@greenman3610 Explain how Greenland's temperatures of today are an issue, when they are only the average temp in Greenland over the last 10,000 years?
critical value is not so much Greenland temp, but ocean heat content. As ocean currents bring more heat in contact with the leading edges of glaciers and ice sheets, melting is increasing dramatically.
@greenman3610 Not sure how tell you this. But your video again fails to answer the question. But, I'm not surprised, you seem to answer everything with a diversion. The fact still remains that the temperatures of today in Greenland are only the average temps over the last 10,000yrs. All other ice cores, from either Antarctica and the Arctic clearly show similar warming. So, there is noway, Mann hockey stick has any credibility, and there is nothing unprecedented about last decades temps.
Petit et al is wrong as well. It does not matter how many times you say something that it wrong. At the end of the day it is still wrong, Do you understand nothing of science?
In science you can never prove anything. You can only disprove it. Einstien said "There are no number of experiments that can prove me right. It only takes one to prove me wrong." It is bad science to call it settled science, or to say there is a concencus. The hickey stick was disproved using Mann's original data which was won in an FOI lawsuit, Mann fought for more than 5 years. He fought it because he knew it was wrong. People who are right don't hide data. They don't lie, and aren't Mann.
@fishinwflies You are dead wrong about Mann's hockey stick being disproved...And NO Mann did not fight FOI for 5 years & NO his own data did not disprove him! LOL! You really need to read the science the climate scientist do & stop allowing yourself to be used as a fool by the Professional Denialist! And YES there most certainly is a CONSENSUS among 97% of climate scientist!
As for what I know about science, I worked in Paleontology and know that it has been much warmer than now throughout most of Earth's history. I know that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature by 800 years, so the basis of AGW is flawed. I studied paleoclimatology. I know the green movement is bankrupting your country. I know you are the one who needs to wake up. I know his data was cherry picked and was shown to be falsified after a FOI lawsuit. Not to mention climategate e-mails
@fishinwflies Go study the paper which have the graph where CO2 lags the temperature, it's made by "petit et al"(just google that term). You will find that that very study shows just how powerful CO2 really is! Even though the CO2 lags! So the basis is still there. Sweden is doing fine and we have a CO2-tax AND healthcare numb nuts. Those e-mails have been cleared of wrong-doing over and over by experts, there was no "climategate" except that the hackers should be prosecuted.
@USAneedsaChange So what you are saying is that CO2 is so powerful it can increase heat Before it exists? You are so powerful I know you are wrong before you speak.. Say, you are right. Cause can lag effect. Hey there it is again! You are already wrong and yuo have not typed a word yet. I guess I have to take it all back. CO2 can time travel. Gee who knew? Idiot.
@fishinwflies come on, you're 55 years old and you have studied hard so you can read "petit et al" for yourself and see. Their study is the source of the graph your talking about so look it up. What they found was that CO2 amplifies a small forcing so that the small forcing has a much greater effect than it otherwise would have had.
The CO2 in our atmosphere keeps us 30 degrees(C) warmer than without it. yes, it has been warmer in a very distant past, but the plates were in other places then.
Thank you for finally telling the truth, an "Inconvenient" one, perhaps?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh help me I'm burning up oh no!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Congratulations you've proven nothing as you've only used data from 2 places. Why is the global part of global warming so hard for people to understand?
One ice core from one spot on the surface of the world - well, gee that must be representative.
Can I infer from the fact that at 15:50 local time in London, looking out my window, I see it is daytime, that it must be daytime in New Zealand as well.
Wow. I guess the fact that it has been both warmer and cooler in the past means that man can not affect climate via increased greenhouse gases in the present. What a profound argument. And this all coming from the genius non-climatologist Watts.
What a misinformed video. No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. REFERENCES: 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ||| 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68
No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. REFERENCES: 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ||| 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68
There is no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ; 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68.
No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ; 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68.
Was Ice core data used in the original production of the "Hockey Stick" curve? If not, this is certainly interesting, but not all that relevant. One has to see how the various statistics were aggregated. Personally, I think political and business lobbying pressure caused them to slap together their data, neglecting the job of properly interpreting it or the aggregates they produced.
Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph was created using tree ring data and rigged computer code. The computer code was leaked in the CLlMATEGATE emails.
Go to wikipedia and see the graph yourself. 100% accurate. We are headed for an Ice age. It shows we are warmer today but alot colder than 1500 to 2000 years ago.
Wow! How wrong can you possibly make a video? There is NOTHING accurate about any of these graphs. All indications are that we are warmer today that the planet has been over the past million years. Potentially several million years. And we are headed into even warmer territory very very quickly.
These graphs were taken from Greenland ice cores, and show the temperature record for hundreds of thousands of years. What are you basing your information from?...the IPCC which used Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick based on tree ring data and rigged computer code? (as exposed in the CLlMATEGATE emails)
@TheParadigmShift The other problem here is that they include references at the end but they don't reference the references. (That's an immediate fail if you present something like this in school.)
@TheParadigmShift I want you to carefully look at the first couple of graphs and tell me when the data stops. Rough guess? Maybe 1910, right? Then please note the exact wording of the caption in the first chart. "Greenlandic ice cores show *A* hockey stick uptick SIMILAR to Mann's work in Al Gore's movie."
.
This is NOT Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. The local central Greenland ice core data shows a hockey stick in the 1800's. Now go look at Michael Mann's graphs.
@TheParadigmShift Mann's graph clearly shows warming starting about at where the graph ends in the chart presented here and shows the instrumental record after that.
.
These charts clearly OMIT any instrumental data in order to obfuscate any relationship to current warming. If you calibrated the current instrumental record and amended it onto all these graphs it would be completely off the top of the screen.
@TheParadigmShift On top of all that, Michael Mann's work relies a very wide range of data from numerous locations around the globe. Off the top of my head I believe it was something like 250 data sets. The charts represented here are ONE data set from one location.
These graphs go back hundreds of thousands of years, Mann's graph omits the last 10 years of cooling (hide the decline) and stops short of the Medieval Warm period, Mann is the one OMITTING data. Mann's hockey stick is also based on tree ring data that was ALTERED using rigged computer code (the code was exposed in the CLlMATEGATE emails).
Mann's data is also based on temperature stations located near heat sources like air vents and black concrete.
@TheParadigmShift No it does NOT omit 10 years of cooling. The tree ring divergence problem is discussed at length in several peer reviewed papers. It refers to one data series from northern european tree rings that diverge from the actual temperature record. One set out of the 250 sets of data.
@TheParadigmShift And now you're going on about UHI effect. (Urban heat island) This has also been conclusively shown to be a faulty argument. Even when a very select group of stations is used (noted by Anthony Watts to be "good" or "best") the result is unchanged. On top of that the ground based temperature station records agree perfectly with all for satellite based temperature records.
That is clearly untrue and can be debunked using the scientific method. Black asphalt attracts more heat than earth ground and all it takes is a simple thermometre to read the difference. Also temperature monitoring stations near air vents will not give you the same reading as one NOT next to one. You are following talking points which are so far from the truth and nothing more than government paid for propaganda. Go look how much Mr. Mann got paid last year and by whom.
@TheParadigmShift You obviously have not researched this issue beyond WUWT. The station record trends were tested because of Watts' claims and shown to be accurate.
.
If you didn't notice Dr Mann is a University professor at Penn State. He receives a normal professor's salary.
@TheParadigmShift To say that Mann received $2.4M in stimulus money is intellectually bereft. To think that HE, personally, received this money is nothing short of absurd. Like every other scientist out there, he applies for grants to fund the work that his group does. Mann receives his professor's salary. Grant money goes to pay for the work. Not him personally.
@TheParadigmShift Dear pair of dimes, I'de rather look at your funding; past, present and future than check out a decent scientist who is trying to save all of all of our asses.
@TheParadigmShift Mann, who you speak so bad about, tried to see what the temperature was on all of the Earth, not just on Greenland or northern Europe. He has done a much more thorough job than you who just put together a youtube-video of that Watts-site...
@USAneedsaChange I didn't put this video together but kudos to whoever did. Mann created the famous "hockey stick" graph used to "prove" AGW but climategate proved he hoaxed the graph using rigged computer code. He told the computer to create the hockey stick shape intentionally regardless of the input data. Mann is a fraud and uses junk science to earn his pay... Global Warming is a politically motivated hoax period.
