350 PPM CO2: Earth's Tipping Point? - Bill McKibben

[david222444]

The most important number is 150 ppm co2 that is when plant life shuts down. Rain absorbs co2 to form carbonic acid this is a massive negative feedback conveniently not mentioned. You cannot beat rain for carbon capture.

[GarfoyleZanderfield]

I think in 1940 there were readings of as high as 430 parts per million, but you know, these sorts of studies are relegated to human error and CANNOT BE ALLOWED INTO the IPCC's literature of Propaganda.

[GarfoyleZanderfield]

350 parts per million, that's funny.

What the hell is the difference between 400 and 350 parts per million. Personally I wish we had 1,400 parts per million C02. It would be lovely.

[dmlt12]

Agree in most part with aerobique, however action is needed now just as much or more than debates about it. It has been claimed (including in utube) that some of these debates are prompted from some of the "deniers" not so much from a real scientific perspective but from their need to confound and confuse and delay..maybe a special group

[xKlondikex]

Also, I hate to say it... But this is the year 02011, even mentioning the word 'rapture' in your arguments is bound to reduce your credibility more than just a little. "Remember rapture?" Wow, yeah I remember the story of the rapture, oh now it all makes perfect sense! Please...

Get a clue bro.

[xKlondikex]

The climate change "controversy" is a purely American phenomenon. Nothing you can say can change the fact that other countries are pushing green investment like a freight train... Just look at Australia, in less than 9 years, they'll be 100% green. Also climate change has been a matter of science fact since the 50's. Also what does it mean to you when I say that at the time, the 90's was the hottest decade... Until this decade, of course. Now it's the hottest. Propaganda...

[david222444]

Pure scarmongering propganda! remember rapture ? this is climatology's version of rapture. Believe it if you like.

[xKlondikex]

@david222444 BTW, that "cooling" story you are referring to was from 2008. We were at the 'lul' of sunspots, which is a 11 year cycle of up's and downs.

The 'cooling' theory was based on a speculation that we were going to have a rather 'unusually long' lul of sunspots. They extrapolated that with less activity on the sun, the earth would experience a 'cooling'.

Well that was 3 fucking years ago, and wouldn't you know it? The sunspot trend is as it has been for a long time, a 11 year cycle.

[david222444]

@xKlondikex Speculation? you mean like the greenhouse theory is speculation? The lack of sunspots still continues. In a Grand Solar Minimum the 11yr cycle may not start for a few years. Laymans sunspot count may enlighten you( pardon the pun).

[rccthatsme]

The artic is not melting. Pure nonsense.

[david222444]

From the way I see things a couple of big volcanic eruptions will tip the World into abrupt and prolonged period of COOLING.

[aerobique]

@david222444 There are SO many, clear indicators and bulletproof evidence for rising temps ALL around the world. With effects already kicking in drastically. (massive droughts, heat waves, massive floods, sea level rise, glacier melt and so on..!)

Record after record!! Not in your PR and ideology constructed media dream-world of course. Only in real world.

[Costign]

why is there a fucking question mark following the title?

it's not a question!

[Joe11Blue]

Oh boy more Pseudo-science.

[FloridaRaider]

gee, who knows. Maybe we should ask Sarah Palin

[jimbo1490]

Using numbers from the US DOE, China alone will be emitting ~25Gt CO2 by yr 2050, in a 'bus. as usual' scenario, or ~19Gt in an 'extreme austerity' scenario. This ignores The other 2 economies which will have passed the US in CO2 emissions by then. Compare that with ENTIRE WORLD CO2 emissions of a mere 8Gt for the yr 2005 from CDIAC. Given the reality of the above numbers, what kind of fool could possibly believe that it's possible to trim CO2 emissions by ANY amount?

[johnTconover]

@jimbo1490 Yep, we're fucked... Our only sliver of hope is to bring about the end of the profit system of energy exchange (energy embodied in goods/services of monetary value). We have the manufacturing, information and computing technology right now to provide for the needs of every person alive today and with incredible energy/natural resource efficiency. Starting with freely distributed and equal global energy incomes. One for children, students, retirees, workers etc. 100% income equality.

[jimbo1490]

@johnTconover What an utterly moronic comment! CO2 emissions will grow dramatically as the peoples of the underdeveloped (impoverished) parts of the world lift themselves out of poverty, something they have EVERY RIGHT to do! My comment was designed to shine a light on the stupidity of the Quixotic quest to cut CO2 emissions, certainly the most useless fool's errand the world will ever have attempted. Go fetch us a bucket of compression while you're at it, moron. "Equal global energy incomes" :D

[pawpouch]

you people talk with such conviction on these matters as if to undermine the entire scientific method. If I tell you that I have a PHD in Astronomy and Ive been monitoring the movements of Pluto and I can accurately predict where it will be in the night sky at a given date, and it indeed is as I predicted, which one of you cretins will claim to say I am wrong? If I then use the same peer reviewed method to determine an asteroid is heading 4 earth, will u then claim PR agiain and watch us die?

