perfect correlation of temp and CO2 (and there isn't) - Correlation does not prove causation. Never has, never will. Look it up, if you don't believe it. The info I posted in my first comment shows how lousy the correlation really is anyway.
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos "None can be PROVEN in a scientific sense". 1) No scientific theory is ever proven. 2) To suggest so is to say that you would ignore and future contradictory evidence. 3) Science is about the most likely explantaion and disproving alternatives, not "proof". 4) AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's based on the current available evidence. 5) Read my last comment again.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources Theories are proven and disproven all the time. You are obviously not a scientist and have very little in the way of an education in the sciences. GW can't be proven because we can't suck all the CO2 nout and see if the temperature goes down. Even then there are many other factors we can't control that would affect the outcome.
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos Are you seriously saying that CO2 isn't a very likely greenhouse gas based on the evidence from over 100 scientific papers?
Name a scientific theory that has been "proven" outright?
Theories are never "proven" as to suggest so is to pretend that contradictory evidence will not change or disprove a theory. Theories are the best, most likely explanation for an observation, they can be disproved but never ever "proved". I have a scientific degree and two post graduate ones actually.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources If you had any degree in any subject you would know that theories are proven and disproven every day. I won't waste my time on posers. [You don't even read the topics you are responding to.]
Global warming is merely an excuse to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world. The left has tried is for well over a hundred years and the only thing that changes is the vehicle they use. John Cook is a useful idiot, btw.
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos Nope, theories are only ever disproven, NOT "proven". No theory is ever proven outright with 100% certainty that the results will be the same whenever and wherever you try it. I suggest you look up falsification and karl popper for more info. You have yet to provide evidence for your view that AGW is not the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's or provide a more likely alternative. Your ad hominem weaken your argument. Please try to be objective.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
DrDelos
"...theories are proven and disproven every day."
Give an example.
Rovinpiper 7 months ago
@DrDelos ; The subject is the current warming anomaly, idiot; past warming events are not relevant.
Desertphile 4 months ago
@Desertphile Wrong, ninny. The current climate ups and downs are meaningless without comparisons to earlier climate norms. Think about it a little. You couldn't tell if our current climate was warmer or colder than the past unless you had stats from the past to tell you what 'normal' was. The entire difference in temperature that all this GW talk concerns is only ONE degree C over the past 100 years. (Give or take a little based on location.)
DrDelos 3 months ago
@DrDelos ; Wrong, brainfart. The current global temperature anomaly has been compared to the past 800,000+ years. Think about what you are asserting before making yourself look silly.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile What's with the childish name calling? (Yes, you started it. and continue it.) If you want to go back 800,000 years, you are going to see a 27 degree (F) variation with the warmest being 130,000 years ago at 8.1 degrees (F) warmer than now. The ice core charts are all over the 'Net.
DrDelos 3 months ago
@DrDelos ; What's with the lying and bullshit? If all of the world's scientists are wrong, then step forward and correct them. Good luck with that, clown.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@Desertphile If you have been brainwashed so completely that you are incapable of doing your own research from original sources then you are just one more of what Lenin called "useful idiots". The world is what it is, in most part, due to people who have the tools they need but are too lazy to use them. Research the story of Helicobacter pylori. More than 99.9% of doctors refused to believe it was the cause of ulcers. They were proven wrong by the .01% that researched it anyway.
DrDelos 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrDelos ; If all of the world's scientists are wrong, then step forward and correct them. Good luck with that, clown.
Desertphile 3 months ago
@DrDelos 1) CO2 is not the only driver of climate, in the past the Sun played a more significant role.
2) When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also much much lower.
3) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; human emissions are now the most likely dominant forcing.