@USAneedsaChange The ice cores were from the N. and S. Hemispheres. Mann was proved to have lied. His tree ring data falsified. I'd personally have him tried for fraud. The change the USA needs is for idiots like you to pull their heads out of their butts and stop listening to socialist propaganda. Science has rule, and Mann violated every one of them. Fact
@fishinwflies Fact? His data is available both via Nature and from his personal server at the university of Virginia. No, what is needed is for USA to WAKE the f*ck up and catch up to the rest of the World and not live on achievements from WW2 and the 50s! Global warming is real and the whole World knows it! The richest country in the World should have been the FIRST country to act, not the last! Dude, what do you know about science? Learn REAL facts, not BS from Alex Jones or who ever...
@fishinwflies We should have you and others who attack Mann prosecuted for slander instead + jail all those who have made documented death threats to him. Sick!
@USAneedsaChange Slander involves accusing somebody of things falesly and there needs to be damages shown. Mann's false data has been proved therefore there is no slander. He has incrued no damages and therefore has no case against anyone for any reason whatsoever. It is not a jailable offense to point out the provable fraud Mann has been involved in. We have freedom of speech here and are allowed to point out his fraud. You should worry more about your own country you swiis idiot.
@fishinwflies He has been proven correct several times by REAL experts, he has shared both his data and his algorithm that he used to produce his graph. He has received death threats you jerk! So, yes, it's slander!
"Freedom of speech" and you won't let people post on your wall while you write stupid sh*t on other's... You're a bad joke and you don't even know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland!
Both the Lake Vostok and Epica studies indicate that carbon dioxide levels increase for about 21,000 years and then drop as the earth cools. Human industry accounts for about 6 percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere - which is just .039 percent of the total. The largest greenhouse gas by volume is water vapor and methane isn't even trace element. The last ice age was about 18,000 years ago so we can expect global warming for the next 3,000 years even if we reduced human emissions of CO2 to 0.
The most obvious natural cycle that affects climate is the wobble of the earth's axis.
Ancient societies built temples and pyramids aligned to the stars but soon observed the "fixed stars" of the zodiac (or equivalent) actually "fall back" 1 degree in 72 years (Precession of the Equinoxes). And just as the tilt of the axis gives us summer and winter, the wobble (axial rotation) causes climate change.
Spleenbender, what's laughable is this depiction of data stopping at one of the coolest periods in recent history, 1850-1900. If we use our current 2010 temperatures the line would be off the chart to the right AND NO ONE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS VIDEO CLIP. Youtube is a perfect outlet for this anti-science. When will Fox News pick it up??
@jerbiebarb - Actually, 2010 was cooler than normal. In fact the real data shows that over the past 15 years there has been a slight drop in temperatures. You are the one who is not checking the facts.
@StormCloudsGathering Even if it was cooler, by how much? and does it help us? Do you know how much cooling would be significant? We need to know what causes the cooling. Is it a coincidence of cycles? I like your naive hope in slight short term sfc temp swings, but there's little chance that we'll be rescued by increased reflectivity, albedo, pollutants or variations in the solar flux. Keep praying.
@jerbiebarb - The simple fact is the temperature is lower even though oil consumption has gone up. This completely derails the cause and effect relationship Gore has tried to present. And no I won't be praying for anything. I'm not religious, and I have no fear of a global warming disaster. Fear tactics are not going to work on me.
@StormCloudsGathering What's simple to understand is the trend HASN'T even begun to reverse, and there's no hope now that any natural cooling mechanism can counteract the warming that human activity causes. I'm a meteorologist, I check the longitudinal extent of the planetary waves and the planetary wave number every day at work. There's been no reversal in global energy content. I wish the simple-minded politicos were correct but as you probably know, sfc temps are not what we monitor.
@jerbiebarb - If you look closer at the "hockey stick" you will see that the warming trend started in the mid 1800s, long before man made CO2 could even be considered a factor. Your logic has so many holes in it its laughable.
How much sfc temperature variation was identifiable back then? What was the cause of the blip up? How many mechanisms were interacting? Climatologists require 30 years of data for a trend.
We'll know who's right in 1 or 2 decades. If the trend returns to the averages of the early 1900s the theory will be falsified. I can't see how it could, but I'm surprised and wrong every week forecasting tropospheric disturbances.
Hey spleenbender there are hundreds of peer reviewed articles that state that the MWP was global, including ALL the ice core records. Your AGW theory is so falsified that it has mor holes than swiss cheese. Even Phil Jones is unwilling to say that the MWP was only in Europe. Typical junk science B.S. on your part. The IPCC and the CRU's credibility has been impeached and they are unreliable. Maybe we should add MWP-gate to the list you brain dead green zombie!
Was any medieval warming caused by humans?, was the recovery from the warming opposed by human activity? Of course not. It's irrelevant. Use your head.
Medieval warming period was determined from data only obtained in Europe. The warming period is virtually erased when global samples in that period are factored in. This is a non-issue.
@spleenblender He's just showing temperature data ending in 1900. We know that was a cold half century. But then 38 seconds in, he says the MWP was much warmer than what we're experiencing now. Where is the temperature data for "what we're experiencing now"? What would the chart look like if he showed recent data??
@323157 From Dr Robert Mulvaney " what we already suspected, that climate at the very long timescale is driven by temperature increases brought about by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun which warms up the deep ocean and that this in turn releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which amplifies the temperature increase."
A feedback loop. Once the ocean's ability to hold carbon normalizes with changing temperatures it stabilizes. Same as we're predicting now kind of.
Nice try, here is Phil Jones' exact quote (in 2 comments because the length)
"[t]here is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was global in extent or not ... [f]or it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions."
@323157 "We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."
@323157 He's saying there isn't evidence to show the medieval warming period wasn't a localized event, and the few datasets we have outside that region indicate it is not. It isn't conclusive by any measure, but essentially trying to use this graph as a real attack on AGW theory is laughable and aimed at the ignorant.
Nice try yourself- look at your own quote ffs. We know that one set of data shows a warming, but for it to be concluded as global you would need the second set to be consistent as well. Like I said, the global samples are incomplete (lacking southern hem), and so your statement 'The warming period is virtually erased when global samples in that period are factored in' is evidently nonsense.
I think you need to reevaluate your critical thinking skills. The MWP is used only as evidence to falsify AGW, however by your own admission it isn't complete, so it can't be used as a logical attack against AGW. Furthermore, the little evidence we DO have for other regions in this time period as well as everything we know about thermodynamics in climate theory indicates that it was a localized event. I'm not using it as positive evidence but discarding it as negative evidence, there is a diff.
The subject of climate change, is scientifically complex.
Therefore to make a decision about it requires understanding. That understanding requires knowledge. That knowledge comes from the science.
Hence my question.
The problem is that the science is often misrepresented in the media [TV, newspapers & etc.] and websites vary hugely. There is a huge denial industry funded by vested interests that is dedicated to confusing the public about the science.
Temperature is not as much the issue as carbon in the atmosphere. The million dollar question seems to be if there is a connection to that and temp. Temp has many variables and carbon (according to most climatologists) is a variable. Whether global warming is related or not, our burning of fossil fuels does pollute the atmosphere which leads to many issues like ocean acidification bleaching coral. We have to push to get beyond burning stuff to meet the energy needs of 7 billion humans.
I can't comment exactly, being a bored student with too much time. However, the second graph you present, shows a medieval warm period much larger than many others of a similar nature. Depending on the climate proxy you use, the medieval warm period varies greatly. Could you possibly have selected a graph that supports your argument?
A little elucidation: CO2 is only responsible for a few percent of the greenhouse effect, most of which is due to water. The model postulated by the hocky-stickers assumes that a little extra CO2-induced warmth will increase atmospheric water and it this which will cause a run-away greenhouse effect. Without arguing the details--this is a very thin reed, particularly in view of the unequivocal evidence that in the recent past the world has been a lot warmer with no such run-away.
Even before humans many mechanisms caused warming. CO2 was released more rapidly and contributed to the warm episodes. We see currently that as temps are rising blizzards will be more frequent with more intense parameters due to the latitudinal amplification of long waves and the abundance of H20 in the air.
Weather is different then climate. Green house gases help to keep the whole Earth warmer, but you won't feel the effect right away. I'm not sure if you know this, but the ground is not the only heat sink on Earth, their is the ocean, and the atmosphere it self.
