How It All Ends: I Hope I'm Wrong (Pt 2 of 2)

[lars008]

eat well excersize,,, die anyway,,,

spend tons of money on idiotic social issues,,, die anyway,,,

Sun remains a main sequence star, continually growing warmer and brighter by ~10% every 1 billion years.

no matter what you do,,, the sun will GET you in the end,,,

unless you LEAVE,,, that is where mankind needs to spend its money,,,

on LEAVING,,,

[IAMHEATHLEDGERZ]

Did you ever figure out conclusively what happened? If not, what was the "feasable explanation" you mentioned?

[FundiNation]

@IAMHEATHLEDGERZ i like the venus project's approach on this. google it

[mateo3470]

Global warming "science" is a lot like macroeconomics. There is too much aggregation and simple-minded causal explanations of really complex environments. Models become self-serving in regards to funding, interventionist and planning politics, and personal needs to save the world to fill voids in empty lives.

[mateo3470]

There are huge opportunity costs to the global warming "fixes". I think we will run out of oil and coal before we have to worry about heating up the earth. Cap and trade is simply a ridiculous bankers game. Computer models are not controlled experiments, which you need to have real science. 2010 has failed to beat 1998 which still holds the title of hottest year on record. December 2010 was the second coldest since records began in 1659 (Met Office). It's all bullshit.

[Gilbertronium]

so whats in the bottles that had after 1:34? im sure you'd tell your students (who we are aswell). It's not going to make a difference, if we feel like "blowing shit up" we are going to find out how anyway. various ways of explosive entertainment are easy like dry ice and water and mixing hydrogen with oxygen before igniting (coincidently on topic).

PS; a burning question i have (excuse the pun) is what is the product of burning hydrogen with oxygen? is it really just water?

[scallywag86]

regarding the Co2 question, it`s because even with an exhale, there`s still oxygen in our breath. That`s why CPR is effective

right?

[worriedaboutlife]

this is the same comment on video 1 of this series.. who'd ya work for?

[peterbourgon]

don't worry U R wrong

Check out this graph:

live search this:

Is Global Warming on the Wane?

How Solar Goes Polar

found on farmers almanac page.

mean temp. increase over last centry:

about 1 deg F

[dalecleaton]

Phew, thanks mate, that's a load off, I was really getting worried about that. 1 "fact" debunks almost every scientist on the planet!

If only people knew...

[ibcww]

cool... see suburbia. and watch it go away. icbww

[cag66]

what caused the explosion?

[mdiem]

@ :30, was that thermite?

[sgtschultze]

In the end, we don't know what we don't know. But those in the catastrophic community make no (audible) allowance for warming to be a good thing. I will honestly state that I do not know if we are warming or cooling because the assumption is based on recent data. Reliable historic temperature data is neither reliable nor valuably historic. Those on the catastrophic side can see nothing but doom, and that invalidates their position as being unskeptical and by your description, unscientific.

[sgtschultze]

We think we know that previous glacial periods included miles thick ice covering most of North America. As we entered an inter glacial period, wouldn't that melting ice cover (water) have to retreat to somewhere? Isn't it reasonable then that sea levels have been steadily rising.

Humanity and land-based life thrive in the absence of miles thick ice. Higher sea levels will cause civilizations to contract into smaller geographic areas. That seem to argue in favor of those who favor urban centers.

[sgtschultze]

Thank you for both parts. But I must ask you now, are you holding assumptions that bias your acceptance of imminent catastrophe? Are you assuming that ice core data is reliable, going back hundreds of millions of years? That the content of trapped air isn't influenced by the millions of tons of compacted ice atop the lower levels? Are you even guilty of assuming warming is a bad thing? After all, the bias of the Earth climate is in favor of glaciation as opposed to inter-glaciation.

[RyuDarragh]

Heh. Kids are told we breathe out "carbon dioxide" by science teachers and school books, so it's accepted wisdom. They aren't told we breath out all the gasses we breathed in minus some oxygen (not all of it) *with* added water vapor, CO2, methane, alcohols, ketones, and dozens of other metabolic byproducts. That would just confuse most grade school students is the assumption and that assumption stems from an unconcious bias as well.

[AcolyteOfDeath]

I'm no global warming skeptic (Heck, I'm majoring in atmospheric science BECAUSE I got interested in climate change) but I was intrigued by the account of the oozing demo suddenly exploding. Could you tell me why that happened and how you figured it out?

[IanUK66]

on various 'real science' web sites to explain why Mars should be warming and if it applies there then surely it should here.

When scientists start talking in the language of engineers I'll listen more closely.