[aerobique]

we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of "global-warming pollution" every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.



[jimbo1490]

@aerobique The natural world 'dumps' an amount of the same 'pollutants' almost 2 orders of magnitude (100X) larger than this every day. I guess it already is an "open sewer" :D

[aerobique]

@jimbo1490

"The natural world 'dumps' an amount of the same 'pollutants' almost 2 orders of magnitude (100X) larger than this every day. "

Its a (well known!) DAMN LIE! From that scam-movie. Really. Also you talk about the natural input/&output balance. And that IS balanced in very looong time ranges.

"Human activities" adding about 180times the co2 that nature ADDs through volcanoes and so on. ~180X

~90million tons every 24 hours(!)

AGW-scepticism is a ruthless and evil PR-industry.

[jimrennison1]

@aerobique Not a lie and not lifted from any movie.The atmosphere contains ~800Gt of CO2 gas. The oceans contain ~40,000 Gt dissolved CO2. With the ~5 year half-life of atmospheric CO2, it's easy to see that something like 100Gt of CO2 is fluxed from the atmosphere annually. Anthropogenic CO2 is 'lost in the noise' & always has been. CO2 in the atmosphere & ocean system is always in equilibrium. It's a robust equilibrium with numerous powerful neg. feedbacks; 'Delicate balance' is a myth.

[aerobique]

@jimrennison1

"Anthropogenic CO2 is 'lost in the noise' & always has been."

MUHAHA!?

One little thing:

Since a handful of generations, a *snip* in the natural cycles- "we" have increased the amount of co2 already for about 36%. Thats damn alarming dude.

Now the best:

EVEN IF "global warming" would be a complete fail, hoax and so the biggest conspiracy in scientific history....and thats what the 'sceptics' suggest ... There still is the rapid co2-induced acidification of our oceans!

[jimrennison1]

@aerobique "Since a handful of generations, a *snip* in the natural cycles- "we" have increased the amount of co2 already for about 36%. Thats damn alarming dude."It certainly would be alarming if it were true. But mass-balance studies have NEVER corroborated the assertion that all or most of recent CO2 rise is due to burning of fossil fuels. For the assertion to be true, ~25% of the carbon in the present atmosphere would need to be fossil sourced, but <4% is supported by mass-balance studies.

[david222444]

@aerobique Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

[aerobique]

@david222444

in what dreamworld you live?

Of course is CO2 a "pollutant" in the incredible masses "we" (you want to) pump it in our atmosphere as if it were an open sewer.

You could equally say "salt is not a poison.."

Oh, look at your favorite videos.. your a typical stubborn, political mislead ideologist who picks only the nonsense ("truth") that fits in your retarded ideology.. thats not how scientific questions can be answered. I talked to hundreds of naive morons like you- all same.

[david222444]

@aerobique I live in the real world not the world of computer models. Co2 is a life giving gas. The planet is now cooling whether it fits your brainwashed ideology or not. You are one ignorant, arrogant shit who thinks he knows it all but infact knows nothing. Go hug a tree you idiot and get your head out of your arse.

[aerobique]

@david222444

so the planet is cooling.. interesting that ALL scientific sources showing us the opposite- and a clear- obviously, completely rationally seen ALARMING trend UP!

ps: science is NOT an "ideology" - science is knowledge. Literally.

_

"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. "

You should quickly go and hug a tree, im sure they will forgive you.

[david222444]

@aerobique Your arrogance is showing. The planet is cooling maybe you are too scared to look at the satellite data it would fuck up your enlarged ego. Now be a good chappie and go look you may learn something and while you are at it study photosynthesis( thats when co2 is made into food ).

[aerobique]

@david222444 _ "Your arrogance is showing. " Your sick ideology is showing. Clear. That someone who knows (remember "knowledge"?) something better and, then naive people tend to call that "arrogance" is no secret. _ "maybe you are too scared to look at the satellite data" Satelite? What about NASA then? Deal? here is a nice source, overviews easy to grasp: climate. nasa. gov/keyIndicators/ So, are you kidding? Fooling yourself? Or only others? Huh?

[paulhogg1]

It's a scam check out climategate!

[BrainDeadBritain]

Yet ANOTHER Nazi-type world agenda/movement. Just how many of these shitty things ARE there?

You can see all the brainwashed kids lapping this up.

All part of the NWO agenda, which is to make you all SLAVES, not free people..........that is the ones of you who are allowed to live.

Be careful what you let your kids get 'into'.

[HaloGears360innit]

@BrainDeadBritain How naive can u be to belive in a NWO but not accepte the CO2 problem. Please tell me how the government can make us all slaves and not free people. Because that is pretty difficult. The goverment is useless without the people that agree with it. Who will agree to have no freedom- Nobody. So the NWO cant be successful.

