Where have all the KKDeniers forecasts gone? This time last year the UK was in for a new ice age!
‘December was the mildest since 2006. Some areas of the UK haven't seen a frost this winter and it's having a startling effect on the plant life. Peter Gibbs has all the details’
Where have all the KKDeniers forecasts gone? This time last year the UK was in for a new ice age!
‘December was the mildest since 2006. Some areas of the UK haven't seen a frost this winter and it's having a startling effect on the plant life. Peter Gibbs has all the details’
It's the sun, stupid. Following the Medieval Warming Period (about the same temps as now), there were a number of solar minimums between 1250 and 1850 (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder & Dalton) that caused the Little Ice Age (LIA). Since the LIA, there haven't been ANY solar minimums, so global temps have risen naturally. The current solar max peaked in 1990 & we seem to be in a new solar minimum, which explains why no warming since 1998. CO2 had NOTHING to do with it. CAGW is dead; see Climategate 2.0
@cthulhu11111111 Get over it. This scientist has put his mouth where the findings lie. This was recorded onto youtube in 2008 and is now 2011. So far has been perfectly accurate. Clearer skies during winter from low Sunspot activity, low atmospheric albedo from dryer air. Especially at night. Sunspot activity still lower than recent norms... The empirical data is endless.
@cthulhu11111111 Your data argues directly with facts. There has been no warmest period of the Earth for over a decade and the last three have seen it plummet. Oceans (Gis) and all.
@cthulhu11111111 Actually you are wrong. 2001 to 2006 then 2009 to 2010, Earlier years are '87, '91 and '95 (approx). Are you attempting to imagine me as a bible basher? lol. I had to burn mine last winter to keep warm!
Bring on this global warming! It's not enough. Far too much CO2 is still trapped and needs releasing.
As goes your graphs, its lower air temp as measured from space. Utterly disproving the greenhouse effect or there would be less return.
Regarding most sunspot CO2 global warming science the dancing Wu-Shu Masters of Washington & Whitehall discovered that not only can you curve space & bend time but you can also warp the laws of solar physics merely by getting tenured scientists to repeat unscientific drivel about magnetic anomalies causing sunspots rather than the other way around & as for the reality of the star beginning to burn it’s iron all you’ve got to do is believe what you’re told & then dance & SHAKE YOUR BOOTY on cue.
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted from CRU
'the myths that the data has been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says the university's vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide... released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html
Archibald is such an ignorant ass. There's at least 3 major errors in the first 20 seconds of this video. anyone who has not researched the subject would be excused for not knowing them, but he - supposedly - has researched this area to at least an amateur level....what a d**k
The first graph is out of date. He should be using newer work, not known to be incorrect graphs from the late 80s. The y-axis on the first graph has fabricated values. It's not true that the MWP was 4C warmer than the little ice age. It's also not true that the MWP was 2 degrees warmer than today. The whole presentation is riddled with errors and out of date science.
@cthulhu11111111 OK, I can accept that, no worries. Is your implication that the MWP didn't happen or do you agree in principal but just protesting against the exact numbers? This is not an attempted ego bashing, I really just try to understand this, promise.
David Archibald is not a real scientist. He is heavily invested in the oil and gas industry. His motivation is to disprove global warming from green house gases so he can keep on making money. He is a professional con artist.
@mymojorisin Let’s see, communists in the UN want to establish a one world government under the auspices of the UN, which would have the power to tax the air we breathe, and their lapdog “scientists” have “proved” that global cooling/global warming/climate change is caused by man… whatever. Do you know what happens to “scientists” who get grants from the UN when their studies contradict the IPCC’s party line? They don’t get any more money.
@mymojorisin That was a brilliant response. Just kidding. The reason nobody pays any attention to you people is because you can't defend your position. As soon as anyone challenges you with common sense or contradictory science, you revert to sophomoric name-calling. You know who else does that? Three year old kids. Oh well, let's drop this argument down to your level... I’m rubber and you’re glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks to you. Poopiehead.
@mymojorisin “You people” are people like you who resort to name calling when someone threatens their fragile belief system, people who often use words like “moron” to project feelings of intellectual inferiority, people who are uneducated but are proud to be ignorant, people whose malformed belief system has been developed using Google, people who are so uninformed that they think Al Gore is smart, people who are clueless about the economic incentives that drive the global warming scam.
LOL Al Gore is a thief and a con artist that, just like Fox News, uses a bit of truth spun with a whole bunch of crap to sell his con game. So it appears that you are clueless again. You are batting 0 for 3, you might want to get an education before you cause your entire team to loose the game.
Actually, BOTH of those facts are true, you know. They have been proven to be true time and time again. There's no need to update a graph when a graph today will show the EXACT same thing, you know. The MWP was much hotter than temps are today. This is a documented fact that cannot be disputed by legitimate scientists.
@cthulhu11111111 Wrong Clara. Climategate ’ Cook: ’ So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in the 20th century. This being said, I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.
Well, considering that the 20th century saw a few decades worth of Global Cooling mid-way through, it should have an average temperature colder than today. Science tells us this, you know. EVERY SINGLE period of Global Warming MUST and will ALWAYS be followed by a period of Global Cooling. This is a basic scientific FACT I learned back in third grade, for crying out loud. NOTHING about the current warming is man made. It is ALL natural. You are ignoring established science.
Uhm, one, that graph does NOT support your claim that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than today, at all. You really need to take a nice long look at it, apparently.
And two, ice core data proves incontrovertibly that the Medieval Warm Period was MOST DEFINITELY several degrees warmer than today. What you claim goes TOTALLY against actual ice core data proving you TOTALLY wrong. Stop being blinded by econuts. It makes you look like a nutcase yourself, you know.
COMPLETE bogus there, cthulhu. The actual ice core data, you know the data used to measure historical temperatures, proves that the Medieval Warm Period was several degrees WARMER than today. What? Are you going to ignore ice core date in this case? Nice selective science there.
Actually, you are dead wrong. It has been proven beyond ALL doubt that the Medieval warm period was several degrees WARMER than today. Where do you get your likely cooler than today BS from? EVERY SINGLE relevant scientist has already testified to the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than today. It is a historically documented FACT that the Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than today. The ice core data even proves it.
Global CO2 warming is a white-collar scam, it's proven by famous climatologist, some of them make very accurate weather forecasting, based on the sun - Moon.
Tell it to some upper mid west, or North east, or England, or North west Europe, there we had a hell of a winter, and that is just one of many to come.
@kennjohnsen True, but it does not disapprove global warming or climate change. Just think about effect on various parts of the world, some drowning in rain, and other being scorched by the drought. Growing food might become real challenge all over the world soon.
What happen today, is what exactly happened before the little iceage, what I can read, there they hade the same problems, a lot of rain, the farmers didn't get harvested. So it just repeat itself.
@johnsenkenn If you mean Piers Corbyn - he is not a climatologist and has less scientific qualifications to talk about the sun and climate than I do (we went to the same university- U. London - though different colleges). Please explain to me his contension that the Moon modulates solar activity. I sent him an email asking him to explain this and got no reply.
A climatologist is a weather-man with som astrophysics courses, is that correct ? Piers Corbyn is a weather man and a astrophysicist ? so he is a climatologist ?. Funny, I asked him on his homepage, if men ever had been on the Moon, I got no reply.
@kennjohnsen Climatologist are not weathermen no have any astrophysics training. Weathermen usually have no scientific training - they are usually out of work actors or TV journalists. They get a certification from the AMS by attending a 2-day course & paying a few $100s. Climatologists are usually PhDs researchers of longterm weather & the factors that control climate. Corbyn is neither a climatologist nor an astrophysicist, he started an astrophysics phd but failed to complete it so got an MSc
An climatologist is a Meteorologist with some astrophysics courses, is that correct, and he is not an astrophysics ? where do you get that ingormation from ?.
@kennjohnsen A climatologist is not a meteorologist with some astrophysics courses.
He went to Imperial College, London. At the time he was there Imperial only offered a physics degree. The only college that had an astronomy or astronomy & physics course was University College, London (my college). He went on to try to get a PhD in phsyics studying astronomy related subjects (I dont know what) but dropped out after a couple of years. So he is neither an astrophysicist nor climatologist
Well, someone are misinforming here, anyway he is very accurate on his weather forecasting, that's what it is about. So whatever he is on to something right.
@kennjohnsen He is the one doing the misinforming. He keeps claiming he has a doctorate - and that has been shown to be untrue.
He claimed that the UK Met Office forecasted a mild winter this year - which has proven to be untrue. The Met office put out a statement (presumably aimed at Corbyn) pointing out that they dont do seasonal forecasts, never have.
Independent assessment of his forecasts put his accuracy at about 55% which is slightly better than tossing a coin. He does horoscopes!
@johnsenkenn No I did not. I can guess with better than that. In San Francisco Bay area it will not rain on 4 July 2011, 2012, ....2020. There a 10 year advanced forecast. I bet you I beat the 55% forecast - it is likely to be nearer 100% right. You see with a little knowledge you can tip the odds. It is not magic.
I have predicted the global temperature annomaly correctly for 59 of the last 60 months by simply saying it will be in the top 20 all time, that's 98% accuracy.