[TempestStormwind]

Water vapor is part of the problem, yes, but since it rains out of the atmosphere in weeks, it can't be the sole driver.

This *is* covered in the IPCC report, AND the climate models. No one discounts water vapor -- in fact, it's responsible for the magnitude of the change from CO2, although it doesn't force on its own. (Ever heard of tightly coupled variables?)

This *IS* covered in chapter 9, which you threw away as soon as it contradicted your beliefs. How very scientific.

[IanUK66]

Whether it rains out within a few hours of weeks we are adding water vapour to the atmosphere constantly and increasingly.

There is an upper level of humidity but there's also all the levels in between.

My model explains the heat island effects which has nothing to do with CO2. It's all about heat and vapour which is, in miniture, whats happening to the whole climate. It also explains ALL the historical and interplanetary observations.

I didn't throw anything away...cont

[IanUK66]

I did extensive searches for various words and read relevant paragraphs.

Let me ask you. Do you believe there was ever or will ever be equilibrium within the climate?

Please check this out.

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=e8Hdix­pk-TQ&NR=1

His figures seem a tad over board but the principles remain the same.

[IanUK66]

Also, we're reportedly producing 7 gigatonnes of CO2 each year by burning hydrocarbons so if we producing twice as much water (this is shown using basic chemistry) it would mean we're adding 14 billion tonnes to the oceans each year.

1 meter sq of water = 1 metric tonne so thats 14 billion M2 of water. No where in any chaper of the IPCC report is this accounted for in rising sea levels? Wouldn't this amount of water make a difference?

[wwickeddogg]

Are you saying that there is more water vapor in the atmoshpere?

How do you measure the average water vapor in the atmosphere?

Isn't the amount of water in the atmosphere more a function of temperature than anything else, assuming that people are putting so much water vapor in the air, wouldn't that vapor just immediately rain down in minutes?

[cag66]

yeah good point, how much hydrogen is there in oil and coal? and what effect burning have on the levels of atmospheric oxygen?

[stevfusion]

reply to cag66: coal is apparently a mixture instead of a compound. it contains mostly pure carbon, other elements including hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, of which i'm assuming would go in the air along with the CO2, but those arent greenhouse gasses. Oil and gasoline comprise mostly of hydrocarbons, molecules of carbon and hydrogen, which when combusted in the presence of oxygen yield CO2 and H2O.H2O is quickly recycled, but as explained in "mechanics of GCC", CO2 takes much longer to recycle

[wwickeddogg]

Are you saying that warming taking place on Mars for 1.5 orbits is equivalent to the warming trend on Earth for decades?

Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change.  Or it could be a simple seasonal change that we have just not yet observed.

[IanUK66]

It's also water soluble so it gets rained out.

Anyway, I could go on pointing out how CO2 is a misnomer and merely a bit part player.

My model also explains the lag in the rise of CO2 coming out of ice ages.

More solar heat leads to increased humidity, greater GH effects, more heat and increased CO2 effervescent within the oceans.

It also explains why Mars is warming.

Wind storms are exposing more rocks which absorbs more heat(just like our tarmac)

This explaination has been posed cont

[IanUK66]

On a global scale this makes every day a tiny bit warmer going into the next day and more heat means the atmosphere will hold even more water vapour and trap more heat. Positive feedback.

SO lets take CO2.

CO2 is more dense than air so sinks. It's what makes the carbon cycle possible.

The trouble is, we have no clue how CO2 fully interacts with the atmosphere. It's not tagged, we can't see it.

Does in accumulate more in valleys, does it rise with air currents?. Chances are, it does CONT

[IanUK66]

This is my climate model.

Man comes along, chops down trees, irrigates the land, burns fossil fuels(adding twice as much H2O as CO2)...net result. Increased humidity.

Lets not forget, we don't have any long term records showing humidity.

Man builds massive heat sinks(towns & cities)irrigates more, burns even more fossil fuels(re-introducing water that has been locked aways for millions of years too). Heat generation on a massive scale and the insulation (water vapour) to keep it here. CONT

[IanUK66]

Nowhere in C9 is the UHI effect even mentioned.

I stopped reading when I came accross the word 'equilibrium' because anyone who understands the climate could tell you that there is no such thing.

I'm an engineer by trade and my thinking is based on engineering logic.

Now to be an engineer you have to understand how the world works in 3D from accumulated data.

I also have a good understanding of the science involved and blaming CO2 RF just doesn't kick all the boxes.

Cont.