[ttowntom]

@Halo,

You do realize that CO2 is required by plants, and essential for all life on earth? Or that the "CO2 problem" is based entirely upon predictions made by models that continually fail to predict current or even past events properly?

Here in the real world, there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (and cooling since 2000), southern sea ice is increasing, sea level rise isn't accelerating, hurricane activity is at record lows, and agricultural output continues to rise.

[HaloGears360innit]

@ttowntom Yes I do know that CO2 is used by plantes to make C6H12O6 (Glucose). Do you know that CO2 and water vapor absorb IR in the atmosphere and cause global warming. That can be proven . CO2 is essential to life yeah but it matters on the amount. You would probably smoke a cigarette in a room full of oxygen because hey, oxygen is essential. Why do you want results of the global warming? It is happening wether you like it or not and thank God that there is people that care about it.

[ttowntom]

Actually, my degree is in physics. Do you realize that a CO2 absorption band is almost entirely confined to 14-16 microns which corresponds to a temperature of below 0F? That water vapor - which is some 300X as prevalent in the atmosphere, not only has a much wider band, but one that obscures CO2 almost entirely, meaning when there is substantial H20 in the atmosphere, CO2's effects are minimal? (cont).

[HaloGears360innit]

@ttowntom Wow see you steped your game up :-)

Ok lets say then it all is a lie and all the cons you made are true. There still will be a problem about the fossil fuels, because they wont last forever. Agree? So the CO2 problem wheter true or not is helping and has helped to find alternatives bevor that point is reached. But if there were no fossil fuels at the moment the economy would collapse totally

[ttowntom]

@Halo,

The problem is that many of the "solutions" for GW result in our burning *more* fossil fuels to produce a unit of energy, not less - carbon sequestration schemes, for instance. Further, cap-and-trade laws cost many tens of trillions of dollars (Lieberman-Warner alone was slated to cost $1.3T in just the US alone, and it instituted only trivial cuts). Thats a vast amount of resources that could be used to develop viable alternatives.

(cont).

[ttowntom]

Further, the fossil-fuel shortage problem is not nearly as severe as some would have you believe. In school I was taught the world "had 30 years of oil left". Yet today, more than 30 years later, we now have *50* years of proven reserves. We've found 5 new barrels of oil for every 3 burned .. and we continue to make new major finds today.

Let's also not forget shale oil and tar sand resources, which alone could fuel the world for more than a century.

(cont).

[HaloGears360innit]

@ttowntom for more than a century by a daily use of ca. 87 Million Barrel. I am not quite sure about that. And whats going to happen after that? I do not refuse nuclear power but tell me how unwrought goods can be transported without the oil. I just think we shouldnt take oil for granted because it will run out once. Well for energie a controlled nuclear fusion would alo be a option but we are just not quite there jet right. :-)

[ttowntom]

To answer the question: "how do we transport goods without oil", Google the sulfur-Iodine cycle for hydrogen production, via a high temp nuclear reactor.. The cleanest form of energy we know of, and abundant enough to last tens of thousands of years.

Re: fusion, are you aware that we have *fission* based reactor designs on the books that generate less waste than a prototypical d-t fusion reaction? Designs that are actually able to *burn* the radioactive waste left over from current reactors?

[HaloGears360innit]

@ttowntom No I did not know about the sulfur-Iodine cycle. I only knew about the electrolysis of water. But thanks for pointing that out to me man. I just finished my apprenticeship as a lab assistent a couple of months ago but I cant understand why we didnt have that in school. I still have to read through it properly but it looks intresting :-)

[ttowntom]

You didn't learn about it in school because a band of fascist environmentalist has managed to convince people that nuclear waste is some sort of unsolved problem, when in reality nuclear power is by far the cleanest form of energy we have....cleaner even than wind or solar, when one considers the vast amounts of resources that need to be mined, refined, and manufactured to create hundreds of thousands of 300'-tall windmills or millions of acres of solar panels.

[HaloGears360innit]

@ttowntom

What, I thought Silicium grows on trees. Just kidding. Well anyway fascinating was never against nuclear power, but that way of making H2, how about that. Every day is a school day :-)

[ttowntom]

Finally, despite what a few green fanatics would have you believe, it is physically impossible to fill our energy needs at present with non-dispatchable sources like wind and solar. Even if one ignores the vastly higher cost, we simply don't have the energy storage technology to allow these to fill more than 10-20% of grid requirements.

The only viable source at present is nuclear power. Ironically, that's the one source that eco-fascists oppose even more than fossil fuels.

[ttowntom]

Do you realize that a column of CO2 gas will fully absorb all available LIR in just 100 meters, meaning any additional CO2 beyond that can contribute no additional effect?

Do you realize that, when you combine these factors and calculate CO2's actual warming effect, it is negligible? That coupled GCMs (climate models) get around this by assuming a "positive feedback effect" that has never been experimentally verified?

(cont).