4) Despite 2010 being a significant La Nina year and the sun being at a solar minimum 2010 was on average a record warm year globally. i.e. most likely culprit = human GHG's
checkyoursources 8 months ago
Comment removed
DrDelos 8 months ago
@checkyoursources Isn't it an amazing coincidence that the Sun heats Earth when CO2 doesn't and has lower output when CO2 is growing? Watch the video above once more. There is no scientific evidence that anthropomorphic GHG is causing global warming. There are only THEORIES that it does. Even the alarmists admit that the tiny % increase in CO2 could not cause warming so they say that the effect is amplified by positive feedbacks. Trouble is that there isn't agreement that there ARE + feedbacks
DrDelos 8 months ago
@DrDelos An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming. Gravity and Evolution are also "theories" to but I wouldn't argue them.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources The 'models' used to predict AGW have been shown to be off by half the predicted temperature increase based upon how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere. Your so-called empirical 'evidence' is not provable, testable evidence. It consists of non-hard data that has been contorted, massaged, tweaked and screwed around with by people who stand to gain directly by scaring governments into believing their house of cards.
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos Please try not to allow your political persuasions to make you lose your objectivity. While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.
Interestingly no-one has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources First the politics: In the 70s and 80s I was watching the science exploring GW and then AGW. The people crying wolf told us that there was GW and it was AGW. Next they told us that AGW could be stopped. The solution? Everybody produce less CO2. So far so good - nothing fishy yet. BUT THEN they tell us that the developed countries need to slash CO2 emissions but the LARGEST producers of CO2 (China and the 3rd world) were exempt. Knock knock anybody home? Pretty obvious to me
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos Wrong, the US has produced 3 times more CO2 than China over the last 100 years. Also per capita emissions are 4 times higher in the US. Do some research.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources I am not talking about the last 100 years because nothing in the past can be changed. You are just parroting the left wing talking points. If you could think for YOURSELF, you would realize the logic behind what I said and not just look up your pat answer to the facts. The left CLEARLY couldn't care less about GW, they are just looking for an excuse to grab totalitarian POWER over the entire planet. Nothing we could do would stop CO2 production to any meaningful degree.
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos You sound like a defeatist, not a scientist. There are many things we can do to reduce our amplification of climate change, it doesn't even require politics to do so. Keep your political views out of this, it will distort any objectivty you might have.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources The IPCC once declared that there are 11 important factors involved in GW and science has a POOR understanding of 10 of them. The significance of that is if any of those factors don't work in the way the models predict, the fraudulent mess falls apart. Example? Some GW alarmists claim that clouds are a positive feedback, but they admit that they REALLY DON'T KNOW for sure. If they were a positive feedback there would have been a GW on the order of 100 - 800 degrees long ago.
DrDelos 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrDelos You said: "The IPCC once declared that there are 11 important factors involved in GW and science has a POOR understanding of 10 of them"- please provide a source.
Clouds and CO2 are not the only drivers of climate. GHG's and feedbacks from human activities are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. What level of confidence would you act at because if its 100% then you aren't a scientist.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
Comment removed
DrDelos 7 months ago
@DrDelos You used a non sequitur.
When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower and vice versa. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate. Many factors can drive climate. Climate reacts to whatever is forcing it to at the time
Currently the primary driver is most likely to be human GHG's and associated feedbacks.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@DrDelos When CO2 was higher than now in the distant past on Earth our orbit was different and the Sun's TSI was lower. and vice versa. next denier opinion and non sequitur please...
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@warmasterguy1 Yes it is true that other factors can increase temperatures. However CO2 controls the largest temperature factor which is water vapor. I personally looked all through out the IPCC's website and they did not have any matching graphs. In fact they agree with 99% of the worlds leading scientists that there is climate change because of CO2. The world is not going to catch on fire but, is slowly warming and glaciers that have been around for 15-20 MILLION years are just about melted.
4amorphotos 8 months ago
Comment removed
R18111983 8 months ago
Where is your scientific proof for all of these graphs you are pulling out of your a*s? This is scientific fraud!
4amorphotos 8 months ago
@4amorphotos A lot of these graphs came from the IPCC, the organization that runs the majority of review upon modern climate data. The Vostok ice core sample graph originally was used by the climate change scientists to show a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature, though under closer examination it is apparent that temperature rose about 800 years before the CO2 levels corresponded with them.
warmasterguy1 8 months ago
Green house gases are not blamed for global warming, they are the CAUSE of it, as evidence by science time and time again. Peers review the science in search for the truth, they confirm that co2 causes global warming.
donsjuand 8 months ago
wow you guys are using big words.