The seas are by far the biggest heatsink, taking hundreds of years to cool or warm, suggesting any current warming probably started a very long time ago, long before man's CO2 release. Yes, climate is different from weather, but climate is merely weather on a macro scale, same as "society" is made of individuals. If we are to look at large scales, try hundreds of thousands of years, where our "warming" is very minor indeed. Oh, and CO2 lags behind temp' increases, so hardly a climate driver
In the morning cloudless days are colder :). Try to invert your way of thinking. Heat can get trapped between the clouds and the earth. But your way of thinking is right too, just wanted to comment :P
Yep, I now live on Borneo, very humid and hot due to high sun (right on the equator) plus a lot of cloud - but that's low cloud. Higher clouds reflect heat out before it can get trapped. Bottom line, the computer models do not, and probably never will be able to, accurately model water vapor and cloud formation, let alone height, density and coloration. These bozos are making it up as they go along, and been caught at it too - and yet still deman we believe their faux 'consensus'? One word - No.
The relationship between weather and water vapor is complex. E.g., clouds reflect sunlight, but also prevent heat from being radiated from tthe ground into space. The balance may depend upon the relative cloudiness of day, as opposed to night. Further, condensation of water vapor releases energy. This is why the dew point generally sets the low for the day. So cloud formation releases energy that may be radiated into space or back to the ground.
My point was, if warmer climate causes a run-away greenhous effect due to increasingwater vapor, why is there no evidence for this happening the past? Unless you deny the medieval warm period, etc. For which there is ample evidence.
Again,, the relationship between water vapor and temperature is not simple.
@Rotpig You probably wanted an explanation for my comment? I find it a waste of time to educate people against their will So I'll leave it at just my opinion. Sorry.
Look, I have some basic understanding of science, having taken a lot of time in it, and I can't really figure out how showing temp proxies from the past being completely in-line with the present is "fooling oneself".
This is the most disingenuous video I've seen about AGW. Even the Creationists don't try to get away with something like this, because they know how badly it paints them.
This vid shows 100Y, yes. Show me the recent temp data which showing warming significant in light of this data to make me alarmed.
And I don't want Mann or Briffa. You'd better make your crap difficult to debunk. I'm really tied of this shit. Find me a non-tainted-by-CRU study showing we're headed off some kind of cliff.
CRU = Climate Research Unit of East Anglia = Ground Zero for Climategate.
This is where the Hockey Stick Fraud was given life after birth. This is where the uncertainty of real science turned into the political: "the science is settled".
If you don't know what CRU is then you have no business arguing these points.
There is no Climategate is just a big misunderstanding. Those scientists just have there own lingo for things, this is no way so big conspiracy to charge people for green technology or something.
Just look up Climategate on Wikipedia, for some reason Youtube isn't letting me post the link.
So you've been bought in by the bullshit... I don't hate you, but pity you. You are so misinformed...
I am a PhD in my field. I never talk about "hiding" something or conspire with other reviewers to kill a paper. The paper review process uncovered is, particularly, horrifying.
I have seen the tree ring data from Mann and Briffa not tracking modern measurements and them taking efforts to hide it. This is fraud.
But the politician's brief covers it up. Tell me why?
The thing about PhD's is that you don't really need then in the end.
Don't believe me. I'll respect you more for it.
Mann and Briffa Hockey sticks are frauds in part because they are massaged to match temperatures in recent times. This was not an intended fraud (by some) of the original teams, but made it into the the report for policymakers without substantial comment.
The "hockey stick" you probably know is from Mann. He tried to do statistical analysis from every proxy data he had to find a correlation to temperature. He took tree ring data and others and used statistical processing against temperature records to see what correlation there was.
He published the hockey stick as a result. It blew minds.
... until some guy showed that you could put (pink noise) random data into it and get the same result).
Even so, CRU and Briffa, who had previously been a skeptic, put out a corresponding conclusion. The proxy data only showed warming in this mid century, then COOLING in the last 30 years, but what's a huge flaw in methodology amongst friends? So he just used the same "trick" as Mann to make the last half of the century appear to match warming land temperature records exactly even while his proxy (and Mann's) showed cooling. Do you see now why I question?
> Isn't the "cooling in the last 30 years" from tree ring data or something?
Good question. Other proxies do not show this (they generally show warming). But those other proxies do not show the hockey stick. This the problem for CRU and for alarmists.
Most importantly, other proxies show that recent variations are not outside of historical values.
They show that we started measuring temperatures when the earth was at a historical cold point. So "warming" was inevitable.
"They show that we started measuring temperatures when the earth was at a historical cold point. So "warming" was inevitable."
Of course, I'm sure no one will doubt this. But the main point is the speed at which the Earth is warming. The latest hockey stick I've seen showed the fastest warming in thousands of years.
Can you explain more clearly why the hockey stick data is fraud? I'm getting lost in some of the lingo your using. Such as "proxy". And before you talked about pink nois
We have only been measuring the temps directly for ~100 years, and badly at that. Mostly measured in cities with heat island effects.
So proxies (indirect measurements) are used. The width of tree rings or the chemical composition of an ice floe. The tree ring proxy of CRU does not agree with the direct measurements (urban island effected) measurements of CRU. So they fudged it and gave it to the politicians
Now hold on. A proxy is exactly as you said, an indirect measurement. Is the correlation between temp and tree ring even that conclusive? If it isn't and if it doesn't match the direct measurements wouldn't why is that fraud? The correlation needs to be proven first.
Why does it matter so much that the temperatures are taken from heat islands? Won't temperature change over time still be represented properly?
Pink noise a random noise which has a statistical property something like a blind guy playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. You don''t know where he's going, but you know where he's been.
I will need to describe correlations as well, although I am tired and will do it badly. Sports analogy: Suppose the left fielder hits 2X better against lefties than righties. Then you can find this out be measuring his at bats enough times. Assuming a whole lot of things...
Suppose I *didn't* have a PhD? You have rebutted exactly 0 arguments.
Can you use Mann's method to generate a hockey stick out of pink noise inputs or not? Is Briffa's data skewed by the small sample size, including one particularly aberrant tree ring record or not? Do the CRU/Mann reconstructions predict modern temps or do they deviate from them?
'We have only been measuring the temps directly for ~100 years, and badly at that. Mostly measured in cities with heat island effects.' - You clearly just didn't inform yourself!
My argument is that from your posts, there is zero evidence of your possessing any ability in critical thinking, or researching the subject, before drawing a conclusion. You have swallowed the lies, hook, line & sinker.
But if you had a PhD, you wouldn't need me to explain that, would you?
Have you seen non-urban temp records from the last 100 years? Take a random rural temp record in north america and just look at it. See if you can see a hockey stick.
Even the *very few* records which go back further than 100 years, those not in urban areas do *not* show the hockey stick.
Let's try this: Can you explain to an ignoramus like me why YOU believe there is dangerous AWG? What is the evidence, who measured it, and how was the data processed?
From tinyurl com/ycnovk7 Fig. 2 it can be seen that at no time in the past 88 ky has CO2 been higher than 300 ppmv. When it has been that high temperatures were ~4 ºC warmer than pre-industrial. Tripati et al. tinyurl com/yeb4zrf suggest There's good reason to suggest that when CO2 levels were this high, temperatures were ~3 to 6°C warmer and sea level 25 to 40 metres / 80 to 130 feet higher than present.
You can Google- WHAT THE STATIONS SAY . In the first link, there is a clickable map of many of the stations. Try the Antarctica map for temps without UHI. The Data is in graph form.
Yeah, I used to cite these, but since Daly passed on they stopped getting updated. So the data exists, but is harder to find online.
Even this data shows a slow, steady increase. This is not unexpected since we are coming out of the little ice age. The fact that temp rise has been pretty steady over the (limited) duration of the measurements available is pretty clear indication that CO2 is not the principle driving factor.
But religious zealots never let facts get in the way.
I think the terminology needs to be set straight. Global warming was a term used more than 20 years ago by greenies regarding pollution. Climate change is a fact, it happens, it always will with or without us. Anthropogenic global warming is mankind's impact, which is there but barely noticeable in the natural noise.
Extra CO2 in the atmosphere follows a logarithmic scale. Consecutive doubling has almost no effect except to make vegetation grow faster. An ice age is the biggest problem.
jerbiebarb: The Earth will outlive us. Don't be so conceded to think that we have a huge effect. On the whole global scale we are just a tiny little gnat. And it's been "warmer" than this. They found viking farms on Greenland that are coming from under the damn ice. Look past the damn brainwashing, because that is what is going on. Just look what happens when a scientist has opposing views from the climate religion. They get their funding taken away. Go figure!
When we add billions of tons of pollution to the atmosphere what the hell do you think is going to happen? We add about 5.5 GtC every year, and this number increases.
You think the Earth is so simple, that nothing we do can have an impact? Jesus if we launched enough nukes we could end life as we know it. We could turn this into Venus.