‘This week, a study has shown that the devastating floods which damaged nearly 10,000 properties in England and Wales in 2000, and cost £1.3 billion in insurance losses, were made significantly more likely by climate change caused by humans…The bottom line of all this? Allen and his team found that human greenhouse gas emissions "significantly increased" the likelihood of the 2000 floods.’
w w w .newscientist. c o m/article/dn20141-blame-human-emissions-for-british-floods.html
@Seravat7 We dont hear much about teh O3 hole IN THE PRESS that's because it is slowly recovering because int he 90's we limited the production of CFC's. That seems to have halted the O3 deficit over Antarctica and as the CFC's break down the hole is slowly closing.
A perfect example of identifying how humans are affecting the planet and how we can mitigate the problem with prompt global action.
@drkstrong Dick, still pushing your DEPOPULATION agenda with crappiest excuses how people are to blame.
man-made GW = too many people = many must die = martial law, rfid chips, carbon tax, fema camps, fema coffins, georgia guide stones paragraph 1 completed, jews only "people" on Earth, ...
So, take your temple, depopulation agenda and your fake science and fake data from your moon-hoax company and shove it up your ugly, dirty, satanic, jewish ass.
@DownNWO N.A.T.O. is the one pushing depopulation agenda with its nuclear waste disposal plan aka spreading it thin over the sandnigger populated areas and it is gettng all the help needed form the UN.
@Seravat7 Actually the ozone loss over the Anarctic has halted - it has not reversed though that is forecast in the next few years. The hole is still there and large but it has stopped getting larger and the O3 getting more rarified.
@drkstrong This man is working for a company that faked moon landing and tells stories about some alleged Mars missions.
If you think that any of them is telling truth about anything ....
man made GW = too many people = many must die = martial law, rfid chips, carbon tax, fema camps, fema coffins, Georgia guide stones paragraph 1 completed = jews only "people" on Earth ....
Global Warming = jewish DEPOPULATION agenda
This is what AGW and nasa's fake climate datais all about.
@drkstrong ¿Pollutant car emissions? ¡NONSENSE! Human being only produces 0,5 kilotons a year of CO2, CO and methano, a single (¡a single!) volcano produces 25,5 kilotons A DAY. Yes, you are right, there is CO2 and CO in the atmosphere, but not all of it it's produced by man, in fact, as I told nature by itself produces millions of times more greenhouse gases than man... it's a stupid, naive theorie to have a pretext for global taxation. And it's even been admited by ex-IPCC "scientists".
@MGGoblin Actually it is 8 BT a year of carbon (or 28 BT of CO2). We know that from the amounts of coal, gas, and oil we burn each year. What is your source for 0.5 kT? I was unable to find a reference for that claim.
Want to know about Volcanic emissions, see watch?v=l6W1KxiLcg8
@drkstrong Perhaps I was wrong on "kilo" or "giga" or "mega" - anyway, I'm sending you a personal message with a list of blogs that contain dissident voices because I like that you are searching things for yourself and cuestionating them. I wanted to copy/paste the links here... but this damn youtube does not allow me to. Have a nice day!
I trust no blogs on either side of this issue - you can write anything you want in a blog or a documentary film. You have to check each statement individually. I've all or part of those movies you pm'd be about - they are generally pseudoscience. In the GGWS, for example, there are more erroneous statements in the first 5 minutes than there are in the whole of Gore's movie.
@Seravat7 But it does matter where it is produced - the low level O3 has no effect on UV light because most of it does not reach the surface because of the O3 and other molecules that absorb it at high altitudes
@drkstrong Presently this is important, but when we were still producing CFCs, the more of them were entangled destroying Smog, the less of those molecules made it to the ionosphere, or whichever layer the useful ozone was camped.
I often imagine what people 20yrs in the future will make of our insane obsessions. Those who prattle on about global warming will be a laughingstock. If what this man says is true, & the Sun is the overwhelming prime mover on temperature on Earth. We are in for long hard winters for most of this century. It is so sad the nonsense the Baby Boom Generation has chosen to waste its time & energy on obsessing over. Such a wealthy, lucky generation. Such a marvelous oportunity. Sucha an utter waste.
Not junk science. The chart used for the Medieval Warm Period is REAL science backed up by REAL scientists and has been incontrovertibly proven using ice core data. Try again, there, buddy. The junk science is what econuts have been using for years.
First, Wikipedia is NEVER really a reliable source of intel. I've read many incorrect Wikipedia entries myself.
Second, I checked out the graph on Wikipedia. You do realize that the graph does NOT disprove the Medieval Warm Period, don't you? Geesh, how many of you guys will misconstrue what that graph actually represents. The graph shows ONLY mean temperature changes over 2000 years, NOT the actual temperature. Ice core date proves the MWP was several degrees warmer than today.
This guy is a moron, he is assuming plants increase in growth due to increase in carbon dioxide only. any biologist will tell you plants need amongst other things water, nutrients and trace elements to grow, if they are not abundant in the soil then the plant growth is limited by this no matter how much co2 is available. not to mention increased co2 levels will totally disrupt all eco systems on earth
@timdnwd Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A cornfield in present day will suck ALL the CO2 out of the atmosphere below something like 5 meters of altitude, until the wind blows again. That makes it the weakest link presently. You can't use all those trace elements until you have sufficient growth due to CO2 usage.
I'm sure there are experiments aplenty you can look up involving closed biospheres and higher atmospheric CO2 as the only variable.
This guy is a moron, he is assuming plants increase in growth due to increase in carbon dioxide only. any biologist will tell you plants need amongst other things nutrients and trace elements to grow, if they are not abundant in the soil then the plant growth is limited by this no matter how much co2 is available. not to mention increased co2 levels will totally disrupt all eco systems on earth
Actually if plants are growing faster then they need more water. He was using data from part of the world this does not mean that it applies unilaterally across the globe. With greater warmth there is higher evaporation from everywhere and precipitation increases mostly in already damp places (dry gets dryer, wet gets wetter) . Global warming contributes to the extinction of plant and animal species. 3rd world countries can expect more flash floods and droughts and food will become scarcer.
The graph of temperature that he show at the beginning is at least 20 years out of date. It was derived from data pertaining to central England only. The graph ends in the 1970's (before the main phase of GW took off) and is smoothed over 50 years or longer so lumps many years of non warming with the small amount that is actaully on the graph.
Posting the same nonesense over and over again does not make it any truer
It doesn't matter if the graph is out of date. The graph is still accurate and true today. Ice core data proves it. Since the graph is NOT nonsense, he isn't posting nonsense over and over again. Econuts are. That graph has been incontrovertibly proven as accurate and true by ACTUAL scientists using ice core data.
@etirvan Of course it matters if the graph is out of date. It is a graph of the temperatures in midlands of the UK. Thats it. Not global, not N. Hemisphere, not even europe or the UK. Just the midlands, a few counties. It was based on a few tree ring samples. There is much more data from a much wider area that has been more accurately analyzed (using isotopes not unreliable ring size which depends on rainfall as temps) that shows that this graph is useless for interpreting global climate.
Uhm, when the graph is still accurate, which it is, it doesn't matter if the graph is out of date at all. Also, the graph IS, in fact, global, NOT just the midlands as you ignorantly imply. Ice core data proves it, you know. What you are claiming runs directly in the face of established science that it's flat out ridiculous. What you are claiming is NOTHING but a fallacious LIE from the econut crowd.
@etirvan The graph he showed was from the first IPCC report (Figure 7.1c on page 202) it says right under it in the report that "it is not clear that these temperatures were truly global." Odd he didnt mention that!
Why? because the data is based heavily on western europe whereas records at the time in other parts of the world showed it was colder there.
The first reconstruction of western European temperatures were based on a study of the temperature history of the midlands in the UK.
@drkstrong Data written by the same people that faked moonlanding, that operate HAARP, that spray chemtrails, that cause earthquakes, that produce RFID chips, that dig D.U.M.Bs, .....
@drkstrong Funny you should mention this. We had two hard freezes here in Phoenix Arizona this winter. That's never happened before as long as I've lived here.
But then, when we mention that nobody bitches about global warming in the winter, the response always comes back about how weather and climate are two different things, and even that a single year doesn't make a trend...
@Seravat7 1F of global warming does not mean that cold spells will come to an end. Go to TWC on line and look up your zip code. Go to the "MONTH" tab & then at the bottom of that page hit "AVERAGES"
It will show you a graph of the monthly average high/low for your area (you can add record high or low by hitting the appropriate buttons). There is a drop down menu at the top - select "Daily Averages". It will show you a table of daily averages & His & Los for any day. Have Fun
@drkstrong It doesn't tell me anything I'd consider a revelation. What it DOES tell me is that there are all of 11 days in the year in my part of the Valley that have an average low below freezing. That average is 31º. Two HARD freezes (an inch of ice in my water bucket and a busted hose) is an extreme rarity though.
If anyone's interested, the record high is at least 78º, every day of the year though.
Holy crap I just realised how sloppy that data set at 1:50 is. That one extraneous data point on the right hand side is dragging down the graph tremendously. Geez that is some sloppy corrollation! The other data sets corroborate the results, so it is all good, but still, he could have picked a better graph!!!
@Niightversionn "@tingtingy I have a PhD in atmospheric science"
I've seen his posts and he has me wondering what that actually means. In any case I think the standards at some universities have slipped considerably in recent decades.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
His premise is flawed on two accounts...
1) In the last 50 years we have seen a global warming effect - no one can argue with this data. However, he is showing an INCREASE in sunspot activity (which should translate to COOLER temperatures, by his idea), so that contradicts his hypothesis.