TicketsToVermont 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w ww.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011110v/Our_World_The_Vanishing_Antarctica/
‘Richard Wilson travels to the West Antarctic Ice Shelf to see the work of the British scientists who are investigating changes to the shape of the ice - and the possible consequences for our world’ In other words climate change and what is in store for us!
blackadderthe4 9 months ago
‘world's oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect… when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed, but at both Siple and Byrd the time lag was around 200 years – much shorter than previous studies found…increases the rate that the ocean mixes, which dredges up CO2-rich deep ocean waters’
w w w .newscientist.c om/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought. html
blackadderthe4 9 months ago
In the interest of credible scholarly inquiry, this video needs to cite its sources beyond "Adapted from a paper by David Evans"; date, publisher, title?
Viewers be warned: Those graphs are potentially pulled out of context or improperly used. So it's a to-the-point presentation with unsound evidence.
Even undergraduate college students are expected to cite the sources of the information they present and give a descriptive title that's relevant to the data presented for all of their graphs.
OfGreatLakes 9 months ago
lies in the first 15 seconds already, shows graph of local greenland climate and compares to GLOBAL climate..... dishonest or just stupid.
Aanthanur 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'it is a mistake to assume that energy sources like wind and waves are renewable. Build enough wind farms...we could seriously deplete the energy available in the atmosphere, with consequences as dire as severe climate change’
w w w.newscientist.c o m/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html
Which confirms what I’ve being saying along, there are too many people in this world using up too much of the Earth’s resources, of course there is always nuclear!
blackadderthe4 10 months ago
There is a flaw in trying to understand the behaviour of a complex system with feedbacks, by trying to use a set of gloabal equations. Just as an analysis of combustion in an engine, or the folding of a protein, time steps from one state to another state have to be done, with the equations/feedbacks applying between cells over time- a computer model is used. Just as a physicist can't predict turbulent flow over an aircraft wing from one equation, neither can climate be predicted so simply.
indulis1 10 months ago
@indulis1 No. There is no flaw. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is a universal law and can be applied to any body that absorbs and emits radiation. I just took the calculated radiative forcing in the Dessler paper and converted it into temperature increase using that aforementioned law. The IPCC are the ones using simplistic, physics-conflicting equations (like their famous GW = 0.75RF equation) to calculate the astronomically large and unpredictable variables that determine the earth's temperature.
CHIPSTERO7 9 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 You are missing the point, unless you believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the ONLY law that applies to the interlinked systems that govern the atmosphere or climate. The earth is not a single homogenous perfect sphere. Modeling interlinked factors cannot be done with a single equation, any more than you can predict the optimal shape of an aircraft wing by applying a single equation- hence the need for time-stepped interlinked, "finite element" analysis by computer.
indulis1 9 months ago
@indulis1 The Stefan-Boltzmann law can be applied to any body if we know the emissivity/absorptivity of the body. We do not need to model interlinked factors as you suggest. We just need to know the surface temperature of the earth or the atmospheric greenhouse (which is a grey body and can be generalised). The temperature of the earth is 288K and the Stefan-Boltzmann law gives us 390.11W/sq.m. Therefore any radiative-input to the climate-system can be converted into temperature by the S-B law.
CHIPSTERO7 9 months ago
In any case, let us say that Dessler is correct and clouds are currently behaving as a positive feedback, from my understanding his calculated radiative forcing comes to only 0.75W/sq.m. According to the S-B law the overall atmospheric greenhouse effect represents 150.3W/sq.m which is responsible for keeping the surface-temperature 33C warming than it otherwise would be. Hence Dessler's calculation which is a fixed-permanent is only enough to produce a 0.16C temperature-increment at the surface.