[ttowntom]

Do you realize that what warming we've experienced doesn't fit even slightly the basic pattern that GCMs predict CO2-induced warming should experience (a tropospheric hot spot, coupled with strong amplification at both poles)? That the models fail not only at predicting future warming, but also in accurately predicting past climate shifts that we **know** have occurred? That as a result, the IPCC has continually downgraded warming projections in every successive report released?

(cont).

[ttowntom]

Do you realize that, the HadCRUT surface temperature set, along with the RSS and UAH MSU satellite data records, all show no statistically significant warming since 1995?  And a very slight *cooling* trend since 2000? This despite the highest emissions in history, a rate that, if CO2 sensitivity caculations were correct, should have led to sharp warming?

Do you know that southern sea ice has shown a growing trend all the way back to 1979, the year satellite observations began?

(cont).

[ttowntom]

Do you know that the sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, some 20,000 years ago? And that for most of that period, it was rising far faster than it is today? Do you know that the latest research using GRACE and ARGO data has concluded there has been no acceleration whatsoever detected in the current rate of rise?

(cont).

[ttowntom]

Do you know that several nations - most recently India - have disavowed the IPCC as a politically-driven organization reaching incorrect results, and formed their own climate bodies? That the most frightening claims in the IPCC's latest report were found to have been pulled from articles in popular magazines and press releases from environmental groups, not actual scientific research?

(cont)

[ttowntom]

Do you realize that, every economic study done (including one by two Nobel-prize winning economists) has concluded that, even if the IPCC is correct, that emission caps are far less effective than mitigation and adaption strategies?  That (again, even if the IPCC is correct, which is an increasingly remote possibility) that the degree of warming we face will be as likely to be beneficial as harmful?

(cont).

[ttowntom]

Do you realize that, even today, more than 6X as many people die from cold weather as hot? And more than 25X as much crop damage occurs from frost as from heat stress?

Do you realize that commercial greenhouses artificially raise CO2 levels to 1000+ppm to boost plant growth? And that several studies have shown that recent atmospheric CO2 increases are *already* increasing world food production by anywhere from 4-12% (enough extra to feed 600 million people)?

[supermuble]

This guy is really the "Agent" from the Matrix movie. I always loved the way they talked. Amazing speech! Great eloquence. I really enjoyed it!

[toffgooglification75]

our planets ice caps haven't always been there and sometimes they've spread across 85% of the planet in an ice age. I personally beleive there are to many varibles ie solar activity, earths orbit inc precession, suns orbit round and through galaxtic plane and particles that can pass through our planet are bombarding us daily to simply say our polar caps are melting because of co2 is simply tosh. if anyone has 5 mins look at vid piri reiss map of antartica

[toffgooglification75]

the idea that our planets temperature, sea level, climate should be constant is an absolute joke, i'm so tired of hearing this BS

[aerobique]

@toffgooglification75

simply because you obviously dont understand the urgency - all you do is repeating the well known, truly slack PR lies

by the way why at all do you click on ~older fora videos with bill mckibben talking about that watch them and feel forced to spit your crap here. Being ignorant is the deniers awkward doctrine - but working publicly against "climate awareness" in this fox news parrotting manner is -im sorry- a case of cognitive dissonance.

[toffgooglification75]

@aerobique i'v still yet to see whether you can explain any scientific opinion, all your arguments seem based upon insulting, there are things i also agree with eg co2 ppm in the atmosphere is rising. however maybe you should start by arguing about the subject criteria. love your long words though, you comment (insult on alot of sites). Do you have a job in speading propaganda or is this a uni project!? ps love the churnalism vids aswell

[aerobique]

@toffgooglification75

namecalling is the only trhing your sick breed understands

logical arguments NOT - and thats sad and weird

try this "propaganda"  watch?v=3ow4Oy46F6A

[faceswithin]

we put out fires that use to burn things away for new growth we cook we use it to heat how long as mankind been doing this does any one know?

[aerobique]

@faceswithin

not that long, 150 years or so.... that this is a quite short period its even more alarming if you look at the co2 amount in the atmosphere... we increased this amount of "greenhouse gas" co2 = carbon dioxide now for about +40%. Accelerating.

Its disturbing. We know how to fix that... but politics cant or wont act as long as so many people continously believe in the convenient lies that are all around and being ignorant as hell.

[faceswithin]

we need to make some thing to do what they plants do to eat the co2

[aerobique]

@faceswithin

good idea! but plants are still way "better" than technology and convert co2 back into plant material. Technology could only suck it from out tha atmosphere and pump it back in the earth... somehow. Its all very(!) expensive and .. and such technology dont even exists today. They reseach that now. The most obvious and i think smartest thing to do is to reforest the planet!

[equsnarnd]

Suppose for the sake of argument that AGW is true. Can anyone give me a list of the consequences, let's say the top 10 in order of seriousness?