2) His assumption that the duration of a solar cycle can predict future sunspot activity is completely unfounded.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@OvoidCranium - Nope, the original example that he gave was that during a period where there were no sunspots for a very long time (60yrs), there was a high-temperature period. This means the less sunspots, the hotter it is. But lately we've been seeing MORE sunspots. This should make things COOLER... but it is actually HOTTER. This basically destroys his argument that the main temperature influencer is sunspot activity. I'm sure that Sun activity does affect us, just not as much as CO2.
@Cyber0Bill Don't your points kind of screw each other? Let me use them against them:
We have (allegedly, per your comment) a 50 year warming trend... But a graph of past heat activity can't predict FUTURE activity, can it?
Note: The sun is clearly very large, its density is pretty damn stable, and it would take a lot to alter the amount of time it takes for a bubble of a particular characteristic to work its way to the sun's surface. His estimates are likely to be spot-on.
@Seravat7 - My point is that while, OBVIOUSLY, sun activity and sunspots can affect temperature, it doesn't account for the recent increase in temperature that we are experiencing and experienced over the last 50 years - or when sunspot activity was basically ZERO for almost two years (2007-'09). He is trying to claim that man isn't causing global warming by pointing to sunspots - but his model isn't predicting things correctly, and can't possibly be the only thing going on.
@burninrain1 - Yes -SOME- places had the coldest winters on record. And other places had the WARMEST winters and warmest summers on record. Extremes are not useful when calculating long term temperature data (or any kind of data).
And c'mon - there were 100x as many scientific papers in support of global warming during those periods, and the general consensus of scientists has always held that view - and for a good reason, because that's what the data shows!
@Cyber0Bill Even if the data did show global warming was real, which i doubt, then it would not change the fact that the vast majority of greenhouse gasses created are created naturally; about 99.72%.
Also, please show me some news articles from the 70s which pertain to the existence of global warming? My own father, who was an eyewitness of the 70s, says that the hype was about global COOLING, not warming.
What areas experienced the hottest winters and summers on record?
@burninrain1 If anything, the data shows that we are at the point of another drop in temperature; every 100,000 years in the CO2/Temperature levels graph, there is a decrease in the global temperature by a few degrees, and we seem to be on the brink.
That, and, not only was it colder here in North America, but also Europe, Most of Asia, Parts of Australia, parts of Africa, surprisingly, and the tip of south America. It was hot in the Desert areas of Africa and Asia, as well as the north. c
@burninrain1 c North meaning Canada, Greenland, Siberia, that area. However, it seems that most of the world had an average temperature anomaly for this period after an Ica Age, and right before the start of a new one.
@Cyber0Bill (continued) Either way, the point is this; Man only account for one fourth of a percent of all of the greenhouse effect, and it was colder in most parts of the world that isn't either tropical or desert. Man-Made global warming is pretty absurd, and even the idea of Long Term Global warming is pretty unconvincing, considering the medieval warm period around the year 1000, and the fact that we are scheduled to be at a temperature climax before falling into an ice age.
@Cyber0Bill What was sunspot activity like in 1998?
And no, nobody is EVER stupid enough to step onto a podium and say "This is it, this is all there is, and nothing else is going on." Of course there are volcanic activities happening globally, droughts change cloud patterns, the antarctic ice shelf will get thicker even if it warms up, simply BECAUSE there are places where it's presently too cold to snow, and it won't be, then... It won't be as widespread, but it'll be gaining in thickness.
@Seravat7 - in 1998 sunspot activity was approximately 1/3rd of its max in mid-2000. For reference, 1998 had some of the hottest temperatures on record, whereas 2000 was a hair cooler, even though there were 3x as many sunspots.
@Cyber0Bill My point, specifically, was that 1998 was a single year with a temperature anomaly, and that global warning panickers are always referencing it as some harbinger, and it's become such a joke that we've all learned to use 1998 as a START year for the other graphs just to drive you guys nuts, since it'll always show a downward trend if you start from a record high, just like it'll show an upward trend if you start from the Maunder Minimum. :P
@Seravat7 - And my point was refuting the video, which is trying to state that the SUN is causing global warming. We're watching the sun - we know exactly how many sunspots are on it, and this number (or solar luminance values) aren't slowly rising over time. They're on an 11 year cycle, and while this certainly does affect temperature, it isn't what is causing global temperatures to rise over the last 50 years.
@Cyber0Bill Thinking there's only the 11 year solar cycle would be a mistake. Come on, do a bit of searching on the different solar cycles. You might be surprised.
@Seravat7 - The 11-year cycle (which isn't exact) is BY FAR the largest change in output energy from the Sun. And seeing as we've had multiple satellites and ground-based telescopes monitoring the Sun for fifty years and through this entire time have not noticed any overall increase in output puts a solid nail in the coffin of "Sun-caused global warming".
Again - the Sun went through a prolonged solar minimum after 2005 - and we didn't see temperatures plummet. They still rose.
@Cyber0Bill No. The went down. The problem is that you believe not independent cience groups like Yale university but the IPCC and the UN. They will always tell you that is the man = reduce population.
@Seravat7 - Other planets aren't going through any kind of climate change, that we know of. Spurious reports of "Global warming on Mars" is bad science, and is not supported by the evidence. There was one guy (Fenton) who took TWO PICTURES of Mars and came to the conclusion that it is warming. If you expand the study to include more data, the albedo change completely disappears.
@Cyber0Bill ¡NONSENSE! ¿Then how the hell can we know the temperature of the Sun or the Venus temperature? ¡THE SAME METHODS WE USE TO KNOW THE TEMPERATURE ON MARS!
@MGGoblin Thank you for prefacing your message with "NONSENSE" so I knew exactly how to categorize it. What the "Global Warming on Mars" idiot did was take -TWO- samples of data, ignored everything else, and called it "Global Warming". It would be like taking the temperature outside in February, and then in August, and claiming we are going to see 140 degree temperatures next December. NONSENSE!
@Cyber0Bill Well, I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment, it was not my intention. I said "Nonsense!" because you told we cannot know the temperature of Mars. ¡Of course we can! ¿Have you ever seen an astronomy documentary? ¿How do astronomers know the temperature on a planet? It's not by seeing pictures. If we can accurately know the temperature of Pluto, we can know the temperature of Mars. Thats why I sad "Nonsense!" I found your claim to be non-sensical. Have a nice day.
@Cyber0Bill Well, I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment, it was not my intention. I said "Nonsense!" because you told we cannot know the temperature of Mars. ¡Of course we can! ¿Have you ever seen an astronomy documentary? ¿How do astronomers know the temperature on a planet? It's not by seeing pictures. If we can accurately know the temperature of Pluto, we can know the temperature of Mars. Thats why I sad "Nonsense!" I found your claim to be non-sensical. Have a nice day.
@MGGoblin - I NEVER claimed that we can't know the temperature of Mars. We can, we know it well. We have rovers there with thermometers on them. Plus, I am an astronomer. Go back and re-read what I said. The idiot who claimed Mars was warming used TWO data points, out of THOUSANDS that were available, and inferred it as a warming trend. Two data points cannot give you a statistically valid data trend. Google 'mars global warming' and read the first link.
@kennjohnsen - Have you really never heard of Spirit and Opportunity? marsrover.nasa.gov They used a combination of a parachute and air bags. The Mars Polar Lander dug up water ice. We've (Soviets and the US) had probes on Mars since the early 70's, and I'd guess we've got about 5 of them there now.
So your Mars rovers are spiritual, then it's your guess how many there are up there. What use does a parachute have on Mars, how does it unfold ?. Just wonder.
@Cyber0Bill It certainly doesn't sound like that, since the googling I did on it shows a .5ºC difference (which would be pretty hard to determine from two pictures, wouldn't it?) but it's hard to say, since nature international journal of science insists on me subscribing to read the rest of their article. :P
Dead wrong. It has been incontrovertibly proven beyond any and ALL doubt that Mars is going through the same EXACT warming that our own planet is currently going through. To debate that is simply idiotic because that has been documented and proven incontrovertibly by actual scientists. Not even the econuts at the IPCC and the UN are debating that incontrovertible scientific FACT, you know.
@etirvan - Not a single thing you said has any evidence behind it. Mars is -not- warming. There is only one guy, Abdusamatov, that is claiming it is, and his papers don't stand up against peer review. As I already stated in comments 6 months ago, he cherry picked two data points and threw out all of the other data. The reason nobody is debating Mars global warming is because there is NO EVIDENCE of it.
That is NOTHING but a lie from you. The reason nobody is debating Mars global warming is because it has been incontrovertibly proven that Mars is warming up the EXACT same way the Earth is. NASA proved it, for crying out loud. To say that there's no evidence behind Mars's warming is NOTHING but an absolute LIE. NASA has been claiming it for years, and they actually have the data to prove it. Why must people like you continue to outright lie like that?
What? Are NASA and the plethora of National Geographic articles not enough for you? You do realize that NASA has been keeping an eye on the temperature on Mars for the last several years, don't you? Go to National Geographic's website, type "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says" in the search bar, and read the very first link given. This article uses information straight from NASA and it's from 2007. Where have you been the last 4 years.
@etirvan - Hah, I destroyed your argument before you even made it. All of these 'reports' are based off of THE SAME FLAWED STUDY. Again, they took -TWO- images of Mars and tried to use the difference in albedo to claim global warming on Mars. That isn't valid, particularly when you add in the REST of the data, and find any apparent warming disappears! Getting back to the original point, though... We have RECORD HIGH temps, yet again, and we're in an EXTENDED SOLAR MINIMUM.