[TempestStormwind]

The UHI is adjusted for in the instrumental temperature record by including information from nearby rural stations. Just like any experiment that has a chance of collecting bad data, bad data's thrown out.

Furthermore, the UHI cannot explain warming in the oceans, as observed by direct instrumental measurements *and* by satellites (both through temperature measurements and indirectly through thermal expansion). Notably, EVERY satellite record shows ocean warming.

[IanUK66]

Here, you're assuming that I'm trying to contest global warming by the old argument of incorrect measurements because of the UHI effects.

I'm not that fickle in assuming climate scientist are dumb. They are merely mistaken.

If you want me to explain the thermodynamics of how land and air temperatures can effect ocean temperatures I could, just say the word :o)

[IanUK66]

It seems you are missing the point. I know all about hydrocarbons. When I talk about heat I don't JUST mean the heat we generate but the heat our whole infrastructure, building, tarmac and concrete absorbs during the day.

The heat we generate/retain is conventional and the suns radiant.

If you want to heat your home you don't add a gas you install radiators and at present we have over 3400 major cities with 100,000 people or more on this planet. Thats 3400 mini radiators.

[TempestStormwind]

And the forcing from increasing human heat production is minimal compared to the forcing from increasing CO2 levels.

This is already covered, chapter 9 of the IPCC report.

[mdiem]

That still doesn't matter. We can generate all the heat we want, if there weren't a greenhouse effect to our atmosphere, we'd freeze.

[magetoo]

Interesting story about the demo gone bang.

The exact same thing happened in 8th grade at my old school, except this was during class, and done on the front desk.

The end result was the school having to pay for ruined clothes for the students sitting in the first two rows, and an autographed black spot in the ceiling.

No one was hurt. And that particular demo is done in beakers or test tubes (straight sides - less blockage risk) ever since that incident, and *not* on the teacher's desk.

[IanUK66]

Undoubtably, whenever we produce heat CO2 is bi product but even so the amount has only increased by 0.0001% since the 18th century.

[TempestStormwind]

AGW isn't about human heat production. I don't know why you'd think that.

Whenever we burn (add O2) a carbon product (C), we get CO2. And almost all of our electricity production is based on burning fossil fuels, which are carbon-based.

It's not the heat that humans produce that's the problem. It's the CO2 that we produce trapping the heat (from the sun) that would have escaped otherwise.

We're not turning up the thermostat, we're adding an extra blanket.

[IanUK66]

This too has been locked away for millions of years. You say that the amount of heat we produce is insignificant but this is heat that shouldn't be here and it does indeed warm the atmosphere, especially at night, hence the term 'heat island'

So every day of every year there is more energy in the atmosphere going into the next day and this has an accumulative effect of gradual global warming.

[IanUK66]

I do understand why governments and scientists have jumped on the CO2 bandwagon because if you cut down in your generation of heat, make cars more efficient, insulate homes better, recycle all that you can, consume less etc etc you will produce less heat and it does give Me Joe public the sense he can do anything about global warming.

[TempestStormwind]

I would suggest looking at the IPCC report to see why the science says it's CO2 that's the critical factor. (This reasoning DOES include land use estimates and an understanding of water vapor.)

See if their research convinces you (we've done a bad job talking about the technical aspects in these videos and comments).

If it doesn't, fine, but then you'd know the scientific basis behind it and your statement would be an informed one.

[IanUK66]

Man, by his shear existance generates & retains heat and it's the heat that is the problem.

Now undoubtably, when man generates heat, CO2 is one of the bi-products.

SO the question should be, is the increased heat causing global warming orrrrr is the increased CO2 causing global warming?

[Solarswordsman]

Isn't it reasonable to agree that the sun produces LOADS more heat than we do? Then without a doubt, the miniscule heat we offer in comparison is nothing compared to the heat from the sun, trapped by carbon dioxide.

A layman's analysis for sure, and I'm excluding the fact that, ignoring just about every assertion of science thus far, carbon dioxide might not be responsible for trapping as much heat as we generate. For the answer to this, feel free to scour google for the truth.

[IanUK66]

Admittedly I'm not privy to any official data but I have seen most of the peer reviewed stuff but it still doesn't add up.

For every unit of CO2 we produce by burning fossil fuels we produce 2 units of H20...water vapour. Water vapour, which is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. This too is manufactured' when we burn fossil hydrocarbons.

[mdiem]

Ian: "For every unit of CO2 we produce by burning fossil fuels we produce 2 units of H20."

H2O is removed from the atmosphere about as fast as it is put in because of the hydrologic cycle. CO2 sticks around a lot longer because the Carbon cycle isn't as responsive.