[aerobique]

@equsnarnd

good that you care

There are so many things.

watch the video i uploaded recently called "a REALLY inconvenient truth"

and the clip "in about 50 years we will reach that point" for example

Among the animal life and biodiversity at all.. we are facing the threat of species survival and the planet could possibly even end up like venus- and that sucks

I sound like a insane "alarmist" but thats just the strange truth

[realpqleur]

Breast implants are the sole reason for global warming, next to the sun that is.....

[heckler73]

Is Bill McKibben a scientist?

If so, what branch of science did he receive a Masters in?

If not, then why listen to him? His judgment is no better than yours or mine...

Do your own Due Diligence... study the SCIENCE and not the hype...

Learn about CO2 saturation, insolation, aerosol and particulate effects...

Consider the feedback mechanism...

This subject of Climate Change goes FAR beyond just CO2, and shills deserve to be discredited (on both sides of the fence)...

[mycatisromeo]

@heckler73 Scientists interpret data and write reports. It is everyone's duty to understand the reports and then build a database of knowledge based on fact to spread to other people. How many people do you know sit around reading science peer-reviewed journals - you wouldn't understand a word of it. When the news reports on science, they're not scientists. The info has to be spread. A researcher or writer doesn't have to be a scientist to understand the published data.

[350global]

31,000 scientists and the founder of the Weather Channel know that man-made global warming is a hoax.

4500 of the 6000 temp gathering stations were shut down because they didnt agree with the global warming scam.

Watch out for those who want total control and regulation of everything!

[jfreed27]

Can you document this? I would bet my car pink slip this shutting down of stations because of controversy is bs. But it is scary to accept the scientific consensus. i understand why you would grasp as false facts to not be so scared. Change a light bulb-you'll feel better.

Think a moment: Who has more to lose...scientists (who are entitled to change their minds without losing their careers) or the coal and gas industries, who spend millions in disinformation to protect profits. Wake up.

[judomagyar]

Miskolczi: CO2 is negligible! g=1/3

Hey, we can all just wait another year for the results of the CLOUD-experiments at CERN. Meanwhile there should be no international treaties giving our hard earned money away for globalization. There should be voting on it, it should not be up to UN bureaucrats.

I don't suppose anyone will change their mind just because the CLOUD-exp. will prove or disprove if galactic radiation seeds clod formation, hence determines the climate.

I KNOW NO ONE WILL APOLOGIZE.

[WulfBand]

Well it's obvious who pays this guys pay check.

[aerobique]

good man^

to the denialists below, he is environmentalist and obviously you dont need to be a scientist to understand that what he say is the truth- these people work under the (*evil influence*) of rationality with an healthy touch of idealism and NOT idiocracy, ideology or selfish lobbyism -as the science-deniers prefer do.

[nesNYC]

Lies. PPM = parts per million

This figure is so small, that's the measurement for it. Also, CO2 is like a coat of paint on a window. Two coats, there's more opacity. Four coats and no light gets through. Anything higher than four coats won't matter. That's the analogy to CO2 because there is a saturation point that is once surpassed higher rates won't matter much.

[aerobique]

lies

do you really believe *they never thought about that a little more?? *[every respected scientific institute on planet]

these are (always) cherrypicking straw man pseudo-arguments to confuse puplic

AGW-"scepticism" is a PR industry

[RectulThreat]

i believe in science above everything else. The science points to the conclusion that human production of co2 does not effect the temperature.

Political motivated 'scientists' that you believe without question are scum and are not out for the good of the planet, they are out for the good of themselves and their companies.

[aerobique]

@Rectal

CO2 = greenhouse gas is no speculation, it is a demonstrable fact first shown in the laboratory in 1859.

CO2 concentr. in the atmosphere is increasing is not a speculation

That global mean temperature is increasing is also a measurable fact-

That human activity accounts for 100% of the increase is not a speculation- its fact.

Those who stand in denial FAILED for 15 years to produce a single(!) peer-reviewed sci.journal article -or ANY reliable stuff that challenge theory of AGW.

[RectulThreat]

Who said that CO2 wasn't "fact" ?

It's a natural gas which without it we would be frozen.

It is not fact that humans have caused the global temperature to rise. The temp has been rising for the last couple hundred thousand years incase you didnt realise.

[rusty1491]

Only the alarmists are saying, "human activity accounts for 100% of the increase." The majority of scientists even the deniers state that the past 15 years .01 to .02 degree C increase may be due to man, not the entire .14 degree C. There's no climate crisis, in fact, humans today are probably avoiding a serious climate Ice-age, the effects of which may start in 2,000 to 50,000 years.

[aerobique]

hey denier

as i repeated a few times:

AGW is no speculation- its a measurable fact.

And it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine

[rusty1491]

@aerobique How can someone be a denier if they simply disagree with the degree to which something is happening? One measurable fact is the positive growth of plant life on this planet, tiny increases over several millenia will do the planet and humans good. However, if humans pump enough CO2 to take up 2% of the planets atmosphere then there's a danger, but we are at .04%. We would need to increase the rate of CO2 production 50 times if we are doomed in a few centuries.