Uhm, you destroyed NOTHING. I outright destroyed your argument by offering up what NASA actually says on the matter. That National Geographic article uses data straight from NASA to prove that Mars is warming up EXACTLY like the Earth is. These reports are NOT based off of the same flawed study whatsoever. That's another one of your baseless claims. These reports are based off of NASA's study of Mars and it temperatures. Try again, son.
Also, we've been in a solar minimum for a few years. It's not like this entire decade saw a solar minimum. And record high temps have NOTHING at all to do with climate. We had record high temps throughout the past century. They mean NOTHING with regard to the climate. EVERY real climatologist who actually knows what he's talking about would tell you that. Take your debunked IPCC lies to someone who will actually fall for them, please. I've actually seen the data. I know the truth.
Also, as a minor point, in the case of global warming, the difference in albedo is one of the most valid arguments. Seriously, you need to go back to school, son, and actually learn about how climate actually works. I've seen what the data, the REAL scientific data, has to say, and NOTHING that your IPCC liars, who have been soundly debunked time and time again by ACTUAL climatologists who actually work in the field, will convince me otherwise.
Also, there's the data collected by MIT, Williams College, the University of Hawaii, Lowell Observatory, and Cornell University that prove beyond any and ALL doubt that Pluto is warming, as well. Mars and the Earth are not the only planets warming. There's plenty of evidence for Venus and Jupiter, as well. You are wrong, plain and simple. The scientific facts from actual scientists prove you wrong on the outset. The fact that you still debate it is ridiculous.
@etirvan - LOL... Actually, you're right. Debating with you is pointless. Because you make claims, and then you can't back them up with evidence. Clearly, you have no knowledge of the scientific process. Unlike you, I actually have a degree in science, so maybe it's YOU who needs to go and study up. You can't win a debate because science isn't on your side. I'm on the side of science, and I have no agenda other than the pursuit of knowledge, clearly that can't be said about you.
Are you kidding me? I backed up EVERYTHING I said using ACTUAL scientific facts from ACTUAL scientists. Yet, at the same time, you have NOT backed up a single thing you said. Sorry, son, the science is on MY side. The science from ACTUAL scientists and not your IPCC liars prove you wrong on the outset. It is YOU, not I, who needs to study up because I have actually seen the data that proves you wrong. Since the science is actually on my side, and NOT yours, it is you who can't win.
@etirvan - The only thing you actually posted was one National Geographic article that disagrees with your claims. Hell, even the original scientific paper (the one I believe is flawed for extrapolating too small a data set) says that the temperature difference is because of dust storms - not a difference in solar activity of some kind. Science and evidence disagree with everything you say. You're seriously deluded, and you're acting like a child.
Oh, one final thing here. Take your so-called degree in science and leave science, please. If they are giving people like you who don't even understand how our climate works a degree in science, the education system in this country really has gone downhill. Then again, that's how the IPCC econuts got their jobs, isn't it? Ten year olds understand more about the climate than you ever will. I went to college. I certainly understand more about the climate than you ever will.
I mean, here you are claiming you have a degree in science and stating that a record high temperature in any given year is evidence of climate change when EVERY SINGLE climatologist will tell you that that is proof of NOTHING. Here's another scientific fact for you. The average temp of this planet went up about 1.5 degree in the last 100 years. That isn't enough warming to matter. Good bye and good riddance. Go back to school, but one that actually takes its sciences seriously
There's also the Danish National Space Center and Henrik Svensmark who conducted their own study. Their findings agreed completely with NASA and that National Geographic article. Again, take your IPCC lies and your so-called mainstream ideas to someone who will actually fall for them, please. There have been more than enough ACTUAL climatologists out there to debunk your false lies. I've read what ACTUAL climatologists have said on the matter. I will take them over morons.
Heck, even National Geographic has done articles concerning Mars global warming. Mars is warming up just like the Earth. This has been incontrovertibly proven time and time again. Why your crowd continues to deny it is flat out ridiculous and shows your crowd to be filled with NOTHING but nut cases. Why don't you quit paying attention to econuts and actually start looking at the REAL facts, for once?
@etirvan - Did you bother to actually READ that National Geographic article? I know the headline is sensationalist - "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"... But read it: "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist...added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
You mean the same mainstream scientific opinion of the morons at IPCC? Sorry, but I look into ACTUAL scientific FACTs here, not the cooked data from morons who call themselves scientists. The views of that article come STRAIGHT from NASA. I guess NASA is against those mainstream scientists now, as well. Look, I am not going to fall for your lies here. Try an rope another sucker into your false lie, okay. I've seen the actual data from NASA. I know what NASA has to say.
This unreferenced graph is from around 1990. To ignore recent studies in order to make his point indicates this guy is not too concerned with being accurate or truthful.
This has been flagged as spam show
Where have all the KKDeniers forecasts gone? This time last year the UK was in for a new ice age!
‘December was the mildest since 2006. Some areas of the UK haven't seen a frost this winter and it's having a startling effect on the plant life. Peter Gibbs has all the details’
Watch the video
w w w.bbc.co.uk/weather/feeds/16496607
blackadderthe4 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where have all the KKDeniers forecasts gone? This time last year the UK was in for a new ice age!
‘December was the mildest since 2006. Some areas of the UK haven't seen a frost this winter and it's having a startling effect on the plant life. Peter Gibbs has all the details’
Watch the video
w w w.bbc.co.uk/weather/feeds/16496607
blackadderthe4 2 weeks ago
Here's 9.5 minutes that make a mockery of the above video:
Climate, Sun, and Cosmic Rays (watch?v=pAx6j625iy4)
step by step deconstruction of Mr Archibald's speech, huh?
The Medieval Warm Period is explained here: watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
lennyhipp 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's the sun, stupid. Following the Medieval Warming Period (about the same temps as now), there were a number of solar minimums between 1250 and 1850 (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder & Dalton) that caused the Little Ice Age (LIA). Since the LIA, there haven't been ANY solar minimums, so global temps have risen naturally. The current solar max peaked in 1990 & we seem to be in a new solar minimum, which explains why no warming since 1998. CO2 had NOTHING to do with it. CAGW is dead; see Climategate 2.0
samuraiconservative 2 months ago
and tinyurl . com / czd6pbb
cthulhu11111111 2 months ago
@cthulhu11111111 Get over it. This scientist has put his mouth where the findings lie. This was recorded onto youtube in 2008 and is now 2011. So far has been perfectly accurate. Clearer skies during winter from low Sunspot activity, low atmospheric albedo from dryer air. Especially at night. Sunspot activity still lower than recent norms... The empirical data is endless.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws
The data includes 2010 being tied for warmest year on record.
Not sure how the quiet sun managed that one.
cthulhu11111111 2 months ago 2
@cthulhu11111111 Your data argues directly with facts. There has been no warmest period of the Earth for over a decade and the last three have seen it plummet. Oceans (Gis) and all.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws
If your facts aren't based on data then what are they based on? faith?
2010 was tied for warmest year on record in the UAH satellite record.
cthulhu11111111 2 months ago 2
@cthulhu11111111 Actually you are wrong. 2001 to 2006 then 2009 to 2010, Earlier years are '87, '91 and '95 (approx). Are you attempting to imagine me as a bible basher? lol. I had to burn mine last winter to keep warm!
Bring on this global warming! It's not enough. Far too much CO2 is still trapped and needs releasing.
As goes your graphs, its lower air temp as measured from space. Utterly disproving the greenhouse effect or there would be less return.
ps. NOAA sats are compimised via Gov't.
m1aws 2 months ago
Wow Clara Massa's "Its the sun stupid's" video really debunks this, not! LOL
LordMonckton78 2 months ago
Regarding most sunspot CO2 global warming science the dancing Wu-Shu Masters of Washington & Whitehall discovered that not only can you curve space & bend time but you can also warp the laws of solar physics merely by getting tenured scientists to repeat unscientific drivel about magnetic anomalies causing sunspots rather than the other way around & as for the reality of the star beginning to burn it’s iron all you’ve got to do is believe what you’re told & then dance & SHAKE YOUR BOOTY on cue.
spacelizardlaw 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
howardsway782 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted from CRU
'the myths that the data has been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says the university's vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide... released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html
blackadderthe4 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
David Archibald is a a consistent cherry-picker. Not a reliable source for climate science.
google: archibald sks . to
or google: Archibald's take on world temperatures
pseudotruth 8 months ago
Comment removed
pseudotruth 8 months ago
Archibald is such an ignorant ass. There's at least 3 major errors in the first 20 seconds of this video. anyone who has not researched the subject would be excused for not knowing them, but he - supposedly - has researched this area to at least an amateur level....what a d**k
cthulhu11111111 10 months ago 3
@cthulhu11111111 Instead of throwing out such arrogant accusations, why don't you instead tell us what his errors are?
arscill1 9 months ago
@arscill1
The first graph is out of date. He should be using newer work, not known to be incorrect graphs from the late 80s. The y-axis on the first graph has fabricated values. It's not true that the MWP was 4C warmer than the little ice age. It's also not true that the MWP was 2 degrees warmer than today. The whole presentation is riddled with errors and out of date science.
cthulhu11111111 9 months ago 3
@cthulhu11111111 OK, I can accept that, no worries. Is your implication that the MWP didn't happen or do you agree in principal but just protesting against the exact numbers? This is not an attempted ego bashing, I really just try to understand this, promise.
arscill1 9 months ago
@cthulhu11111111
David Archibald is not a real scientist. He is heavily invested in the oil and gas industry. His motivation is to disprove global warming from green house gases so he can keep on making money. He is a professional con artist.
sourcewatch . org/index.php?title=David_Archibald
mymojorisin 9 months ago 2
@mymojorisin Let’s see, communists in the UN want to establish a one world government under the auspices of the UN, which would have the power to tax the air we breathe, and their lapdog “scientists” have “proved” that global cooling/global warming/climate change is caused by man… whatever. Do you know what happens to “scientists” who get grants from the UN when their studies contradict the IPCC’s party line? They don’t get any more money.
txsecede 6 months ago
@txsecede
Your chasing shadows moron.
mymojorisin 6 months ago
@mymojorisin That was a brilliant response. Just kidding. The reason nobody pays any attention to you people is because you can't defend your position. As soon as anyone challenges you with common sense or contradictory science, you revert to sophomoric name-calling. You know who else does that? Three year old kids. Oh well, let's drop this argument down to your level... I’m rubber and you’re glue, what you say bounces of me and sticks to you. Poopiehead.
txsecede 6 months ago
@txsecede
LOL Who the hell is "you people"?