[IanUK66]

How about con-trails? Do they help cool the planet or does the CO2 from aeroplanes ourweight any effect?

How about the thermal properties of millions of sq miles of tarmac, roof tops?

The leaking heat from millions of homes, businesses and cars?

The thermal properties of billions of mammals?

How does increased CO2 explain the 'heat island' effects of every major town and city?

[IanUK66]

Take water vapour for example.

Man irrigates on a massive scale and the total area under irrigation has increased by more than a factor of three since 1950. 40% of irrigated water evaporates so our production of water vapour has increased too.

Now you stated yourself that water vapour is more 'greenhouse' effective than CO2

[IanUK66]

I'm not disputing that increased CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't have an effect on global warming, it's just the scale of the effect I'm debating.

Especially when there are so, so many other contibutary factors.

[IanUK66]

I hope I'm wrong here but your statement in one of the vids that basically said: Man is pumping CO2 into the atmoshere at an alarming rate, the worlds climate is warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore CO2 is the problem....well, that doesn't quite join all the dots for me.

[RoelGeurtsen]

Awesome ,what a blessing indeed u still wore ur safety gear ,i may oppose some sides of ur mission or at least ur conviction ,U're still a nice guy and i respect the effort ,u didnt convince me of Agw but than again i am surtainly not the one abusing it! let it be so! btw i hope ure wrong too!!

[TempestStormwind]

Whether or not you're "the one abusing it" (whatever that means), you have a stake in the world it affects.

As a result, I have to ask what you oppose. I'm not trying to attack you; I sincerely want to do my darndest to debunk this position, and your claims might help with that.

If I can't debunk it, though, I'm left with no rational conclusion but to support it.

[RoelGeurtsen]

I drive no car,i never flew,i recycle,do not own a compagny not all out of principle but nevertheless .now unless u want me to plug my ... or going about preaching the gospel of All Gore i really can do no more!

[TempestStormwind]

Just as you probably aren't George W. Bush or John Howard, we're not Al Gore.

Hell, if you'd bothered to actually listen to WM42's argument, you find that it is actually VERY DIFFERENT than Gore's.

Gore argued for the things you were talking about. WM42 didn't. There's some overlap, but by and large WM42's calling for something totally different.

[davidngo4415]

by this philosophy i should be scared of everything anyone presents to me.

[aurelia314159]

The explosions were awesome, but what really gave this video meaning was the emphasis on proactive, rather than reactive, thinking - caution now to avoid panic later. If y'all are interested, the video of Stephen Petranek under TEDtalksDirector gives suggestions for being proactive about other, more distant threats.

[ckottcky]

You have a long esophagus that leads to your lungs. So some of the air you breath in never makes it the lungs, it just says in the esophagus. Then when you breath out this air comes out first and it is full of O2 instead of CO2.

[ThirtyThreeArsenic]

That and our lungs don't use every bit of O2 we breathe. So there's still plenty left when we exhale.

[Blue2Panther]

Soooo... you have me curious, why exactly did the oozy experiment explode?

[iiopen]

Right on message!

[Poki3]

Offtopic - can we get one movie full of explosions and other experiments please? ^^;

[Suralin0]

Now the beaker fulla' crucibles had sat around for about 20 minutes. It was time for a bathroom break, but I was bored. So i started putting a pinch of baking soda into the solution to watch the fizzies.

I found to my surprise that the result was endothermic. It froze the beaker to a block of wood.

If I hadn't seen it myself I wouldn't have believed it. But there it is. Just goes to show, you never know...

[Suralin0]

I have an interesting chemistry story that goes along the same lines -- sometimes the unlikely, or a "dismissed" possibility, becomes reality.

After an experiment, we immersed crucibles and such in a concentrated acid solution to scour them clean.

[AKAastragale]

Extra credit... Hum, chemistry is far away here, so I am going out on a limb: As we exhale, we let out CO2 AND oxygen (otherwise mouth to mouth ressucitation would not be very effective)... In order to combust the gas needs some oxygen mixed in it, other wise it will not inflame because of a lack of O2 to combine with... So do I get the shiny star?

[petesauber]

Extra Credit:

CO2 is more dense than the gas to be ignited, so the introduced CO2 displaces the flammable gas, forcing it closer to the top of the carboy?

Once you get all this online, may we please see more thermite demonstrations?

[petesauber]

CO2 is more dense than the vapor/gas to be burned, so the CO2 pushes the flammable gas up to the top of the carboy?

Was the fluid in the carboy normally a gas or was it alcohol vapor?

[talkinturtle]

Excellent message once again!