[TheKickerboy99]

you are an idiot, and I hate name calling, but you are

[jimntempe]

@aerobique Contrary to your assertion, it is pure speculation that human activity accounts for 100% of the temp increase. It is far from a fact. There is much factual info that challanges the overall theory of AGW as the driver of the temp increases. There is also considerable doubt that GW is actually going to be a problem except to a very very small number of people who, over the course of 50 to 100 years, may have to move to a new address. People move all the time.

[JoeAverage86]

How do you people like global warming now???? ITS ALL A FRAUD!

There is no man made GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dakshinamurti]

tool...

[th3dig1tal0n3]

Yet while US is experiencing early winter and cold weather central Europe is experiencing late winter and warm weather. Meanwhile, glaciers all around world are melting, deserts are expanding, tropical storms are getting more nasty...

Climate is changing, question is what we can do to make our lives easier during transition towards hopefully better overall climate.

[JoeAverage86]

did you know these glaciers melted before? Tropical storms are getting nastier? Really? Don't think so.

Climate change is envitable. Whether man is on the earth or not.

[th3dig1tal0n3]

I was just complaining about winter coming LATE to EUROPE. And it is late as usual last 20 years, a full month. And is warm like no winter should be.

I remember hurricane Katrina was really gentle.

Why people think about climate only when tax hits their wallet?

Are you an American? If you are think who to vote next time, because guess what, both "choices" you had before look like the same shit to anyone outside of "America".

If I were you I'd seek a way to remove that carbon tax ASAP.

[RectulThreat]

LOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Winter in europe was warm was it ????????

Are you fucking stupid?

Its the coldest in 40 years XD

[th3dig1tal0n3]

I was actually wanting people to get ready, I have no intention to start flame war. Global warming, or cooling doesn't look as scary as expensive food and transportation caused by lack of cheap fuel, reduced civil rights and freedom of speech, or police state silently rising in Europe (again). I know how to combat sun and snow, and I hope you know too because politicians in dark suits do not care about JoeAverage86 and me.

Tube and watch "Surplus" and Michael Moore's films.

[RectulThreat]

the very fact that you asked someone to watch a michael moore film is proof enough of your insanity

[th3dig1tal0n3]

Surplus is not Moore's film.

[RectulThreat]

i didn't sat it was. You told him to go watch michael moore films.

You're really lost.

[RectulThreat]

very true

[elbuggo]

Dont start crying please.

[Jollyprez]

"...for all the 10,000 years of the Holocene." LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE

Gore lied, based on the "hockey stick" graph derived by Dr. Mann LIED.

Look up CLIMATEGATE on google.

[dakshinamurti]

I did look it up. It bears no relevance to the robust evidence from thousands of independent scientists. How about you shutting the fuck up and reading from credible sources first? Here is one of the best sources: Google "Factcheck climategate" and select the first link. Thank you for your time.

[Jollyprez]

Thousands of independent scientists? Um, no. Actually, there are only three "recognized" sources for temperature data, and guess what? They're intermingled and NOT independent. One is East Anglia - now proven to be fudged. The NASA data is based on the same set - and they're getting sued, too. And, it's really important to resort to vulgarity and ad hominem in reply. The rest of the "thousands of independent scientists" base their increasingly shrill warnings from these same suspect sources.

[dakshinamurti]

personal incredulity is not a valid argument but a fallacy. It is not true that there are only 3 sources. I count 4 sources. NOAA, NASA, CRU and JMA. Yes they are independent. Unless you are using a very weird/liberal definition of independent. It is not true that they use the same set. It is not true that Anglia data is fudged. No data was definitively lost. Some data from the 1980's was deleted and adjusted. Those adjustments are published, therefore, recovering the raw data is EASY!

[dakshinamurti]

Another independent institution is MIT. they have reviewed the records extensively and also favor the AGW theory. If you care to have people believe that these institutions are not independent, meaning, they have their own data and work without interference and come to their own conclusions, publish your conspiracy theory in a peer reviewed journal and set us all straight. Don't expect us to just take your incredulity or your intuitions as evidence.

[CRAPCANNONS]

Organized Crime in Charge of EU Carbon Trade, Police Says

/watch?v=oL-e33oaI94&feature=s­ub

[mmtot]

Taxing the gas that humans exhale and plants breathe. Declaring Co2 a pollutant, What evil genius it all is.

[gestuerm]

@xyberfunk

I totally agree with you! People wake up!

check climategate on google

[vogelstraussenior]

350 = Nazi Propaganda

if you believe, CO2 is a polutant or dangerous, than you are a dump idiot like the NAZI talking!

[dakshinamurti]

Is it danger to go into the microwave? well, kinda... is co2 a greenhouse gas? hmmm yeah. what is the greenhouse effect but a sort of microwave environment generating mechanism? So how do we support scientifically elevating the number of of heat trapping particles without warming up the place? huhhh we don't? thanks for playing :)

[clevername333]

350 ppm is just a smoke screen and a scam for well meaning tools to get behind and chant. This whole Anthropogenic Global warming debate is just getting started, and most people who chant the mainstream gloom and doom are not even open to hearing credible rebuttals to their fantastic claims.