CHIPSTERO7 10 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 No one is arguing that clouds are a significant contributor to warming. They are simply very unlikely to do what you say they will. Stop or limit (significantly) AGW.
rugbyguy59 10 months ago
Comment removed
CHIPSTERO7 10 months ago
@rugbyguy59 From my consideration of Henry;s Constant it would absorb nearly all of the anthropogenic CO2 since there is fixed equilibrium between a gas in water and its partial pressure and Henry’'s law applies to the oceans just as it applies to a glass of water. Of course the law is affected by different things, such as salinity, chemical associations and temperature among other things. I should also note that the average atmospheric lifespan for an individual CO2 molecule is about 4/5 years.
CHIPSTERO7 10 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 You would sound much more like a true skeptical if you told the whole story. Yes an individual CO2 molecule has an average atmospheric lifespan of about 4/5 years. But where does it go? Much of it just swaps places with a CO2 atom from the ocean. Some other is taken up by plants, but in the end plants, even trees, die and release the CO2. The real warming potential of CO2 is in the hundreds of years.
rugbyguy59 10 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Let me guess. You simply parroted what you heard on Sceptical Science? Stratification shouldn't affect the partitioning ratio. As the partial pressure increases it creates a disequilibrium in the partitioning ratio which would increase the transfer rate of atmospheric CO2 down to the ocean to equalize the activities. And the oceans have approximately 150,000 gigatonnes of suspended CO2 which strongly suggests that it can cope with the 29 gigatonnes of CO2 that we produce every year.
CHIPSTERO7 10 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 No I paraphrased two articles. One by David Archer (University of Chicago)and the other by David Mackie (University of Otago). Both are computational ocean chemists.
Somehow I don't think your credentials measure up.
rugbyguy59 10 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Your consideration of Henry's constant is also limited by only knowing part of the story. The uptake of CO2 by the ocean can be quite quick. But stratification of the ocean, in part due to warming, is slows CO2 invasion by slowing the rate at which deep waters replenish surface waters. The top layer is getting full and is creating a bottleneck for CO2 to enter the ocean. There already some preliminary studies indicating the ocean may be slowing its uptake despite Henry.
rugbyguy59 10 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Poor wording. That fast and not with rising ocean temperatures. The oceans are a bit more complex than a glass of water. Funny how all those oceanographers and climate scientists, who all know Henry's Law, come to a different conclusion.
Eventually the ocean will very likely absorb all the CO2, but in the meantime it's not going to be very good for us.
rugbyguy59 10 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Me explain? That's a laugh. If you want to select the outlier and ignore the vast majority you need to explain why everyone else is wrong and your man is right?
NASA is accountable to the American government. Are you suggesting every American administrations has the same agenda on AGW and are politically pushing NASA in the same direction?
IPCC was set up to assess the science on AGW. It does. The results are supported by numerous scientific bodies. That's one big conspiracy there
rugbyguy59 10 months ago
@rugbyguy59 You say "I do read about the work of Svensmark, Segalstad, and Soon". I'm glad you understand what's wrong. Care to explain? And I disagree with you on NASA and the IPCC. NASA is an unaccountable agency of the US government. It is not an independent scientific institution, and the IPCC is a political-arm of the UN. The IPCC's mandate specifically states they were set-up to analyse the effects of anthropogenic global warming. So, the worse things get, the more funding they receive.
CHIPSTERO7 10 months ago
@rugbyguy59 You wrote: "The scientific community knows that the oceans can't absorb that much". Oh really? The oceans currently have around 150,000 gigatonnes of dissolved CO2 and the approximate human contribution to the atmosphere annually is a mere 29 gigatonnes. The 98% absorption of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is in accordance with Henry Law's which dictates that the concentration of a gas dissolved in water is proportional to its partial pressure and the partition-ratio for CO2 is 1;50.
CHIPSTERO7 10 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Dessler concludes that the short-term effect is positive to the tune of 0.74. However the overall net-effect is negative. Quote from the paper "The reflection of solar energy back to space dominates, and the net effect of clouds is to reduce the net flux of incoming energy by ~20W/m2". Thus without clouds to reflect the incoming solar radiation the surface temperature would rise by approximately 4.4C. The positive effect is 0.74W/m2 deducted from overall negative feedback of 20W/m2.
CHIPSTERO7 10 months ago