Perhaps if you presented common sense or contradictory science someone might take you serious but because you did nether you get what you give.
Moron
mymojorisin 6 months ago
@mymojorisin “You people” are people like you who resort to name calling when someone threatens their fragile belief system, people who often use words like “moron” to project feelings of intellectual inferiority, people who are uneducated but are proud to be ignorant, people whose malformed belief system has been developed using Google, people who are so uninformed that they think Al Gore is smart, people who are clueless about the economic incentives that drive the global warming scam.
txsecede 6 months ago
@txsecede
LOL Al Gore is a thief and a con artist that, just like Fox News, uses a bit of truth spun with a whole bunch of crap to sell his con game. So it appears that you are clueless again. You are batting 0 for 3, you might want to get an education before you cause your entire team to loose the game.
Oh yes I almost forgot. MORON.
mymojorisin 6 months ago 3
@cthulhu11111111 The graph used in the great global warming swindle is out of date as well, what graph would you suggest?
seonf 7 months ago
@cthulhu11111111
Actually, BOTH of those facts are true, you know. They have been proven to be true time and time again. There's no need to update a graph when a graph today will show the EXACT same thing, you know. The MWP was much hotter than temps are today. This is a documented fact that cannot be disputed by legitimate scientists.
etirvan 2 months ago
@etirvan
they aren't true. The MWP was likely cooler than today, not warmer.
cthulhu11111111 2 months ago
@cthulhu11111111 Hi Clara, fan of Lovecraft I see. The MWP was at least as warm as today, more than likely warmer. Don't lie like you always do.
LordMonckton78 2 months ago
@LordMonckton78
The complete opposite. The MWP was at least as warm as today, more than likely cooler.
The claims in this video are bogus
cthulhu11111111 2 months ago
@cthulhu11111111 Opposite Clara, at least as warm as today, more than likely warmer.
LordMonckton78 2 months ago
@LordMonckton78
nope tinyurl . com / d2wxbnf
cthulhu11111111 2 months ago
LordMonckton78 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordMonckton78
"and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in the 20th century"
The 20th century was on average colder than today, the 21st century
cthulhu11111111 2 months ago
@cthulhu11111111
Well, considering that the 20th century saw a few decades worth of Global Cooling mid-way through, it should have an average temperature colder than today. Science tells us this, you know. EVERY SINGLE period of Global Warming MUST and will ALWAYS be followed by a period of Global Cooling. This is a basic scientific FACT I learned back in third grade, for crying out loud. NOTHING about the current warming is man made. It is ALL natural. You are ignoring established science.
etirvan 1 month ago
@cthulhu11111111
Uhm, one, that graph does NOT support your claim that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than today, at all. You really need to take a nice long look at it, apparently.
And two, ice core data proves incontrovertibly that the Medieval Warm Period was MOST DEFINITELY several degrees warmer than today. What you claim goes TOTALLY against actual ice core data proving you TOTALLY wrong. Stop being blinded by econuts. It makes you look like a nutcase yourself, you know.
etirvan 1 month ago
@cthulhu11111111
COMPLETE bogus there, cthulhu. The actual ice core data, you know the data used to measure historical temperatures, proves that the Medieval Warm Period was several degrees WARMER than today. What? Are you going to ignore ice core date in this case? Nice selective science there.
etirvan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cthulhu11111111
Actually, you are dead wrong. It has been proven beyond ALL doubt that the Medieval warm period was several degrees WARMER than today. Where do you get your likely cooler than today BS from? EVERY SINGLE relevant scientist has already testified to the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than today. It is a historically documented FACT that the Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than today. The ice core data even proves it.
etirvan 1 month ago
Global CO2 warming is a white-collar scam, it's proven by famous climatologist, some of them make very accurate weather forecasting, based on the sun - Moon.
johnsenkenn 11 months ago
@johnsenkenn Yes! You are absolutely right! It's just hard to fight back against a so powerful propaganda machine... =(
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@MGGoblin
Yes, but we are probably headed for global cooling, so their propaganda machine will crumble. Just to bad they are walking away with a grin.
kennjohnsen 10 months ago
@kennjohnsen Tell that to the Texans. They had hell of a summer, and that is just one of many to come.
th3dig1tal0n3 1 month ago
@th3dig1tal0n3
Tell it to some upper mid west, or North east, or England, or North west Europe, there we had a hell of a winter, and that is just one of many to come.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@kennjohnsen True, but it does not disapprove global warming or climate change. Just think about effect on various parts of the world, some drowning in rain, and other being scorched by the drought. Growing food might become real challenge all over the world soon.
th3dig1tal0n3 1 month ago
@th3dig1tal0n3
What happen today, is what exactly happened before the little iceage, what I can read, there they hade the same problems, a lot of rain, the farmers didn't get harvested. So it just repeat itself.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
@johnsenkenn If you mean Piers Corbyn - he is not a climatologist and has less scientific qualifications to talk about the sun and climate than I do (we went to the same university- U. London - though different colleges). Please explain to me his contension that the Moon modulates solar activity. I sent him an email asking him to explain this and got no reply.
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
A climatologist is a weather-man with som astrophysics courses, is that correct ? Piers Corbyn is a weather man and a astrophysicist ? so he is a climatologist ?. Funny, I asked him on his homepage, if men ever had been on the Moon, I got no reply.
kennjohnsen 10 months ago
@kennjohnsen Climatologist are not weathermen no have any astrophysics training. Weathermen usually have no scientific training - they are usually out of work actors or TV journalists. They get a certification from the AMS by attending a 2-day course & paying a few $100s. Climatologists are usually PhDs researchers of longterm weather & the factors that control climate. Corbyn is neither a climatologist nor an astrophysicist, he started an astrophysics phd but failed to complete it so got an MSc
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
An climatologist is a Meteorologist with some astrophysics courses, is that correct, and he is not an astrophysics ? where do you get that ingormation from ?.
kennjohnsen 10 months ago
@kennjohnsen A climatologist is not a meteorologist with some astrophysics courses.
He went to Imperial College, London. At the time he was there Imperial only offered a physics degree. The only college that had an astronomy or astronomy & physics course was University College, London (my college). He went on to try to get a PhD in phsyics studying astronomy related subjects (I dont know what) but dropped out after a couple of years. So he is neither an astrophysicist nor climatologist
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
Well, someone are misinforming here, anyway he is very accurate on his weather forecasting, that's what it is about. So whatever he is on to something right.
kennjohnsen 10 months ago
@kennjohnsen He is the one doing the misinforming. He keeps claiming he has a doctorate - and that has been shown to be untrue.
He claimed that the UK Met Office forecasted a mild winter this year - which has proven to be untrue. The Met office put out a statement (presumably aimed at Corbyn) pointing out that they dont do seasonal forecasts, never have.
Independent assessment of his forecasts put his accuracy at about 55% which is slightly better than tossing a coin. He does horoscopes!
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
I see, who have done those independent assessment, any paper about it on the net ?
kennjohnsen 10 months ago
@kennjohnsen Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63, Issue 1, January 2001, p. 29-34
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong
55 % accuracy 9 months ahead, you forgot that.
johnsenkenn 10 months ago
@johnsenkenn No I did not. I can guess with better than that. In San Francisco Bay area it will not rain on 4 July 2011, 2012, ....2020. There a 10 year advanced forecast. I bet you I beat the 55% forecast - it is likely to be nearer 100% right. You see with a little knowledge you can tip the odds. It is not magic.
I have predicted the global temperature annomaly correctly for 59 of the last 60 months by simply saying it will be in the top 20 all time, that's 98% accuracy.
drkstrong 10 months ago
‘This week, a study has shown that the devastating floods which damaged nearly 10,000 properties in England and Wales in 2000, and cost £1.3 billion in insurance losses, were made significantly more likely by climate change caused by humans…The bottom line of all this? Allen and his team found that human greenhouse gas emissions "significantly increased" the likelihood of the 2000 floods.’
w w w .newscientist. c o m/article/dn20141-blame-human-emissions-for-british-floods.html
blackadderthe4 11 months ago
Anyone remember the panic over the ozone layer?
Ozone is a greenhouse gas.
We don't hear about Ozone much anymore, do we? :P
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 We dont hear much about teh O3 hole IN THE PRESS that's because it is slowly recovering because int he 90's we limited the production of CFC's. That seems to have halted the O3 deficit over Antarctica and as the CFC's break down the hole is slowly closing.