CO2 is not a pollutant, in fact all life on Earth is carbon-based. Would you prefer a cold dead planet? When we add billions of dollars to fund climate change research, what the hell do you think is gonna happen? That's right, we get "climate change!!!", as though that's something new? Keep your socialist taxation and enforced poverty to yourself and we can remain friends. Keep pushing this bullshit while trying to force others to live like underfed vegetarians and we aint.
Yeah I kow all living stuff on earth is carbon based... but does that mean too much CO2 is okay? If we out reach the capicity of the trees and plants... ai that hurts pretty much for the enviremont doesn't it? But beside that, what is your idea for blocking floods or a second Katrina like storm, which will get more frequent if it get's warmer. (ocean temp. > 26 celc. -> hurricane. Where does the government gets the money from to repair the dammage, your wallets.
How do we even know what too much is? We DO know that increasing CO2 increase the abundance of plant (and thus animal) life. Most of Europe used to be forest - where'd the CO2 come from? Where'd it go? Seems to me we're just releasing again what used to be there - and a very tiny rate compared to what nature can do all by itself. As for hurricanes, there's no proof of any significant change, in fact we're in a mild period - only that so many live close to the coast now makes it dramatic.
You are right about now, with the hurricanes. But water is getting very slow warmer, so it will take some years before it will get above the 26. And your statement that it's a mild period is right. But now watch the video, you will see that we are in a relative cold period if you compare it with a few 100 years ago, so ocean temps were a few 100 years ago higher than now. That shows why we are in a mild period of hurricanes. So it's very possible that there will be an increase in storms if >temp
Back @ Sal' - Venus, as well as being closer to the sun, has an atmosphere almost 100 x as dense as Earth, most of which is CO2. Compare that to Earth's CO2 which is less than 1% (a lot less) of our atmosphere. Mankind's contribution to that piddling amount is tiny in itself. We could double or halve our CO2 release and it's debatable if the planet would notice - and would probably have to wait a few thousand years to find out. The idea we affect climate is doubtful, that we control it is farce
'venus is closer to the sun than earth', but Mercury is closer than Venus, yet Venus is hotter than Mercury!
Mercury: The temperature on the planet may reach 840 degrees F (450 degrees C) during the day. But at night, the temperature may drop as low as -275 degrees F (-170 degrees C)
Venus: However, the temperature of the planet's surface is about 870 degrees F (465 degrees C), higher than that of any other planet and hotter than most ovens
Thanks for that info. I never though that Mercury would actually be colder than Venus.
It just goes to show that even to a global warming 'supporter' (I don't support the warming of the Earth) the effects of green house gases on the planet Venus were not yet completely realized.
I don't recommend either Venus or Mercury for holidays!
From memory of a BBC TV programme
When the Russians were making a follow-up Venus probe, they subjected the probe to the prevailing atmospheric conditions and after the test, the only things remaining were the lenses. The rest of the probe had disappeared!
'The atmospheric pressure is something like 100 times higher than earth... pressure heats things.' This is a bogus claim!
Untrue! The work done to compress gases causes them to heat-up. But on a planet with mixing that would even out
What you're claiming would only be true if a new atmosphere was added to an atmosphere free Venus. The energy for the work of compression being supplied by the loss of potential energy.
The warmth of Venus is due to a powerful greenhouse effect!
> The warmth of Venus is due to a powerful greenhouse effect!
Your user name is well chosen. Your "truth" is somewhat false. Venus is close to the sun and so also gets 2X the radiation from the sun that the earth does. We both radiate into ~
3K (basically zero). The temp is also 2X. Do the heat balance.
But the whole "greenhouse death" theory does make a good scare story for the kiddies.
bullshit. million year old glaciers are disappearing in a few generations. idiot!
greatkeyboardwarrior 2 months ago
Lots of juicy lies here. But the real science is out there, and the real global warming and hockey stick.
winterstellar 4 months ago
Complete misrepresentation of the data. Good job embarrassing yourself!
saucepile 4 months ago
Complete hogwash WITF do you get your data??? And why should I accept your sources as the oracle of truth???
skisheavenly 4 months ago
Good on you, greenman3610.
Keep up the good work!
TheMrSirCharles 10 months ago
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
greenman3610 1 year ago 4
@greenman3610 Explain how Greenland's temperatures of today are an issue, when they are only the average temp in Greenland over the last 10,000 years?
MrOTLChamp 3 weeks ago
@MrOTLChamp
not sure how you mean this.
critical value is not so much Greenland temp, but ocean heat content. As ocean currents bring more heat in contact with the leading edges of glaciers and ice sheets, melting is increasing dramatically.
watch?v=yHrVOnLKjuQ
greenman3610 3 weeks ago
@greenman3610 Not sure how tell you this. But your video again fails to answer the question. But, I'm not surprised, you seem to answer everything with a diversion. The fact still remains that the temperatures of today in Greenland are only the average temps over the last 10,000yrs. All other ice cores, from either Antarctica and the Arctic clearly show similar warming. So, there is noway, Mann hockey stick has any credibility, and there is nothing unprecedented about last decades temps.
MrOTLChamp 3 weeks ago
Petit et al is wrong as well. It does not matter how many times you say something that it wrong. At the end of the day it is still wrong, Do you understand nothing of science?
fishinwflies 1 year ago
In science you can never prove anything. You can only disprove it. Einstien said "There are no number of experiments that can prove me right. It only takes one to prove me wrong." It is bad science to call it settled science, or to say there is a concencus. The hickey stick was disproved using Mann's original data which was won in an FOI lawsuit, Mann fought for more than 5 years. He fought it because he knew it was wrong. People who are right don't hide data. They don't lie, and aren't Mann.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies You are dead wrong about Mann's hockey stick being disproved...And NO Mann did not fight FOI for 5 years & NO his own data did not disprove him! LOL! You really need to read the science the climate scientist do & stop allowing yourself to be used as a fool by the Professional Denialist! And YES there most certainly is a CONSENSUS among 97% of climate scientist!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
As for what I know about science, I worked in Paleontology and know that it has been much warmer than now throughout most of Earth's history. I know that increases in CO2 lag increases in temperature by 800 years, so the basis of AGW is flawed. I studied paleoclimatology. I know the green movement is bankrupting your country. I know you are the one who needs to wake up. I know his data was cherry picked and was shown to be falsified after a FOI lawsuit. Not to mention climategate e-mails
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies Go study the paper which have the graph where CO2 lags the temperature, it's made by "petit et al"(just google that term). You will find that that very study shows just how powerful CO2 really is! Even though the CO2 lags! So the basis is still there. Sweden is doing fine and we have a CO2-tax AND healthcare numb nuts. Those e-mails have been cleared of wrong-doing over and over by experts, there was no "climategate" except that the hackers should be prosecuted.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange So what you are saying is that CO2 is so powerful it can increase heat Before it exists? You are so powerful I know you are wrong before you speak.. Say, you are right. Cause can lag effect. Hey there it is again! You are already wrong and yuo have not typed a word yet. I guess I have to take it all back. CO2 can time travel. Gee who knew? Idiot.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies come on, you're 55 years old and you have studied hard so you can read "petit et al" for yourself and see. Their study is the source of the graph your talking about so look it up. What they found was that CO2 amplifies a small forcing so that the small forcing has a much greater effect than it otherwise would have had.
The CO2 in our atmosphere keeps us 30 degrees(C) warmer than without it. yes, it has been warmer in a very distant past, but the plates were in other places then.
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
analyzing the ice in greenland has almost nothing to do with the rest of the world
zeezagon 1 year ago
this is the most powerful video of all. thank you. It really makes all the libtard's and gore's brains look scientifically microscopic.
RobAndrew1970 1 year ago
Thank you for finally telling the truth, an "Inconvenient" one, perhaps?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh help me I'm burning up oh no!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SvenStadt 1 year ago
Congratulations you've proven nothing as you've only used data from 2 places. Why is the global part of global warming so hard for people to understand?
TrueMetis 1 year ago
It must be some science experiment to see how gullible I am. This goes down the drain!
fewmetsiam4u 1 year ago
It's nice to see such critical comment. Most comments below echo exactly what I thought when I watched this
It's a nastily-misleading piece of work, reminiscent of 9-11 & chemtrails. (Spits)
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
One ice core from one spot on the surface of the world - well, gee that must be representative.