From the evidence I have seen, and continue to find, it does not appear that CO2 is the driving force behind temperature change. Look into solar cycles and earth temp.. you might find if intriguing.

[clevername333]

Most authors and sources have summarized the historical CO2 determinations by chemical methods incorrectly and promulgated the unjustifiable view that historical methods of analysis were unreliable and produced poor quality results.

antigreen

dot

blogspot

dot

com

[clevername333]

invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel. Evidence for lacking evaluation of methods results from the finding that as accurate selected results show systematic errors in the order of at least 20 ppm.

[clevername333]

Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature,

[beautifulmicia]

When CO2 is discussed, it is not the CO2 that is the problem but the other pollutants that are expelled in the process. CO2 in itself is not an issue--it is the other chemicls created in CO2 emissions that generate the problem. A more intelleigent discussion can be had based upon less emphasis on CO2.

[clevername333]

Beautifulmicia,

Do you know what the most abundant and effective green house gas in the atmosphere is?????

WATER VAPOR! I.E. Clouds! It makes up 2 percent of the atmosphere, and can reduce temperature up to 20 degrees in one day.

By comparison, CO2 makes up .037 percent of the atmosphere, and any significant concentrations are at very high altitudes.

[th3dig1tal0n3]

You Sir should read your post and correct yourself.

[clevername333]

thedigitalone... which post do you disagree with and what is your position on my comment?

Well, I am going to go get on my loud carbureted KTM duke II and go for a little ride around Hong Kong Island for dinner. Hope to hear from you.

In the mean time chew on this: What would happen if CO2 was at 5 times today's levels? Don't panic, but the answer might surprise you...

[th3dig1tal0n3]

Thank you for replying to me.

You stated that water vapor is greenhouse gas, yet that it cools down the planet. that is slightly inaccurate.

Also you have mixed CO2 and O3, so I wanted to point out your mistake to help you to correct yourself.

What could happened if CO2 was 5 times 380ppm? That is 1900ppm, that is over the poisonous limit. It could be everything from increased heart rate an blood pressure to dizziness...

Enjoy your ride.

[RectulThreat]

hello again, you are an obsessed little bunny arent you.

You think it will be 1900ppm soon ??

LOL i bet you have a hard time sleeping at night dont you....

[TheKickerboy99]

in rain forests you will find 600-800 ppmm CO2, right now.

[marjan15]

See "What does a reduction to 350 PPM of CO2 get you?" post with graphs at WattsUpWithThat com

[mulhollanddose]

Nothing. Reduction of PPM gets you nothing. They pulled that number right out of their asses. They more likely than not have falsified all their findings in order to spread their filthy fear and lies to children and the ignorant. They want control. They want to kill people. They want to tear down America.

[clevername333]

I fully agree mulhollanddose, That number came straight out of their unsoiled green ass.

For all you doubters and green zombies, please look up some alternative information. Just google:

"parts per million of carbon prehistory"

[xyberfunk]

GREEN = the new RED

BEWARE AMERICA

Do not hand over your precious Liberty to the power-monger enviro-marxist. Deomcrats will try to rob you of this Liberty ordained unto you by your Creator. They will say anything for the power that they need to control, regulate and tax you.

VOTE SMART! Support your local militias and stand up to their tyranny!

Defend our Constitution, YOU are the John Henrys and the Paul Reveres of the Revolution to save our Republic.

Patriots just like YOU! :-)

[cilstr]

who ARE you! I understand you come from a self preservation perspective- but belive me these whom you hate so, do also. :)

[uresist]

The only scientists that disagree with the overwhelming fasts of the current climate crisis are the ones funded by energy companies or right-wing think tanks, funded by energy companies. Wake up and stop being brainwashed by big oil, and just start focusing on sustainable, renewable energy.

[EasyEs]

No...that's not the case at all, I trust scientists like Richard Lidzen John Christi and Roy Spencer more then people preaching doom. If politicians were serious about this they would be scrambling to do everything they could like build nuclear power plants, Instead the propose cap and trade which James Hanson called Worthless. I really hope your life has more meaning then fighting Climate change

[uresist]

Thank you. I hope your life has meaning too.

I don't think we should worry about who's preaching doom or who's being negative or positive. We should simply focus on finding the truth and realizing that anyone can be mislead by propaganda. Unfortunately, what i said is true. You might want to take a look at this map.

exxonsecrets org / index .php?mapid=1464

If you're not receiving large amounts of cash from polluters, you might want to rethink your desire to defend them.

[gestuerm]

uresist

bullshit! this 350 scum is sponsored by ROCKEFELLERS BROTHERS FUND,check CRU+hackerattack on google or sleep well

[dakshinamurti]

I did look it up. It bears no relevance to the robust evidence from thousands of independent scientists. How about you shutting the fuck up and reading from credible sources first? Here is one of the best sources: Google "Factcheck climategate" and select the first link. Thank you for your time.