A perfect example of identifying how humans are affecting the planet and how we can mitigate the problem with prompt global action.
drkstrong 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drkstrong Dick, still pushing your DEPOPULATION agenda with crappiest excuses how people are to blame.
man-made GW = too many people = many must die = martial law, rfid chips, carbon tax, fema camps, fema coffins, georgia guide stones paragraph 1 completed, jews only "people" on Earth, ...
So, take your temple, depopulation agenda and your fake science and fake data from your moon-hoax company and shove it up your ugly, dirty, satanic, jewish ass.
OK ?
DownNWO 11 months ago
@DownNWO
Your claims are incompatible with mathematics and finite resources – it's the sign of being ignorant or deluded.
How can indefinitely sustained stable positive population growth combined with rising per capita consumption be maintained in a finite world?
What evidence is there that current population levels are sustainable?
Your move. Only peer-reviewed evidence is acceptable.
watch?v=hCa7IQLpPu4
watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
pseudotruth 7 months ago 4
@DownNWO N.A.T.O. is the one pushing depopulation agenda with its nuclear waste disposal plan aka spreading it thin over the sandnigger populated areas and it is gettng all the help needed form the UN.
OK ?
th3dig1tal0n3 1 month ago
@DownNWO Man, you are so fucking brainwashed by internet ignorance, I seriously feel bad for you. I might even pray for you and im an ATHEIST
seanturpin01 1 month ago
@drkstrong Right. And nobody dares to point out that with the ozone returning, the earth shows signs of warming...
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 Actually the ozone loss over the Anarctic has halted - it has not reversed though that is forecast in the next few years. The hole is still there and large but it has stopped getting larger and the O3 getting more rarified.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong You know what else is funny about this? Ozone at ground level is a thing we call "smog".
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 Two levels of ozone - a ground level pollutant from car emissions, and high in the atmosphere ozone created by uv light from the Sun.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong This man is working for a company that faked moon landing and tells stories about some alleged Mars missions.
If you think that any of them is telling truth about anything ....
man made GW = too many people = many must die = martial law, rfid chips, carbon tax, fema camps, fema coffins, Georgia guide stones paragraph 1 completed = jews only "people" on Earth ....
Global Warming = jewish DEPOPULATION agenda
This is what AGW and nasa's fake climate datais all about.
DownNWO 11 months ago
@drkstrong ¿Pollutant car emissions? ¡NONSENSE! Human being only produces 0,5 kilotons a year of CO2, CO and methano, a single (¡a single!) volcano produces 25,5 kilotons A DAY. Yes, you are right, there is CO2 and CO in the atmosphere, but not all of it it's produced by man, in fact, as I told nature by itself produces millions of times more greenhouse gases than man... it's a stupid, naive theorie to have a pretext for global taxation. And it's even been admited by ex-IPCC "scientists".
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@MGGoblin Actually it is 8 BT a year of carbon (or 28 BT of CO2). We know that from the amounts of coal, gas, and oil we burn each year. What is your source for 0.5 kT? I was unable to find a reference for that claim.
Want to know about Volcanic emissions, see watch?v=l6W1KxiLcg8
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong Perhaps I was wrong on "kilo" or "giga" or "mega" - anyway, I'm sending you a personal message with a list of blogs that contain dissident voices because I like that you are searching things for yourself and cuestionating them. I wanted to copy/paste the links here... but this damn youtube does not allow me to. Have a nice day!
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@MGGoblin Kilo: 1000; Mega : 1,000,000 - million; Giga: 1,000,000,000 - billion
I trust no blogs on either side of this issue - you can write anything you want in a blog or a documentary film. You have to check each statement individually. I've all or part of those movies you pm'd be about - they are generally pseudoscience. In the GGWS, for example, there are more erroneous statements in the first 5 minutes than there are in the whole of Gore's movie.
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong It's a chemical compound... O3. its creation METHOD doesn't change its chemical makeup. You might have to make your point a bit clearer...
Seravat7 10 months ago
@Seravat7 But it does matter where it is produced - the low level O3 has no effect on UV light because most of it does not reach the surface because of the O3 and other molecules that absorb it at high altitudes
drkstrong 10 months ago
@drkstrong Presently this is important, but when we were still producing CFCs, the more of them were entangled destroying Smog, the less of those molecules made it to the ionosphere, or whichever layer the useful ozone was camped.
Seravat7 10 months ago
@Seravat7 well u know if we just stoped driving suvs and turcks we could help the problem at hand
GitarreFuhrer 10 months ago
@GitarreFuhrer nobody's talking to you. Are you now following me from comment to comment, page to page, ust to keep being a trolly cunt?
Seravat7 10 months ago
This almost make me physically sick to watch... Perfect example of how to lie with graphs.
USAneedsaChange 11 months ago
I often imagine what people 20yrs in the future will make of our insane obsessions. Those who prattle on about global warming will be a laughingstock. If what this man says is true, & the Sun is the overwhelming prime mover on temperature on Earth. We are in for long hard winters for most of this century. It is so sad the nonsense the Baby Boom Generation has chosen to waste its time & energy on obsessing over. Such a wealthy, lucky generation. Such a marvelous oportunity. Sucha an utter waste.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
this guy conveniently ignores that solar activity has been decreasing for decades now, while the planet continues to warm.
Dadevster2 1 year ago
this guy is still using a false chart of the MWP. Junk science
bdhcarbon 1 year ago
@bdhcarbon
Not junk science. The chart used for the Medieval Warm Period is REAL science backed up by REAL scientists and has been incontrovertibly proven using ice core data. Try again, there, buddy. The junk science is what econuts have been using for years.
etirvan 1 month ago
Absolute TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!
To check go to Wikipedia's "Medieval Warm Period"
The graph gives you ELEVEN (11) PEER REVIEWED scientific graphs of the MWP temperatures.
LOL!!!
Pathetic Lies.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
First, Wikipedia is NEVER really a reliable source of intel. I've read many incorrect Wikipedia entries myself.
Second, I checked out the graph on Wikipedia. You do realize that the graph does NOT disprove the Medieval Warm Period, don't you? Geesh, how many of you guys will misconstrue what that graph actually represents. The graph shows ONLY mean temperature changes over 2000 years, NOT the actual temperature. Ice core date proves the MWP was several degrees warmer than today.
etirvan 1 month ago
This guy is a moron, he is assuming plants increase in growth due to increase in carbon dioxide only. any biologist will tell you plants need amongst other things water, nutrients and trace elements to grow, if they are not abundant in the soil then the plant growth is limited by this no matter how much co2 is available. not to mention increased co2 levels will totally disrupt all eco systems on earth
timdnwd 1 year ago
@timdnwd Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A cornfield in present day will suck ALL the CO2 out of the atmosphere below something like 5 meters of altitude, until the wind blows again. That makes it the weakest link presently. You can't use all those trace elements until you have sufficient growth due to CO2 usage.
I'm sure there are experiments aplenty you can look up involving closed biospheres and higher atmospheric CO2 as the only variable.
Seravat7 11 months ago
This guy is a moron, he is assuming plants increase in growth due to increase in carbon dioxide only. any biologist will tell you plants need amongst other things nutrients and trace elements to grow, if they are not abundant in the soil then the plant growth is limited by this no matter how much co2 is available. not to mention increased co2 levels will totally disrupt all eco systems on earth
timdnwd 1 year ago
Actually if plants are growing faster then they need more water. He was using data from part of the world this does not mean that it applies unilaterally across the globe. With greater warmth there is higher evaporation from everywhere and precipitation increases mostly in already damp places (dry gets dryer, wet gets wetter) . Global warming contributes to the extinction of plant and animal species. 3rd world countries can expect more flash floods and droughts and food will become scarcer.
Denviro 1 year ago
The graph of temperature that he show at the beginning is at least 20 years out of date. It was derived from data pertaining to central England only. The graph ends in the 1970's (before the main phase of GW took off) and is smoothed over 50 years or longer so lumps many years of non warming with the small amount that is actaully on the graph.
Posting the same nonesense over and over again does not make it any truer
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong
It doesn't matter if the graph is out of date. The graph is still accurate and true today. Ice core data proves it. Since the graph is NOT nonsense, he isn't posting nonsense over and over again. Econuts are. That graph has been incontrovertibly proven as accurate and true by ACTUAL scientists using ice core data.
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan Of course it matters if the graph is out of date. It is a graph of the temperatures in midlands of the UK. Thats it. Not global, not N. Hemisphere, not even europe or the UK. Just the midlands, a few counties. It was based on a few tree ring samples. There is much more data from a much wider area that has been more accurately analyzed (using isotopes not unreliable ring size which depends on rainfall as temps) that shows that this graph is useless for interpreting global climate.
drkstrong 1 month ago 3
@drkstrong
Uhm, when the graph is still accurate, which it is, it doesn't matter if the graph is out of date at all. Also, the graph IS, in fact, global, NOT just the midlands as you ignorantly imply. Ice core data proves it, you know. What you are claiming runs directly in the face of established science that it's flat out ridiculous. What you are claiming is NOTHING but a fallacious LIE from the econut crowd.
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan The graph he showed was from the first IPCC report (Figure 7.1c on page 202) it says right under it in the report that "it is not clear that these temperatures were truly global." Odd he didnt mention that!
Why? because the data is based heavily on western europe whereas records at the time in other parts of the world showed it was colder there.
The first reconstruction of western European temperatures were based on a study of the temperature history of the midlands in the UK.
drkstrong 1 month ago
2007: "In a few short years we will have a reversal of the warming trend"
2010: Warmest year on record (so far)
If you are selling balony never put a sell by date on it. So much for that nonsense.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong Could you send me a link to the 2010 warmest year on record data? Thank you.