Can I infer from the fact that at 15:50 local time in London, looking out my window, I see it is daytime, that it must be daytime in New Zealand as well.
leorklier 1 year ago
Wow. I guess the fact that it has been both warmer and cooler in the past means that man can not affect climate via increased greenhouse gases in the present. What a profound argument. And this all coming from the genius non-climatologist Watts.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
What a misinformed video. No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. REFERENCES: 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ||| 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68
wyrwich 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. REFERENCES: 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ||| 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68
wyrwich 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ; 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68.
wyrwich 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. 1. Julie Brigham-Grette et al. (September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87 (36). ; 2. DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68.
wyrwich 1 year ago
People with brains, note how the first graph ends somewhere after 1900, while the second graph ends somewhere before 1900.
This is a blatant attempt at deception: DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THIS POSTER.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 "people with brains" Actually you're wrong look at it a little more carefully. It is the same.
umadumLib 1 year ago
Was Ice core data used in the original production of the "Hockey Stick" curve? If not, this is certainly interesting, but not all that relevant. One has to see how the various statistics were aggregated. Personally, I think political and business lobbying pressure caused them to slap together their data, neglecting the job of properly interpreting it or the aggregates they produced.
abskebabs 1 year ago
@abskebabs
Michael Mann's original hockey stick graph was created using tree ring data and rigged computer code. The computer code was leaked in the CLlMATEGATE emails.
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
Go to wikipedia and see the graph yourself. 100% accurate. We are headed for an Ice age. It shows we are warmer today but alot colder than 1500 to 2000 years ago.
SMCAREY 1 year ago
Wow! How wrong can you possibly make a video? There is NOTHING accurate about any of these graphs. All indications are that we are warmer today that the planet has been over the past million years. Potentially several million years. And we are headed into even warmer territory very very quickly.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
These graphs were taken from Greenland ice cores, and show the temperature record for hundreds of thousands of years. What are you basing your information from?...the IPCC which used Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick based on tree ring data and rigged computer code? (as exposed in the CLlMATEGATE emails)
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift 1) Mann's work has been reviewed by several scientific bodies and been completely vindicated.
2) Nearly a dozen other groups have tried to reproduce Mann's work and got nearly the exact same result as Mann.
3) Three independent bodies have reviewed the emails and shown nothing is there.
4) These graphs only represent ONE ice core series, where there are many more than have to be combined.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift The other problem here is that they include references at the end but they don't reference the references. (That's an immediate fail if you present something like this in school.)
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift I want you to carefully look at the first couple of graphs and tell me when the data stops. Rough guess? Maybe 1910, right? Then please note the exact wording of the caption in the first chart. "Greenlandic ice cores show *A* hockey stick uptick SIMILAR to Mann's work in Al Gore's movie."
.
This is NOT Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. The local central Greenland ice core data shows a hockey stick in the 1800's. Now go look at Michael Mann's graphs.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift Mann's graph clearly shows warming starting about at where the graph ends in the chart presented here and shows the instrumental record after that.
.
These charts clearly OMIT any instrumental data in order to obfuscate any relationship to current warming. If you calibrated the current instrumental record and amended it onto all these graphs it would be completely off the top of the screen.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift On top of all that, Michael Mann's work relies a very wide range of data from numerous locations around the globe. Off the top of my head I believe it was something like 250 data sets. The charts represented here are ONE data set from one location.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
These graphs go back hundreds of thousands of years, Mann's graph omits the last 10 years of cooling (hide the decline) and stops short of the Medieval Warm period, Mann is the one OMITTING data. Mann's hockey stick is also based on tree ring data that was ALTERED using rigged computer code (the code was exposed in the CLlMATEGATE emails).
Mann's data is also based on temperature stations located near heat sources like air vents and black concrete.
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift No it does NOT omit 10 years of cooling. The tree ring divergence problem is discussed at length in several peer reviewed papers. It refers to one data series from northern european tree rings that diverge from the actual temperature record. One set out of the 250 sets of data.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift And now you're going on about UHI effect. (Urban heat island) This has also been conclusively shown to be a faulty argument. Even when a very select group of stations is used (noted by Anthony Watts to be "good" or "best") the result is unchanged. On top of that the ground based temperature station records agree perfectly with all for satellite based temperature records.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
That is clearly untrue and can be debunked using the scientific method. Black asphalt attracts more heat than earth ground and all it takes is a simple thermometre to read the difference. Also temperature monitoring stations near air vents will not give you the same reading as one NOT next to one. You are following talking points which are so far from the truth and nothing more than government paid for propaganda. Go look how much Mr. Mann got paid last year and by whom.
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift You obviously have not researched this issue beyond WUWT. The station record trends were tested because of Watts' claims and shown to be accurate.
.
If you didn't notice Dr Mann is a University professor at Penn State. He receives a normal professor's salary.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Google:
Wall Street Journal
Michael Mann receives $2.4 million Climate Stimulus
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift To say that Mann received $2.4M in stimulus money is intellectually bereft. To think that HE, personally, received this money is nothing short of absurd. Like every other scientist out there, he applies for grants to fund the work that his group does. Mann receives his professor's salary. Grant money goes to pay for the work. Not him personally.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Information regarding UHI effect...
publicaffairs. noaa. gov/releases2003/sep03/noaa03107. html
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift Dear pair of dimes, I'de rather look at your funding; past, present and future than check out a decent scientist who is trying to save all of all of our asses.
fewmetsiam4u 1 year ago
@fewmetsiam4u
I'm not funded by anyone.
The scientists pushing human caused global warming are funded out the ass with corrupt government scam money.
Michael Mann the creeator of the faked hockey stick graph got $22 million in funding from the government.
It's all about money, Obama is even invested in the Chicago carbon trading exchange. He profits from his policies and that is a conflict of interest.
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift IM BEGGING YOU TO GO TAKE A PHYSICS CLASS, SERIOUSLY, ANY PHYSICS CLASS.
zeezagon 1 year ago
@TheParadigmShift Mann, who you speak so bad about, tried to see what the temperature was on all of the Earth, not just on Greenland or northern Europe. He has done a much more thorough job than you who just put together a youtube-video of that Watts-site...
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange I didn't put this video together but kudos to whoever did. Mann created the famous "hockey stick" graph used to "prove" AGW but climategate proved he hoaxed the graph using rigged computer code. He told the computer to create the hockey stick shape intentionally regardless of the input data. Mann is a fraud and uses junk science to earn his pay... Global Warming is a politically motivated hoax period.
TheParadigmShift 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange The ice cores were from the N. and S. Hemispheres. Mann was proved to have lied. His tree ring data falsified. I'd personally have him tried for fraud. The change the USA needs is for idiots like you to pull their heads out of their butts and stop listening to socialist propaganda. Science has rule, and Mann violated every one of them. Fact
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies Fact? His data is available both via Nature and from his personal server at the university of Virginia. No, what is needed is for USA to WAKE the f*ck up and catch up to the rest of the World and not live on achievements from WW2 and the 50s! Global warming is real and the whole World knows it! The richest country in the World should have been the FIRST country to act, not the last! Dude, what do you know about science? Learn REAL facts, not BS from Alex Jones or who ever...
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@fishinwflies We should have you and others who attack Mann prosecuted for slander instead + jail all those who have made documented death threats to him. Sick!
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
@USAneedsaChange Slander involves accusing somebody of things falesly and there needs to be damages shown. Mann's false data has been proved therefore there is no slander. He has incrued no damages and therefore has no case against anyone for any reason whatsoever. It is not a jailable offense to point out the provable fraud Mann has been involved in. We have freedom of speech here and are allowed to point out his fraud. You should worry more about your own country you swiis idiot.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies He has been proven correct several times by REAL experts, he has shared both his data and his algorithm that he used to produce his graph. He has received death threats you jerk! So, yes, it's slander!
"Freedom of speech" and you won't let people post on your wall while you write stupid sh*t on other's... You're a bad joke and you don't even know the difference between Sweden and Switzerland!
USAneedsaChange 1 year ago
AGW theory is like throwing a pebble into the sea and then claiming it causes hurricanes.
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
Both the Lake Vostok and Epica studies indicate that carbon dioxide levels increase for about 21,000 years and then drop as the earth cools. Human industry accounts for about 6 percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere - which is just .039 percent of the total. The largest greenhouse gas by volume is water vapor and methane isn't even trace element. The last ice age was about 18,000 years ago so we can expect global warming for the next 3,000 years even if we reduced human emissions of CO2 to 0.
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
The most obvious natural cycle that affects climate is the wobble of the earth's axis.
Ancient societies built temples and pyramids aligned to the stars but soon observed the "fixed stars" of the zodiac (or equivalent) actually "fall back" 1 degree in 72 years (Precession of the Equinoxes). And just as the tilt of the axis gives us summer and winter, the wobble (axial rotation) causes climate change.
Even NASA knows this but ignores it.