[gestuerm]

dakshinamurti

Don't waste your time being a cheap tool.

[dakshinamurti]

you're the only tool I see here. Go getn an education.

[gestuerm]

dakshinamurti

Help the world - stop breathing.

[uresist]

2005 was the hottest on record, but single years taken by themselves can not refute or establish a trend. More information is needed. So, then how about: * every year since 1992 has been warmer than 1992; * the ten hottest years on record occurred in the last 15; * every year since 1976 has been warmer than 1976; * the 20 hottest years on record occurred in the last 25; * every year since 1956 has been warmer than 1956; and * every year since 1917 has been warmer than 1917.

[th3dig1tal0n3]

I am not concerned a lot about heat. I doubt that "Murricans" wil stop driving inefficient SUV's, that coal electricity will become thing of the past, and that carbon tax/banking/trade/credits will do any good.

Banksters who taxed CO2 today can decide to tax nasty, fire making O2, there is lot more oxygen in air than CO2, therefore it must make more profit !!!

The question is: What we have to do to make our lives better in hot years to come?

[clevername333]

Yo digital one,

Check out this video..

watch?v=kuovqFwUtDc&feature=re­lated

Enjoy

[th3dig1tal0n3]

Thank you for your feed. That gentlemen is no climate scientist, he is a mater at rhetoric's and deception.

Watch watch?v=_zmi74qtACY and sequels and see for yourself. In each and every one he will say and lie / distort / negate proven scientific facts and get over it quickly using delusion and distraction (jokes).

It is funny how politics dictates public relations of some countries. Watch watch?v=wAvpH-dOP5A

I was looking at their faces and couldn't stop laughing...

[SteveWrathall]

There's been no global warming since 1998.

[xyberfunk]

SUNSPOTS = the inconvienient truth to the enviro-liberal-marxist green idiots

[cilstr]

GREAT`~ i cant wait till we're proved wrong, this will be happy days.

Cant say the same if proved right however,,...

[xyberfunk]

this video makes me want to pollute, litter, and drive my fast 4x4 spewing exaust...

keep posting this crap...

nobody believes you.. get over it

[cilstr]

dream world

[chotaboy66]

Green house gas is 95% water vapor,(man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, The sun ONLY changes world temps not co2. Co2 is the building block of life " they will be taxing all life which is your freedom .Our country has been run by criminal brainwashing liers for the last 20 years.WAKE UP AUSTRALIA before its too late..

[voltbrady]

don't plants need co2?

A-hole

[doggamer5]

this guy sounds a lot like agent smith from the Matrix

[LeGioNoFZioN]

you lost me once you referenced James Hansen. It's like using the research of the pope to prove God exists. Hansen's whole career is based on climate science and he has no problem fudging numbers or overstating a case beyond its scientific basis to advance his political position.

[moob744]

Are you opposed to Hansen based upon him being inaccurate, or simply prejudiced because he supports political figures who are more likely to listen to the evidence/science and attempt appropriate action? As far as I can ascertain he is a highly respected scientist,who should not be dismissed out of hand.Please explain?

[LeGioNoFZioN]

I dismiss him because as I youth I trusted him and bought into what he claimed at the time. What he predicted in the mid 90's did not come to pass, that was his first strike. his admittance of overstating the science in his landmark congressional address in the late 80's was his 2nd strike. His third was the climate data GISS reported last year using the summer reocrds to supplant September and October's #'s, claiming it was a record high fall......

[moob744]

Many thanks for your polite,detailed response-on the "Tube" you can sometimes get "blasted" simply for asking a question or daring to disagree!

[LeGioNoFZioN]

no problem, I also believe in having reasoned logical responses whenever possible. It does more for advancing the conversation. It does bother me that some people still respect Hansen, but hopefully some will read our exchange and find out on their own how much he is a part of the "Greenfreaks", literally he is an engine in the Climate Change Industrial Complex, more concerned with money, grants and recognition than rehabilitating the environment.

[cilstr]

your strikes are out of order :)

[LeGioNoFZioN]

Hansen struck out, I wasn't even at bat. Not my fault he values his theories over the existant science.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

.... while North America saw record cold and snowfall temperatures for October, nnot too mention an early winter, which was a long winter here in Canada. His agenda is more important to him than the science and thus I reject anything he says that isn't corroborated elsewhere by sources that aren't getting paid to advance an agenda. the only people who respect Hansen haven't bothered to look at him....

[LeGioNoFZioN]

... he presented the hockey graph which was proven to be a logarhythmic fraud. When it comes to ACC, I prefer David Suzuki because at least he is consistant and honest. Hansen possesses no such character trait.

[mikezephyr]

and yet there are governments and corporations that have 2 thirds of the canadian boreal set off for boxes of kleenex and plywood.

this is insane.