Loyal2Liberty 11 months ago
@Loyal2Liberty Use Google to find NOAA NCDC
Click on "monitoring" under "climate info"
then "state of the climate"
then "Global Analysis" under Global Section
Select report (Global Analysis) year (2010) month (Annual) and click on "Get report" - good luck
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong Thank you.
Loyal2Liberty 11 months ago
@drkstrong Data written by the same people that faked moonlanding, that operate HAARP, that spray chemtrails, that cause earthquakes, that produce RFID chips, that dig D.U.M.Bs, .....
Sure, it is very credible data ...
DownNWO 11 months ago
@DownNWO NOAA faked the Moon landing? Boy you are wondering off the path without a map!
drkstrong 11 months ago 3
@drkstrong Your intelligence is very, very low, isn't it ?
DownNWO 11 months ago
@drkstrong Funny you should mention this. We had two hard freezes here in Phoenix Arizona this winter. That's never happened before as long as I've lived here.
But then, when we mention that nobody bitches about global warming in the winter, the response always comes back about how weather and climate are two different things, and even that a single year doesn't make a trend...
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 1F of global warming does not mean that cold spells will come to an end. Go to TWC on line and look up your zip code. Go to the "MONTH" tab & then at the bottom of that page hit "AVERAGES"
It will show you a graph of the monthly average high/low for your area (you can add record high or low by hitting the appropriate buttons). There is a drop down menu at the top - select "Daily Averages". It will show you a table of daily averages & His & Los for any day. Have Fun
drkstrong 11 months ago
@drkstrong It doesn't tell me anything I'd consider a revelation. What it DOES tell me is that there are all of 11 days in the year in my part of the Valley that have an average low below freezing. That average is 31º. Two HARD freezes (an inch of ice in my water bucket and a busted hose) is an extreme rarity though.
If anyone's interested, the record high is at least 78º, every day of the year though.
Seravat7 11 months ago
Climate change explained in brief:
youtube.com/watch?v=KIiV2JnXVIw
DrSlammingSam 1 year ago
Holy crap I just realised how sloppy that data set at 1:50 is. That one extraneous data point on the right hand side is dragging down the graph tremendously. Geez that is some sloppy corrollation! The other data sets corroborate the results, so it is all good, but still, he could have picked a better graph!!!
fluff125 1 year ago
@fluff125 ya the R squared value on that graph was probly around 0.5...
666awesome666 1 year ago
vid doesnt load, conspiracy...
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HIs source for the data at 8:50 is ... Idso.
Not a good sign.
What next, a cite from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? lol
Diskatopia 1 year ago
@Niightversionn "@tingtingy I have a PhD in atmospheric science"
I've seen his posts and he has me wondering what that actually means. In any case I think the standards at some universities have slipped considerably in recent decades.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i know a similar theory but it is based on ice core date.
angelicscorn 1 year ago
@angelicscorn I'm not sure what you are referring to
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
type "climate change explained by prof. yoshi" into youtube and click on the first link (it explains it all).
danielparr1991 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
His premise is flawed on two accounts...
1) In the last 50 years we have seen a global warming effect - no one can argue with this data. However, he is showing an INCREASE in sunspot activity (which should translate to COOLER temperatures, by his idea), so that contradicts his hypothesis.
2) His assumption that the duration of a solar cycle can predict future sunspot activity is completely unfounded.
Cyber0Bill 1 year ago
@Cyber0Bill "However, he is showing an INCREASE in sunspot activity (which should translate to COOLER temperature"
You have that back to front.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@OvoidCranium - Nope, the original example that he gave was that during a period where there were no sunspots for a very long time (60yrs), there was a high-temperature period. This means the less sunspots, the hotter it is. But lately we've been seeing MORE sunspots. This should make things COOLER... but it is actually HOTTER. This basically destroys his argument that the main temperature influencer is sunspot activity. I'm sure that Sun activity does affect us, just not as much as CO2.
Cyber0Bill 1 year ago
@Cyber0Bill ". This means the less sunspots, the hotter it is"
No you have it back to front still.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@Cyber0Bill Don't your points kind of screw each other? Let me use them against them:
We have (allegedly, per your comment) a 50 year warming trend... But a graph of past heat activity can't predict FUTURE activity, can it?
Note: The sun is clearly very large, its density is pretty damn stable, and it would take a lot to alter the amount of time it takes for a bubble of a particular characteristic to work its way to the sun's surface. His estimates are likely to be spot-on.
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 - My point is that while, OBVIOUSLY, sun activity and sunspots can affect temperature, it doesn't account for the recent increase in temperature that we are experiencing and experienced over the last 50 years - or when sunspot activity was basically ZERO for almost two years (2007-'09). He is trying to claim that man isn't causing global warming by pointing to sunspots - but his model isn't predicting things correctly, and can't possibly be the only thing going on.
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill Human activity only causes 0.28 percent of the greenhouse effect, or 5.5 percent if you dont include water vapor.
That said, we just had some of the coldest winters on record.
Also, there were theories of global COOLING in the 70s and 80s, and even reports of a small ice age from the 1890s.
My Source: watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1 - Yes -SOME- places had the coldest winters on record. And other places had the WARMEST winters and warmest summers on record. Extremes are not useful when calculating long term temperature data (or any kind of data).
And c'mon - there were 100x as many scientific papers in support of global warming during those periods, and the general consensus of scientists has always held that view - and for a good reason, because that's what the data shows!
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill Even if the data did show global warming was real, which i doubt, then it would not change the fact that the vast majority of greenhouse gasses created are created naturally; about 99.72%.
Also, please show me some news articles from the 70s which pertain to the existence of global warming? My own father, who was an eyewitness of the 70s, says that the hype was about global COOLING, not warming.
What areas experienced the hottest winters and summers on record?
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1 If anything, the data shows that we are at the point of another drop in temperature; every 100,000 years in the CO2/Temperature levels graph, there is a decrease in the global temperature by a few degrees, and we seem to be on the brink.
That, and, not only was it colder here in North America, but also Europe, Most of Asia, Parts of Australia, parts of Africa, surprisingly, and the tip of south America. It was hot in the Desert areas of Africa and Asia, as well as the north. c
burninrain1 11 months ago
@burninrain1 c North meaning Canada, Greenland, Siberia, that area. However, it seems that most of the world had an average temperature anomaly for this period after an Ica Age, and right before the start of a new one.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill (continued) Either way, the point is this; Man only account for one fourth of a percent of all of the greenhouse effect, and it was colder in most parts of the world that isn't either tropical or desert. Man-Made global warming is pretty absurd, and even the idea of Long Term Global warming is pretty unconvincing, considering the medieval warm period around the year 1000, and the fact that we are scheduled to be at a temperature climax before falling into an ice age.
burninrain1 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill What was sunspot activity like in 1998?
And no, nobody is EVER stupid enough to step onto a podium and say "This is it, this is all there is, and nothing else is going on." Of course there are volcanic activities happening globally, droughts change cloud patterns, the antarctic ice shelf will get thicker even if it warms up, simply BECAUSE there are places where it's presently too cold to snow, and it won't be, then... It won't be as widespread, but it'll be gaining in thickness.
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 - in 1998 sunspot activity was approximately 1/3rd of its max in mid-2000. For reference, 1998 had some of the hottest temperatures on record, whereas 2000 was a hair cooler, even though there were 3x as many sunspots.
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill My point, specifically, was that 1998 was a single year with a temperature anomaly, and that global warning panickers are always referencing it as some harbinger, and it's become such a joke that we've all learned to use 1998 as a START year for the other graphs just to drive you guys nuts, since it'll always show a downward trend if you start from a record high, just like it'll show an upward trend if you start from the Maunder Minimum. :P
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 - And my point was refuting the video, which is trying to state that the SUN is causing global warming. We're watching the sun - we know exactly how many sunspots are on it, and this number (or solar luminance values) aren't slowly rising over time. They're on an 11 year cycle, and while this certainly does affect temperature, it isn't what is causing global temperatures to rise over the last 50 years.
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill Thinking there's only the 11 year solar cycle would be a mistake. Come on, do a bit of searching on the different solar cycles. You might be surprised.
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 - The 11-year cycle (which isn't exact) is BY FAR the largest change in output energy from the Sun. And seeing as we've had multiple satellites and ground-based telescopes monitoring the Sun for fifty years and through this entire time have not noticed any overall increase in output puts a solid nail in the coffin of "Sun-caused global warming".
Again - the Sun went through a prolonged solar minimum after 2005 - and we didn't see temperatures plummet. They still rose.
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill No. The went down. The problem is that you believe not independent cience groups like Yale university but the IPCC and the UN. They will always tell you that is the man = reduce population.
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill Additionally, explain to me how climate on OTHER planets is affected, if not by the sun?
Seravat7 11 months ago
@Seravat7 - Other planets aren't going through any kind of climate change, that we know of. Spurious reports of "Global warming on Mars" is bad science, and is not supported by the evidence. There was one guy (Fenton) who took TWO PICTURES of Mars and came to the conclusion that it is warming. If you expand the study to include more data, the albedo change completely disappears.
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill ¡NONSENSE! ¿Then how the hell can we know the temperature of the Sun or the Venus temperature? ¡THE SAME METHODS WE USE TO KNOW THE TEMPERATURE ON MARS!