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
Spleenbender, what's laughable is this depiction of data stopping at one of the coolest periods in recent history, 1850-1900. If we use our current 2010 temperatures the line would be off the chart to the right AND NO ONE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS VIDEO CLIP. Youtube is a perfect outlet for this anti-science. When will Fox News pick it up??
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
jerbiebarb, u rock. FOx news is bullshit.
1234512345956 2 years ago
@jerbiebarb - Actually, 2010 was cooler than normal. In fact the real data shows that over the past 15 years there has been a slight drop in temperatures. You are the one who is not checking the facts.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
@StormCloudsGathering Even if it was cooler, by how much? and does it help us? Do you know how much cooling would be significant? We need to know what causes the cooling. Is it a coincidence of cycles? I like your naive hope in slight short term sfc temp swings, but there's little chance that we'll be rescued by increased reflectivity, albedo, pollutants or variations in the solar flux. Keep praying.
jerbiebarb 1 year ago
@jerbiebarb - The simple fact is the temperature is lower even though oil consumption has gone up. This completely derails the cause and effect relationship Gore has tried to present. And no I won't be praying for anything. I'm not religious, and I have no fear of a global warming disaster. Fear tactics are not going to work on me.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
@StormCloudsGathering What's simple to understand is the trend HASN'T even begun to reverse, and there's no hope now that any natural cooling mechanism can counteract the warming that human activity causes. I'm a meteorologist, I check the longitudinal extent of the planetary waves and the planetary wave number every day at work. There's been no reversal in global energy content. I wish the simple-minded politicos were correct but as you probably know, sfc temps are not what we monitor.
jerbiebarb 1 year ago
@jerbiebarb - If you look closer at the "hockey stick" you will see that the warming trend started in the mid 1800s, long before man made CO2 could even be considered a factor. Your logic has so many holes in it its laughable.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
@StormCloudsGathering
How much sfc temperature variation was identifiable back then? What was the cause of the blip up? How many mechanisms were interacting? Climatologists require 30 years of data for a trend.
We'll know who's right in 1 or 2 decades. If the trend returns to the averages of the early 1900s the theory will be falsified. I can't see how it could, but I'm surprised and wrong every week forecasting tropospheric disturbances.
jerbiebarb 1 year ago
@jerbiebarb - I actually made a video inspired by our exchange here watch?v=dLLSipGfe04 This subject is too complicated to convey through comments.
StormCloudsGathering 1 year ago
Hey spleenbender there are hundreds of peer reviewed articles that state that the MWP was global, including ALL the ice core records. Your AGW theory is so falsified that it has mor holes than swiss cheese. Even Phil Jones is unwilling to say that the MWP was only in Europe. Typical junk science B.S. on your part. The IPCC and the CRU's credibility has been impeached and they are unreliable. Maybe we should add MWP-gate to the list you brain dead green zombie!
eddyinsantarosa 2 years ago
The MWP wasn't caused by humans and the recovery wasn't blocked by human activity. The MWP is totally irrelevant to AGW.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
You're deluded and paranoid.
spleenblender 2 years ago
@eddyinsantarosa
Was any medieval warming caused by humans?, was the recovery from the warming opposed by human activity? Of course not. It's irrelevant. Use your head.
jerbiebarb 1 year ago
Medieval warming period was determined from data only obtained in Europe. The warming period is virtually erased when global samples in that period are factored in. This is a non-issue.
spleenblender 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spleenblender He's just showing temperature data ending in 1900. We know that was a cold half century. But then 38 seconds in, he says the MWP was much warmer than what we're experiencing now. Where is the temperature data for "what we're experiencing now"? What would the chart look like if he showed recent data??
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
So ignore the MWP for a second. Why did temperature rise so significantly around 10,000 BC?
323157 2 years ago
@323157 From Dr Robert Mulvaney " what we already suspected, that climate at the very long timescale is driven by temperature increases brought about by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun which warms up the deep ocean and that this in turn releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which amplifies the temperature increase."
A feedback loop. Once the ocean's ability to hold carbon normalizes with changing temperatures it stabilizes. Same as we're predicting now kind of.
spleenblender 2 years ago
Not true, Phil Jones himself stated that global samples are too poor to make a reasonable assesment, so this is an outright lie.
323157 2 years ago
Nice try, here is Phil Jones' exact quote (in 2 comments because the length)
"[t]here is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was global in extent or not ... [f]or it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions."
spleenblender 2 years ago
@323157 "We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."
spleenblender 2 years ago
@323157 He's saying there isn't evidence to show the medieval warming period wasn't a localized event, and the few datasets we have outside that region indicate it is not. It isn't conclusive by any measure, but essentially trying to use this graph as a real attack on AGW theory is laughable and aimed at the ignorant.
spleenblender 2 years ago
Nice try yourself- look at your own quote ffs. We know that one set of data shows a warming, but for it to be concluded as global you would need the second set to be consistent as well. Like I said, the global samples are incomplete (lacking southern hem), and so your statement 'The warming period is virtually erased when global samples in that period are factored in' is evidently nonsense.
323157 2 years ago
I think you need to reevaluate your critical thinking skills. The MWP is used only as evidence to falsify AGW, however by your own admission it isn't complete, so it can't be used as a logical attack against AGW. Furthermore, the little evidence we DO have for other regions in this time period as well as everything we know about thermodynamics in climate theory indicates that it was a localized event. I'm not using it as positive evidence but discarding it as negative evidence, there is a diff.
spleenblender 2 years ago
WOW!
Petirep 2 years ago
Stop posting messages with data you find by just googling your theme.
Pathetic show of lack of any real knowledge...
thkoutris 2 years ago
Start finding some new way of fooling the public. This video is absolutely correct. Shove it.
12stringsforme 2 years ago
@12stringsforme I never said anything about the video, just the comments!!
I just say make a research, and make up your OWN opinion, don't believe and repeat what you read on a site or see on youtube!!
Don't allow anyone to fool you, it is in your hands!
The system of capitalism or any authoriarian system is based on fooling us!!
Even eleged non goverment organizations like Greenpeace and others have to gain from manipulating you.
JUST THINK FOR YOUR OWN and never shove it!
thkoutris 2 years ago
kababayanC2
The subject of climate change, is scientifically complex.
Therefore to make a decision about it requires understanding. That understanding requires knowledge. That knowledge comes from the science.
Hence my question.
The problem is that the science is often misrepresented in the media [TV, newspapers & etc.] and websites vary hugely. There is a huge denial industry funded by vested interests that is dedicated to confusing the public about the science.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
kababayanC2
The important question is:
where did you get the science?
a) TV
b) websites
c) reading the science, IPCC etc.
d) Newspapers / magazines
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Comment removed
pseudotruth 2 years ago
kababayanC2
Please tell me, were you specially trained to be an idiot, or were you born like it?
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Temperature is not as much the issue as carbon in the atmosphere. The million dollar question seems to be if there is a connection to that and temp. Temp has many variables and carbon (according to most climatologists) is a variable. Whether global warming is related or not, our burning of fossil fuels does pollute the atmosphere which leads to many issues like ocean acidification bleaching coral. We have to push to get beyond burning stuff to meet the energy needs of 7 billion humans.
rizorman 2 years ago
I can't comment exactly, being a bored student with too much time. However, the second graph you present, shows a medieval warm period much larger than many others of a similar nature. Depending on the climate proxy you use, the medieval warm period varies greatly. Could you possibly have selected a graph that supports your argument?
gingerninja28 2 years ago
6 stars
lazomaniac 2 years ago
A little elucidation: CO2 is only responsible for a few percent of the greenhouse effect, most of which is due to water. The model postulated by the hocky-stickers assumes that a little extra CO2-induced warmth will increase atmospheric water and it this which will cause a run-away greenhouse effect. Without arguing the details--this is a very thin reed, particularly in view of the unequivocal evidence that in the recent past the world has been a lot warmer with no such run-away.
sesquiculus 2 years ago
@sesquiculus
Even before humans many mechanisms caused warming. CO2 was released more rapidly and contributed to the warm episodes. We see currently that as temps are rising blizzards will be more frequent with more intense parameters due to the latitudinal amplification of long waves and the abundance of H20 in the air.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
@ jerbiebarb
>... as temps are rising blizzards will be more frequent with more intense ...
Theory or fact? Can you tell me?
What about tropical storms? What is the trend? How does it diverge from historical norms. Do we even KNOW the historical norms?
Do you know what a tropical storm is?
Sorry, last one is a cheap shot...
sdkee 2 years ago
@sesquiculus
How about increased warming, causes increased amount of evaporated water which in turn causes more warming? Is that run-away enough for you?
salbrismind 2 years ago
Salbrismind, how about clouds, that reflect the light and heat back out again? Question, do you feel hotter on cloudy or cloudless days?
Capnwabbit 2 years ago
@Capnwabbit
Weather is different then climate. Green house gases help to keep the whole Earth warmer, but you won't feel the effect right away. I'm not sure if you know this, but the ground is not the only heat sink on Earth, their is the ocean, and the atmosphere it self.
salbrismind 2 years ago
The seas are by far the biggest heatsink, taking hundreds of years to cool or warm, suggesting any current warming probably started a very long time ago, long before man's CO2 release. Yes, climate is different from weather, but climate is merely weather on a macro scale, same as "society" is made of individuals. If we are to look at large scales, try hundreds of thousands of years, where our "warming" is very minor indeed. Oh, and CO2 lags behind temp' increases, so hardly a climate driver
Capnwabbit 2 years ago
In the morning cloudless days are colder :). Try to invert your way of thinking. Heat can get trapped between the clouds and the earth. But your way of thinking is right too, just wanted to comment :P
Iamaforce 2 years ago
Yep, I now live on Borneo, very humid and hot due to high sun (right on the equator) plus a lot of cloud - but that's low cloud. Higher clouds reflect heat out before it can get trapped. Bottom line, the computer models do not, and probably never will be able to, accurately model water vapor and cloud formation, let alone height, density and coloration. These bozos are making it up as they go along, and been caught at it too - and yet still deman we believe their faux 'consensus'? One word - No.
Capnwabbit 2 years ago 2
The relationship between weather and water vapor is complex. E.g., clouds reflect sunlight, but also prevent heat from being radiated from tthe ground into space. The balance may depend upon the relative cloudiness of day, as opposed to night. Further, condensation of water vapor releases energy. This is why the dew point generally sets the low for the day. So cloud formation releases energy that may be radiated into space or back to the ground.
sesquiculus 2 years ago
My point was, if warmer climate causes a run-away greenhous effect due to increasingwater vapor, why is there no evidence for this happening the past? Unless you deny the medieval warm period, etc. For which there is ample evidence.
Again,, the relationship between water vapor and temperature is not simple.
sesquiculus 2 years ago
@sdkee bang on the money dude
agreed with all your pionts 100%
motoxmainia 2 years ago
How to fool yourself with graphs 101.
Im4science 2 years ago
Hmmm?
Rotpig 2 years ago
@Rotpig You probably wanted an explanation for my comment? I find it a waste of time to educate people against their will So I'll leave it at just my opinion. Sorry.
Im4science 2 years ago
@ Im4science
... and your explanation is?...
Look, I have some basic understanding of science, having taken a lot of time in it, and I can't really figure out how showing temp proxies from the past being completely in-line with the present is "fooling oneself".
Maybe you can explain better?
sdkee 2 years ago
Frodofish look at the hockey stick it represents this past 100 years
loukane 2 years ago
Anyone notice the most recent data point from these graphs was 100 years ago...?
lol
Frodofish 2 years ago
@Frodofish
This is the most disingenuous video I've seen about AGW. Even the Creationists don't try to get away with something like this, because they know how badly it paints them.
jerbiebarb 2 years ago
@ jerbiebarb
You seem to fish in shallow waters.
This vid shows 100Y, yes. Show me the recent temp data which showing warming significant in light of this data to make me alarmed.
And I don't want Mann or Briffa. You'd better make your crap difficult to debunk. I'm really tied of this shit. Find me a non-tainted-by-CRU study showing we're headed off some kind of cliff.
sdkee 2 years ago
@sdkee
CRU ?
salbrismind 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
CRU = Climate Research Unit of East Anglia = Ground Zero for Climategate.
This is where the Hockey Stick Fraud was given life after birth. This is where the uncertainty of real science turned into the political: "the science is settled".
If you don't know what CRU is then you have no business arguing these points.
sdkee 2 years ago
@sdkee
There is no Climategate is just a big misunderstanding. Those scientists just have there own lingo for things, this is no way so big conspiracy to charge people for green technology or something.
Just look up Climategate on Wikipedia, for some reason Youtube isn't letting me post the link.
salbrismind 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
So you've been bought in by the bullshit... I don't hate you, but pity you. You are so misinformed...
I am a PhD in my field. I never talk about "hiding" something or conspire with other reviewers to kill a paper. The paper review process uncovered is, particularly, horrifying.
I have seen the tree ring data from Mann and Briffa not tracking modern measurements and them taking efforts to hide it. This is fraud.
But the politician's brief covers it up. Tell me why?
sdkee 2 years ago
@sdkee
Why should I take your word for it? You may not be lying about your PhD but from what I've experienced it doesn't mean much to me.
You say Hockey stick is a fraud, I say it's true. What more is there to discuss?
salbrismind 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
The thing about PhD's is that you don't really need then in the end.
Don't believe me. I'll respect you more for it.
Mann and Briffa Hockey sticks are frauds in part because they are massaged to match temperatures in recent times. This was not an intended fraud (by some) of the original teams, but made it into the the report for policymakers without substantial comment.
More next.
sdkee 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
The "hockey stick" you probably know is from Mann. He tried to do statistical analysis from every proxy data he had to find a correlation to temperature. He took tree ring data and others and used statistical processing against temperature records to see what correlation there was.
He published the hockey stick as a result. It blew minds.
... until some guy showed that you could put (pink noise) random data into it and get the same result).
First flaw.
sdkee 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
Even so, CRU and Briffa, who had previously been a skeptic, put out a corresponding conclusion. The proxy data only showed warming in this mid century, then COOLING in the last 30 years, but what's a huge flaw in methodology amongst friends? So he just used the same "trick" as Mann to make the last half of the century appear to match warming land temperature records exactly even while his proxy (and Mann's) showed cooling. Do you see now why I question?
sdkee 2 years ago
@sdkee
Isn't the "cooling in the last 30 years" from tree ring data or something? Some with questionable correlation to warming?
salbrismind 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
> Isn't the "cooling in the last 30 years" from tree ring data or something?
Good question. Other proxies do not show this (they generally show warming). But those other proxies do not show the hockey stick. This the problem for CRU and for alarmists.
Most importantly, other proxies show that recent variations are not outside of historical values.
They show that we started measuring temperatures when the earth was at a historical cold point. So "warming" was inevitable.
sdkee 2 years ago
@sdkee
"They show that we started measuring temperatures when the earth was at a historical cold point. So "warming" was inevitable."
Of course, I'm sure no one will doubt this. But the main point is the speed at which the Earth is warming. The latest hockey stick I've seen showed the fastest warming in thousands of years.
Can you explain more clearly why the hockey stick data is fraud? I'm getting lost in some of the lingo your using. Such as "proxy". And before you talked about pink nois
salbrismind 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
We have only been measuring the temps directly for ~100 years, and badly at that. Mostly measured in cities with heat island effects.
So proxies (indirect measurements) are used. The width of tree rings or the chemical composition of an ice floe. The tree ring proxy of CRU does not agree with the direct measurements (urban island effected) measurements of CRU. So they fudged it and gave it to the politicians
sdkee 2 years ago
@sdkee
Now hold on. A proxy is exactly as you said, an indirect measurement. Is the correlation between temp and tree ring even that conclusive? If it isn't and if it doesn't match the direct measurements wouldn't why is that fraud? The correlation needs to be proven first.
Why does it matter so much that the temperatures are taken from heat islands? Won't temperature change over time still be represented properly?
salbrismind 2 years ago
@ salbrismin
I am getting very tired, bear with me until the end.
sdkee 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
Pink noise a random noise which has a statistical property something like a blind guy playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. You don''t know where he's going, but you know where he's been.
I will need to describe correlations as well, although I am tired and will do it badly. Sports analogy: Suppose the left fielder hits 2X better against lefties than righties. Then you can find this out be measuring his at bats enough times. Assuming a whole lot of things...
sdkee 2 years ago
@sdkee
I know what a correlation is. But thanks.
salbrismind 2 years ago
@ salbrismind
Youtube limits are getting to me, I'll reply personally
sdkee 2 years ago
sdkee
Another half-wit that claims a PhD.
FYI bullshit doesn't work!
Ignorance and stupidity shine through as always.
If you had brains, it would be obvious. However in your case, the reverse is clear.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
@ pseudotruth
... and your argument is?
Suppose I *didn't* have a PhD? You have rebutted exactly 0 arguments.
Can you use Mann's method to generate a hockey stick out of pink noise inputs or not? Is Briffa's data skewed by the small sample size, including one particularly aberrant tree ring record or not? Do the CRU/Mann reconstructions predict modern temps or do they deviate from them?
sdkee 2 years ago
sdkee
'We have only been measuring the temps directly for ~100 years, and badly at that. Mostly measured in cities with heat island effects.' - You clearly just didn't inform yourself!
My argument is that from your posts, there is zero evidence of your possessing any ability in critical thinking, or researching the subject, before drawing a conclusion. You have swallowed the lies, hook, line & sinker.
But if you had a PhD, you wouldn't need me to explain that, would you?
pseudotruth 2 years ago
@ pseudotruth
Have you seen non-urban temp records from the last 100 years? Take a random rural temp record in north america and just look at it. See if you can see a hockey stick.
Even the *very few* records which go back further than 100 years, those not in urban areas do *not* show the hockey stick.
Let's try this: Can you explain to an ignoramus like me why YOU believe there is dangerous AWG? What is the evidence, who measured it, and how was the data processed?
sdkee 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sdkee
Current CO2 is >380 ppmv
From tinyurl com/ycnovk7 Fig. 2 it can be seen that at no time in the past 88 ky has CO2 been higher than 300 ppmv. When it has been that high temperatures were ~4 ºC warmer than pre-industrial. Tripati et al. tinyurl com/yeb4zrf suggest There's good reason to suggest that when CO2 levels were this high, temperatures were ~3 to 6°C warmer and sea level 25 to 40 metres / 80 to 130 feet higher than present.
cont'd
pseudotruth 2 years ago
sdkee
The threshold of danger is too complex for YT, but 2 ºC plus enhanced CO2 levels on a crowded planet won't be a picnic, 6 ºC is likely to be game over
Uncertainty is no reason for confidence, it is reason for great caution.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
You can Google- WHAT THE STATIONS SAY . In the first link, there is a clickable map of many of the stations. Try the Antarctica map for temps without UHI. The Data is in graph form.
camcheck 2 years ago
@ camcheck
Yeah, I used to cite these, but since Daly passed on they stopped getting updated. So the data exists, but is harder to find online.
Even this data shows a slow, steady increase. This is not unexpected since we are coming out of the little ice age. The fact that temp rise has been pretty steady over the (limited) duration of the measurements available is pretty clear indication that CO2 is not the principle driving factor.
But religious zealots never let facts get in the way.
sdkee 2 years ago
can somebody rescue mehh from my loneliness really bored today
aanijabibi 2 years ago
Thanks for posting the vid! Great work.
mmaier2112 2 years ago
MrOllyK: That was sorta what I was trying to get at with that we have little impact on a global scale.
coolvibe1975 2 years ago
I think the terminology needs to be set straight. Global warming was a term used more than 20 years ago by greenies regarding pollution. Climate change is a fact, it happens, it always will with or without us. Anthropogenic global warming is mankind's impact, which is there but barely noticeable in the natural noise.
Extra CO2 in the atmosphere follows a logarithmic scale. Consecutive doubling has almost no effect except to make vegetation grow faster. An ice age is the biggest problem.
MrOllyK 2 years ago 6
Have any of you bothered to read the data in the first graph? It stops at 1900. That's 109 years ago. You have my pity.
159soup 2 years ago
jerbiebarb: The Earth will outlive us. Don't be so conceded to think that we have a huge effect. On the whole global scale we are just a tiny little gnat. And it's been "warmer" than this. They found viking farms on Greenland that are coming from under the damn ice. Look past the damn brainwashing, because that is what is going on. Just look what happens when a scientist has opposing views from the climate religion. They get their funding taken away. Go figure!
coolvibe1975 2 years ago
When we add billions of tons of pollution to the atmosphere what the hell do you think is going to happen? We add about 5.5 GtC every year, and this number increases.
You think the Earth is so simple, that nothing we do can have an impact? Jesus if we launched enough nukes we could end life as we know it. We could turn this into Venus.
curtisbadour 2 years ago
CO2 is not a pollutant, in fact all life on Earth is carbon-based. Would you prefer a cold dead planet? When we add billions of dollars to fund climate change research, what the hell do you think is gonna happen? That's right, we get "climate change!!!", as though that's something new? Keep your socialist taxation and enforced poverty to yourself and we can remain friends. Keep pushing this bullshit while trying to force others to live like underfed vegetarians and we aint.
Capnwabbit 2 years ago
Yeah I kow all living stuff on earth is carbon based... but does that mean too much CO2 is okay? If we out reach the capicity of the trees and plants... ai that hurts pretty much for the enviremont doesn't it? But beside that, what is your idea for blocking floods or a second Katrina like storm, which will get more frequent if it get's warmer. (ocean temp. > 26 celc. -> hurricane. Where does the government gets the money from to repair the dammage, your wallets.
Prevent is better than repair!
Iamaforce 2 years ago
How do we even know what too much is? We DO know that increasing CO2 increase the abundance of plant (and thus animal) life. Most of Europe used to be forest - where'd the CO2 come from? Where'd it go? Seems to me we're just releasing again what used to be there - and a very tiny rate compared to what nature can do all by itself. As for hurricanes, there's no proof of any significant change, in fact we're in a mild period - only that so many live close to the coast now makes it dramatic.
Capnwabbit 2 years ago
You are right about now, with the hurricanes. But water is getting very slow warmer, so it will take some years before it will get above the 26. And your statement that it's a mild period is right. But now watch the video, you will see that we are in a relative cold period if you compare it with a few 100 years ago, so ocean temps were a few 100 years ago higher than now. That shows why we are in a mild period of hurricanes. So it's very possible that there will be an increase in storms if >temp
Iamaforce 2 years ago
@Capnwabbit
Ask the animals on Venus if they like their 461.85C surface temperature. Guess what it has most of in it's atmosphere? Carbon Dioxide.
salbrismind 2 years ago
Back @ Sal' - Venus, as well as being closer to the sun, has an atmosphere almost 100 x as dense as Earth, most of which is CO2. Compare that to Earth's CO2 which is less than 1% (a lot less) of our atmosphere. Mankind's contribution to that piddling amount is tiny in itself. We could double or halve our CO2 release and it's debatable if the planet would notice - and would probably have to wait a few thousand years to find out. The idea we affect climate is doubtful, that we control it is farce
Capnwabbit 2 years ago 2
@Capnwabbit
Exactly, Venus is the result of a runaway greenhouse affect. Now it's unlivable.
salbrismind 2 years ago
@salbrismind venus is closer to the sun than earth hurp a durp
TelfLad 2 years ago
TelfLad
'venus is closer to the sun than earth', but Mercury is closer than Venus, yet Venus is hotter than Mercury!
Mercury: The temperature on the planet may reach 840 degrees F (450 degrees C) during the day. But at night, the temperature may drop as low as -275 degrees F (-170 degrees C)
Venus: However, the temperature of the planet's surface is about 870 degrees F (465 degrees C), higher than that of any other planet and hotter than most ovens
Source: NASA
Explain that without CO2!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Thanks for that info. I never though that Mercury would actually be colder than Venus.
It just goes to show that even to a global warming 'supporter' (I don't support the warming of the Earth) the effects of green house gases on the planet Venus were not yet completely realized.
curtisbadour 2 years ago
curtisbadour
I don't recommend either Venus or Mercury for holidays!
From memory of a BBC TV programme
When the Russians were making a follow-up Venus probe, they subjected the probe to the prevailing atmospheric conditions and after the test, the only things remaining were the lenses. The rest of the probe had disappeared!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
@pseudotruth
volcanoes, planet composition, atmospheric pressure
TelfLad 2 years ago
TelfLad
So you admit you were wrong!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
@pseudotruth The atmospheric pressure is something like 100 times higher than earth. You know pressure heats things.
TelfLad 2 years ago
TelfLad
'The atmospheric pressure is something like 100 times higher than earth... pressure heats things.' This is a bogus claim!
Untrue! The work done to compress gases causes them to heat-up. But on a planet with mixing that would even out
What you're claiming would only be true if a new atmosphere was added to an atmosphere free Venus. The energy for the work of compression being supplied by the loss of potential energy.
The warmth of Venus is due to a powerful greenhouse effect!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
@ pseudotruth
> The warmth of Venus is due to a powerful greenhouse effect!
Your user name is well chosen. Your "truth" is somewhat false. Venus is close to the sun and so also gets 2X the radiation from the sun that the earth does. We both radiate into ~
3K (basically zero). The temp is also 2X. Do the heat balance.
But the whole "greenhouse death" theory does make a good scare story for the kiddies.
sdkee 2 years ago