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@MGGoblin Thank you for prefacing your message with "NONSENSE" so I knew exactly how to categorize it. What the "Global Warming on Mars" idiot did was take -TWO- samples of data, ignored everything else, and called it "Global Warming". It would be like taking the temperature outside in February, and then in August, and claiming we are going to see 140 degree temperatures next December. NONSENSE!
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill Well, I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment, it was not my intention. I said "Nonsense!" because you told we cannot know the temperature of Mars. ¡Of course we can! ¿Have you ever seen an astronomy documentary? ¿How do astronomers know the temperature on a planet? It's not by seeing pictures. If we can accurately know the temperature of Pluto, we can know the temperature of Mars. Thats why I sad "Nonsense!" I found your claim to be non-sensical. Have a nice day.
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill Well, I'm sorry if you were offended by my comment, it was not my intention. I said "Nonsense!" because you told we cannot know the temperature of Mars. ¡Of course we can! ¿Have you ever seen an astronomy documentary? ¿How do astronomers know the temperature on a planet? It's not by seeing pictures. If we can accurately know the temperature of Pluto, we can know the temperature of Mars. Thats why I sad "Nonsense!" I found your claim to be non-sensical. Have a nice day.
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@MGGoblin - I NEVER claimed that we can't know the temperature of Mars. We can, we know it well. We have rovers there with thermometers on them. Plus, I am an astronomer. Go back and re-read what I said. The idiot who claimed Mars was warming used TWO data points, out of THOUSANDS that were available, and inferred it as a warming trend. Two data points cannot give you a statistically valid data trend. Google 'mars global warming' and read the first link.
Cyber0Bill 11 months ago
@Cyber0Bill
You have rovers there, and these rovers landed on a parachute ??.
kennjohnsen 10 months ago
@kennjohnsen - Have you really never heard of Spirit and Opportunity? marsrover.nasa.gov They used a combination of a parachute and air bags. The Mars Polar Lander dug up water ice. We've (Soviets and the US) had probes on Mars since the early 70's, and I'd guess we've got about 5 of them there now.
Cyber0Bill 10 months ago
@Cyber0Bill
So your Mars rovers are spiritual, then it's your guess how many there are up there. What use does a parachute have on Mars, how does it unfold ?. Just wonder.
kennjohnsen 10 months ago
@Cyber0Bill It certainly doesn't sound like that, since the googling I did on it shows a .5ºC difference (which would be pretty hard to determine from two pictures, wouldn't it?) but it's hard to say, since nature international journal of science insists on me subscribing to read the rest of their article. :P
Seravat7 10 months ago
@Cyber0Bill
Dead wrong. It has been incontrovertibly proven beyond any and ALL doubt that Mars is going through the same EXACT warming that our own planet is currently going through. To debate that is simply idiotic because that has been documented and proven incontrovertibly by actual scientists. Not even the econuts at the IPCC and the UN are debating that incontrovertible scientific FACT, you know.
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan - Not a single thing you said has any evidence behind it. Mars is -not- warming. There is only one guy, Abdusamatov, that is claiming it is, and his papers don't stand up against peer review. As I already stated in comments 6 months ago, he cherry picked two data points and threw out all of the other data. The reason nobody is debating Mars global warming is because there is NO EVIDENCE of it.
Cyber0Bill 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
That is NOTHING but a lie from you. The reason nobody is debating Mars global warming is because it has been incontrovertibly proven that Mars is warming up the EXACT same way the Earth is. NASA proved it, for crying out loud. To say that there's no evidence behind Mars's warming is NOTHING but an absolute LIE. NASA has been claiming it for years, and they actually have the data to prove it. Why must people like you continue to outright lie like that?
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan - If what I'm saying is a lie, it should be really easy to prove me wrong... Show me the evidence! Where is it?
Cyber0Bill 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
What? Are NASA and the plethora of National Geographic articles not enough for you? You do realize that NASA has been keeping an eye on the temperature on Mars for the last several years, don't you? Go to National Geographic's website, type "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says" in the search bar, and read the very first link given. This article uses information straight from NASA and it's from 2007. Where have you been the last 4 years.
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan - Hah, I destroyed your argument before you even made it. All of these 'reports' are based off of THE SAME FLAWED STUDY. Again, they took -TWO- images of Mars and tried to use the difference in albedo to claim global warming on Mars. That isn't valid, particularly when you add in the REST of the data, and find any apparent warming disappears! Getting back to the original point, though... We have RECORD HIGH temps, yet again, and we're in an EXTENDED SOLAR MINIMUM.
Cyber0Bill 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
Uhm, you destroyed NOTHING. I outright destroyed your argument by offering up what NASA actually says on the matter. That National Geographic article uses data straight from NASA to prove that Mars is warming up EXACTLY like the Earth is. These reports are NOT based off of the same flawed study whatsoever. That's another one of your baseless claims. These reports are based off of NASA's study of Mars and it temperatures. Try again, son.
etirvan 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
Also, we've been in a solar minimum for a few years. It's not like this entire decade saw a solar minimum. And record high temps have NOTHING at all to do with climate. We had record high temps throughout the past century. They mean NOTHING with regard to the climate. EVERY real climatologist who actually knows what he's talking about would tell you that. Take your debunked IPCC lies to someone who will actually fall for them, please. I've actually seen the data. I know the truth.
etirvan 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
Also, as a minor point, in the case of global warming, the difference in albedo is one of the most valid arguments. Seriously, you need to go back to school, son, and actually learn about how climate actually works. I've seen what the data, the REAL scientific data, has to say, and NOTHING that your IPCC liars, who have been soundly debunked time and time again by ACTUAL climatologists who actually work in the field, will convince me otherwise.
etirvan 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
Also, there's the data collected by MIT, Williams College, the University of Hawaii, Lowell Observatory, and Cornell University that prove beyond any and ALL doubt that Pluto is warming, as well. Mars and the Earth are not the only planets warming. There's plenty of evidence for Venus and Jupiter, as well. You are wrong, plain and simple. The scientific facts from actual scientists prove you wrong on the outset. The fact that you still debate it is ridiculous.
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan - LOL... Actually, you're right. Debating with you is pointless. Because you make claims, and then you can't back them up with evidence. Clearly, you have no knowledge of the scientific process. Unlike you, I actually have a degree in science, so maybe it's YOU who needs to go and study up. You can't win a debate because science isn't on your side. I'm on the side of science, and I have no agenda other than the pursuit of knowledge, clearly that can't be said about you.
Cyber0Bill 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
Are you kidding me? I backed up EVERYTHING I said using ACTUAL scientific facts from ACTUAL scientists. Yet, at the same time, you have NOT backed up a single thing you said. Sorry, son, the science is on MY side. The science from ACTUAL scientists and not your IPCC liars prove you wrong on the outset. It is YOU, not I, who needs to study up because I have actually seen the data that proves you wrong. Since the science is actually on my side, and NOT yours, it is you who can't win.
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan - The only thing you actually posted was one National Geographic article that disagrees with your claims. Hell, even the original scientific paper (the one I believe is flawed for extrapolating too small a data set) says that the temperature difference is because of dust storms - not a difference in solar activity of some kind. Science and evidence disagree with everything you say. You're seriously deluded, and you're acting like a child.
Cyber0Bill 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
Oh, one final thing here. Take your so-called degree in science and leave science, please. If they are giving people like you who don't even understand how our climate works a degree in science, the education system in this country really has gone downhill. Then again, that's how the IPCC econuts got their jobs, isn't it? Ten year olds understand more about the climate than you ever will. I went to college. I certainly understand more about the climate than you ever will.
etirvan 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
I mean, here you are claiming you have a degree in science and stating that a record high temperature in any given year is evidence of climate change when EVERY SINGLE climatologist will tell you that that is proof of NOTHING. Here's another scientific fact for you. The average temp of this planet went up about 1.5 degree in the last 100 years. That isn't enough warming to matter. Good bye and good riddance. Go back to school, but one that actually takes its sciences seriously
etirvan 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
There's also the Danish National Space Center and Henrik Svensmark who conducted their own study. Their findings agreed completely with NASA and that National Geographic article. Again, take your IPCC lies and your so-called mainstream ideas to someone who will actually fall for them, please. There have been more than enough ACTUAL climatologists out there to debunk your false lies. I've read what ACTUAL climatologists have said on the matter. I will take them over morons.
etirvan 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
Heck, even National Geographic has done articles concerning Mars global warming. Mars is warming up just like the Earth. This has been incontrovertibly proven time and time again. Why your crowd continues to deny it is flat out ridiculous and shows your crowd to be filled with NOTHING but nut cases. Why don't you quit paying attention to econuts and actually start looking at the REAL facts, for once?
etirvan 1 month ago
@etirvan - Did you bother to actually READ that National Geographic article? I know the headline is sensationalist - "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"... But read it: "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. Amato Evan, a climate scientist...added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Cyber0Bill 1 month ago
@Cyber0Bill
You mean the same mainstream scientific opinion of the morons at IPCC? Sorry, but I look into ACTUAL scientific FACTs here, not the cooked data from morons who call themselves scientists. The views of that article come STRAIGHT from NASA. I guess NASA is against those mainstream scientists now, as well. Look, I am not going to fall for your lies here. Try an rope another sucker into your false lie, okay. I've seen the actual data from NASA. I know what NASA has to say.
etirvan 1 month ago
more common sense
SteveOSpielberg 1 year ago
This unreferenced graph is from around 1990. To ignore recent studies in order to make his point indicates this guy is not too concerned with being accurate or truthful.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 "To ignore recent studies"
is to recognise that those by Michael Mann and his hockey team have been thoroughly debunked.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago