current CO2 levels are at 391 ppm and rising. it wont be long before antarctica thaws enough like greenland has, which is rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. when antarctica thaws enough it too will rise out of the sea. it is connected to every tectonic plate around the world and will crack the earths crust. this isnt doomsday bull, this is science, and quite likely the worse threat facing mankind.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The frequency of extreme events is becoming so high now I think the deniers are trying to blame them on geoengineering :-/ The only justification being an exploratory conference on it.
This came in really handy just then, thanks so much for covering this in such an easy to understand format and the graphic of the Northern V Southern temperatures slowly rolling across the screen was really helpful! Fantastic work!
if you move the antarctica graph just 2 mm to the right we have a match in the rise and fall. one lags a little but is doing the same thing. both fall down at almost the same time and rise again. a seesaw would be extremely different than what i see in this graph, it would mean that one should be flipped upside down.
@greenman3610 this is to obvious. if i see the blue sky, do i have to ask somebody if it`s blue? what if they say it`s green? do i believe them? what is wrong with you? the graphs are doing the same thing with a slight delay (which can be human error - who knows). but to go as far as saying they are in a seesaw relationship!? you have real issues...
@andreiuta171 - we will neglect the fact that that shift is in the magnitude of 500-1500 years...not that trivial. Additionally the oscillating temperature changes between the poles are related but not exclusive, the heat transfer is not only between these regions but with the rest of the globe too (you know that part between the poles that the heat flux must pass through?).
@greenman360 you have opened my eyes to the error of my ways. when I think of the thousands and thousands of hours I'm wasted studying, researching, boringness roof peer reviewed papers, traveling to exotic often cold places I could just kick myself! all I had to do was google the stuff!
There is truth on both sides. The 1500 year cycle is not as significant as the 10,000 year (minor) cycle and the 100,000 year cycle, as shown by the Vostok cores.
I am no climate denier! Hubbert's Peak suggests we've burned roughly 1/2 of the ~1trillion barrels global supply of oil. That means we've dumped ~500B bbls of smog and soot into the atmosphere, mostly in just the last 50 years. This must have some effect! Climate change is reasonable science.
there are large glacial cycles, and we know where we are in that cycle now. By orbital factors, we should be slightly cooling, whereas in fact we are warming rapidly. There is no explanation other than GHGs.
@greenman3610 I have a background in science, and I think we are on the same side of the Carbon fuel -> climage change thing. I'm just saying, your arguments are wholly unconvincing.
By calling the other side a "crock", this is ad hominum. If you hold the truth, let it stand naked on its own merit. Truth gains no benefit from your epithets.
Next, anyone who argues for scientific certainty has not been keeping up with the literature. No science can accurately predict these cycles. Need proof?
@greenman3610 There is an axis of truth / wisdom on one end, and ignorance / illusion at the other. "Crock" is an insult, a judgment. It does not rest on this axis. It is "out of bounds".
There also competing realms of truth. e.g. in cosmology, there is Monism (Advaita Vedanta), Dualism (Western Science, Christianity), 3 Elements (Trigunas), 4 Elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water), 5 elements (energy, matter, time, space, vaccuum), etc. These all have rich fields of inquiry. All are "true".
@greenman3610 Back to global warming, again, you concentrate on 1500 year cycles. Why? The last ice age was 10,000 years ago. The Vostok data clearly shows a) minor cycles ~10k years, b) major cycles 100k years, and c) wide variations... i.e., these are NOT perfectly predictable.
Your a) insults, 2) your claims to exclusive truth, and 3) claims of certainty weaken your position.
the video is about a book called "Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 Years", which I am debunking. Does that give you a clue why I am concentrating on that cycle?
Again, I make no comment whatever on ancient vedantic science - have you actually watched one of the videos?
I say, if someone says the earth is flat, the sun goes around it, or its only 5000 years old, or there is no greenhouse effect, that is a crock, that is not "true" in any sense of the word.
@billhuston Ad hominem attacks seem to work pretty well for the other side; to the point where they've changed the minds of a substantial number of people. And they've used much stronger language than "crock". This is not only science; it's been heavily politicized for quite some time and politics is frequently ugly.
500B bbl of oil burned over roughly 50 years is of a magnitude scientists refer to as a "shitload".
You could be correct. I'd still want to see the data.
And if true, I'd be inclined to say "so what"? No offense. But what does that matter?
The question is whether this human-caused activity is fucking up the atmosphere beyond all recognition, and if so, maybe we humans should consider another way...
Ref:greenman3610 "therefore.... heat on Venus is an illusion." Exchange CO2 on Venus with Nitrogen, the temp would nearly be the same. Venus's atmosphere has nearly 4 times the Nitrogen of Earth. Venus has no GHE. The temperature is due to 90 bars of pressure. It's crust is thinner than the Earth's allowing the internal core heat to reach the surface. Actually, the fact that Venus's atmosphere is CO2 helps to cool the planet more than a mixed atmosphere like the one on Earth.
ref:smartmusicfreak:"You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. Since the warming is logarithmic, the effect is dependent on the ratio between two levels."
Sorry for the confusion. The CO2 atmosphere warming curve flattens out along the x-axis at about 200ppm CO2 and no more meaningful warming occurs. Are you having problems with following a simple curve like this. It is a fact, like 9 million bicycles in Beijing.
The role of CO2 is blown way out of proportion. It truly has little to do with global warming once past about 200 ppm. The atmosphere becomes opaque to the wavebands as the photons are all absorbed. This is a proven fact of science. No amount of bogus peer reviewed junk science can change the facts.
Referenece: smartmusicfreak reply: Yes, that was just my way of trying to explain that the CO2 atmospheric temperature curve comes down sharply and levels off horizontally with little additional warming (past about 200 ppm) even if you double the CO2 ppm. You must have seen such a graph mentioned before. The vertical Y-axis is temperature and the horizontal X-axis is ppm CO2. It is a decreasing logarithmic curve.
What a load of crap. Dont attack the evidence, attack the persons presenting the evidence. Im no scientist, and sure as hell not a believer in the Globa Warming Farce. Five years from now, we will be freezing our rears off, and these buffoons will still be arguing for GW. Any scientist willing to ignore the solar activity data, is a failure of science, and should hang himself in shame when the truth becomes so obvious that he has no more ability to argue.
How can warming in Greenland vs. the cooling in antarctic not be global. This video obscures the truth with such idiotic comments and becomes twisted by what he sees is twisted. CO2 has a more positive correlation with global cooling than with global warming. In the troposphere, the CO2 radiative link for warming is the weakest link.
The NOAA/NCDC data set, depicts the annual global temperature changes from 1880-2010 vs the rising levels of CO2, with little to no impact of CO2 for the last 130 years. CO2's impact decreases logarithmically as photons become scarce in the required wavebands. So 98% of CO2's warming occurs in the first 300 ppm. Tropospheric warming is 95% water vapor and 5% CO2. Cloudy water droplets absorb 20% or so of earth's longwave radiation . So adding more greenhouse gases will have little effect.
@wayne487msc "CO2's impact decreases logarithmically as photons become scarce in the required wavebands. So 98% of CO2's warming occurs in the first 300 ppm."
You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. Since the warming is logarithmic, the effect is dependent on the ratio between two levels. That means that a doubling of CO2, no matter the level, will cause the same change in warming.
I've told Greenman this in the past, but I have to say, that this book by Singer and Avery was the book that changed my opinion from being a denier to one who finally accepted the theory on AGW. For me it was the wishy washy stance of Singer, who dif in fact waffle on whether warming was happening...and then how much....and then to what extent. Talk about laws of unintended consequences! Thanks, Fred. Now, let's talk about how you smeared Ben Santer!
Straw man argument. This guy insinuates that anyone who questions man-made GW is a stupid redneck and says they almost always read a particular book. Then he attacks the book. This is a straw man. He frames the debate and then attacks the opposition. There are many other books and scientists who debate the cult of man-made GW, but he chose to insinuate that the skeptic is retarded (King of the Hill) and then say they almost always read the book he attacks.
@Buckeyefarmer, want to discuss strawmans? Then quote one SPECIFICALLY and then take it apart.
To say this 6.5 minute video which clearly focuses on a popular denier book by Singer and Avery, is dishonest framing, is like saying George W. Bush is a great warrior. Got a problem with the video's content? Then address what SPECIFICALLY is wrong. You can't.
As for your claim of "many other books and scientists who debate the cult of man-made GW", name some REPUTABLE examples. You can't.
"are experts in manipulation, which you Socialist usually are."
Bad english for one, wrong for two, and thankyou for using the oh so predictable "SOCIALIST!!!" strawman which sounds quite hillarious the moment you leave the US.
"Climate change is real, who the hell have said it is not ?."
Clearly you've never done research on the subject, or watched the majority of this video series.
Obfuscate and create paralysis is a good phrasing. Companies that pump hydrocarbons obfuscate and create paralysis as long as they can. Just as the tobacco co's did.
Those involved in the AGW issue use it mainly to promote unrelated agendas. If you really believe in AGW doomsaying, what you have been doing during the last election cycle? Working to prevent Harry Reid from being reelected so we can get America's nuclear power industry moving again. Germany, citadel of AGW, is actually shutting down its nuclear industry. So there is no relationship between belief in AGW and actually doing something about it.
Climate change is real, clever global warming crooks argument, who says that climate change is not real, on the contrary, climate change all the time, and all those Greenland - Antarctica - sea drill holes, what ever, shows it does. And the climate change of to day is nothing out of the ordinary. It's a leftist false flag operation.
I understand the U.S. government stopped funding the C.R.U. East Anglia while it digested the results of the "climategate" investigation. Is their any news about a resumption of funding ?
Readers wishing to read what the actual *science* says should refer to one of the papers I mentioned: "Reconstruction of Regional Mean Sea Level Anomalies", or " Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry".
Both papers conclude sea level rise is moderate (~6 inches/century) and not accelerating.
Indeed, I often picture Dale in his basment when reading some of the ludicrous comments denying climate change. The conspiracy theorists, especially - and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned The Beast yet.
It's not working any more Greenman. Your kind has cried wolf too many times. A 1.5 degree temperature rise isn't going to kill us all. Man lives anywhere on the planet from an average temperature of over 90 degrees down to less than zero.
In fact, warming is far more likely to benefit us. Looking back through history, its the warm periods (Roman Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum) in which civilization flourished. It's the cold periods that hurt.
These videos are a great source of information. I have souced facts from them when replying to the hysterical ranting from two or three climate deniers writting to my local paper.Keep up the good work.
That's exactly what they are for. In the most recent ones, especially, I try to
put as many links as possible in the descriptions, but most of the vids show you the sources well enough so that with a little googling, they are easy to find.
Con't: This is moreso the case because not only are we adding an extra input into the carbon cycle in the form of fossil fuels, but also degrading the ability of the biosphere to absorb some of that excess by way of massive deforestation. This may be exacerbated by warming ocean temps or somewhat offset my increased algal blooms, etc - the point is, we don't really know enough to keep our current CO2 output and "see what happens".
We may not have seen feedbacks cause runaway global warming on Earth, but I would hesitate in saying that they don't exist, or that it's impossible. A look to Venus should at least set some alarm bells ringing when making statements like that...
@greenman3610 For sure. The Earth is exceptionally good at self-regulation when talking in geological time. However, as we know so little about climate, I still have concerns regarding feedback mechanisms and what might be termed 'tipping points'. I mean, there's a fair amount of data regarding what the Earth will do with natural variations - but there's almost none regarding what happens when non-natural inputs occur. At best, we can make hypotheses based on previous impact or volcanic events.
@ferrett78 Venus is hot because the air pressure is way higher than on Earth. It would be the same temperature no matter what gas the atmosphere was made of.
@kauffner Of course the atmospheric pressure plays a part, but so does the composition. The gases composing the atmosphere of Venus have a much stronger greenhouse effect than those of Earth.
@kauffner Just like on Earth, sunlight does penetrate the cloud cover on Venus. The suphur dioxide clouds reflect about 60% of the sunlight falling on them, but you also have to remember that Venus is closer to the sun, so the sunlight per unit area is roughly twice that on Earth, with the net effect being the equivalent of a somewhat overcast day here - still plenty of energy available for a greenhouse effect ;-)
@ferrett78 You can explain the surface temperature of Venus just by extrapolating from solar radiation and atmospheric pressure. So why bring up exotic theories? It's Carl Sagan using planetary science to play politics.
@kauffner Im sure Greenman has a link to one of his videos where you can learn to build a science experiment for yourself to show that CO2 has a stronger greenhouse effect than air. Disregarding pressure and solar radiation, the science behind this is well known. If you want to argue that it's suddenly non-existent on the planetary scale, or at differing pressures or distances to the sun, be my guest and show your evidence.
Venusian clouds are 30 to 40km thick. The fact that there is virtually no difference in temperature between night and day suggests that very little sunlight reaches the surface. The surface temperure is 485C AT NIGHT. The clouds absorb virtually all the outgoing longwave radiation, so there is no role for CO2 absorption. In short, enough with the Vensusian greenhouse fantasies already.
The high temps at night are due to the continued re-radiation of heat by greenhouse gases.
You are way, way out on a limb arguing for a dismissal of 150 years of physical science and chemistry. You might as well be arguing for a flat earth my friend.
Feedbacks don't solve that problem, Greenman, they make it worse. Every past temperature rise in the geologic record does the same thing. Temps rise, CO2 goes up in response, temps rise further in response to that CO2 -- and then temps GO BACK DOWN. Every time. Irrefutable proof that negative feedbacks dominate. If the positive-dominant feedback that AGW theory predicts were true, we would have seen runaway warming before. We haven't...so it doesn't exist.
But a few climate modelers believe the basic physics here is wrong. They think that not only will CO2 cause a small amount of direct warming, but a much larger amount of indirect warming, via positive feedback mechanisms (primarily H20 amplification).
It doesn't matter to them that such positive feedbacks have never been seen before in the geologic record. Their models say it must be so, so it must be so, even though the current observational evidence counters it.
We know the feedbacks are strong and positive, because we can't come up with the cause of the temp swings between glacial and interglacial conditions without very strong climate feedbacks.
If you deny the feedbacks, it is incumbent on you to come up with a whole new understanding (flying saucers? bigfoot? fairies?) of how the ice ages came about.
Sort of, but not quite. The problem is that no one disputes that Co2 can cause warming. The issue is that a small cadre of environmental-minded researchers are trying to claim that **future** warming will be catastrophic, based on the unproven assumption of positive feedbacks in the climate system.
"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . ."
“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
When faced with facts, you cry consensus. Here are some words on that fallacy:
"Science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results..
Green, the problem is that if you stick to nothing but scientific papers -- there is no catastrophe. There's no looming disaster at all. If people read the actual scientific papers rather than listening to what a few loons like Hansen and Mann tell reporters, we wouldn't be thinking about spending tens of trillions of dollars on a "problem" that, scientifically, will be anything from a mild annoyance to a moderate benefit.
Well, the 97 percent of all working climate scientists who get it about climate not only read, but write the studies.
The many climate scientists who write to me, and advise me on this series, very much get what the literature says, and they respect my adherence to it.
A good start is reading IPCC chapter 6, paleoclimate, which is interesting and accessible.
But ignore Hansen's alarmist rhetoric. After 30 years of selling global warming as a problem "we have only ten years to stop" -- what are the REAL effects we're seeing? Worldwide last year, over 3 times as many cold record were set as heat records. Over five times as many people died from cold weather as hot weather. Over 15 times as much crop damage caused by frost compared to heat stress.
Hurricane activity is down, Antarctic ice is increasing, and sea level isn't accelerating. Oops.
Your bias is right. I gave you the actual names of Hansen's 1988 paper, and his testimony before Congress that same year. It's all a matter of public record. The interview with a Salon reporter is also public .... you ignore that by claiming a liberal reporter is "lying", even when she confirmed again in 2001 he stood by his predictions. Nice way to stick your head in the sand.
Dr. James Hansen, the "father of global warming" predicted in 1988 that within 20 to 25 years, large parts of NYC would be flooded, and that winds would be so strong that the rest of the city would have to tape over windows to prevent them from being broken. He also predicted fresh water would be so scarce that water would be "by request only" in restaurants, and a vast increase in crime due to the "summer heat waves" NYC would have even in the winter.
When I asked this poster for a link, he pointed me, not to an interview with Hansen, but to a 9 year old interview of one journalist, with another journalist, who claimed to have (then!) 13 year old recollections of Hansen saying things that are entirely at odds with all of his publications.
The difference between myself and deniers - I insist on either peer reviewed pubs, or the actual words of credible people and organizations, as opposed to blog hearsay and rumor
There's so much crap on the web from the denial industry. We need shows like yours. People like to believe what's simple and easy. The denialists are abusing that phenomenon. You are the translator of all the scientists seemingly not getting enough of a grip to the common audience.
More to the point, the godfathers of the "climate change" (or "global warming") movement - politicians like Al Gore - are making billions of dollars trading in carbon stocks.
I'm curious to know where it comes from. I remember a particular video of a Bill O staffer trying to confront Al Gore who was apparently in a hurry to get somewhere and did not stop to answer the guy's questions about how much money he was making from climate change economics. Naturally, Bill O naturally considered this an admission of fault...
I thought making money was good. I thought dealing with climate change was supposed to make us poor.
So, it's bad that people are making money on it?
Actually, Gore has made by far most of his money by being a major stockholder of Apple and Google, and being on their boards.
He got there, of course, by being a visionary, and by being an early participant and supporter of the internet revolution - people that are smarter, and see farther, do better.
Sorry, but you're talking crap. "Climate change" (it used to be global warming, didn't it?) is a scam. The fact that there are people getting paid to repudiate it and obfuscate the issue doesn't make it a fact. The scientists who are promoting "climate change" are also benefiting financially - in fact they are benefiting far more than the scientists representing the skeptical position.
Those of you who agree that AGW is the most likely explantion for recent rapid warming might like this "climate change deniers, stop asking for proof".
So what is anyone supposed to do?(about global warming if it is happening) I think you want to continue using oil, gas, electricity, energy as you have always done, but you want it to be labeled GREEN. What do you want to happen? Every one else should turn in to rice paddy farmers but you continue your normal life style? What?
How many times do we hear from the warmist that the polar caps are melting faster than they ever have? What a crock! A total lie. Go look at the graph for the last 750,000 yrs and you will see that the increase in the ice melting is getting greater every 100,000yrs for the last 750,000yrs. we've only been on the planet for about 250,000yrs. IT'S NATURAL! GET OVER IT!
@greenman3610 I'm sorry. I thought you knew how to use a computer. My bad.
Try googling "Climate and the Carboniferous Period" and look at the diagram regarding ice levels for the last 750,000yrs. Oh, by the way. There's probably something called google on your bar at the top of your page. Give it a try.
@greenman3610 Don't be a freakin idiot. You didn't even look at the site. Don't be afraid. There is a graph specifically for the last 750,000 yrs of ice core records.
People - watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', 'Global Warming: Emergins Science' and Lord Christopher Monckton's oct 2009 address to the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
@greenman3610...I checked the snow and ice data center...interesting, ice reached its maximum extent in March 31, latest recorded date (it's getting colder), and sea ice HAS been increasing since 2007, see the graph. Peace...
you can check the graph daily. It shows that ice extent is now below the same point in the low record year of 2007. Ice volume, of course, is lower still. Anyone can read what it says by googling
nsidc daily image update
click on the graph that is labeled "daily image update". It speaks for itself.
@jimccolorado correlate your data with sunspot activity and what do you have? a people that WANT to believe that glabal warming is fake and one cold winter is all they need to prove it.
Isn't it fascinating that the cooling predicted by Singer and Avery are actually occuring, just as they predicted? Also interesting that the greenman3610 has to attack the individuals and not the science?
BTW, check the recent arctic ice measurements, increasing since 2007. As of 5/20/2010 no melting yet, a very late start to the melt cycle. Hmmmm.......
@jimccolorado You are not paying very good attention. He did address the science, and he wasn't making random ad hominim attacks, he was exposing their obvious bias, ie that they are being paid to mislead gullible people like you.
I'm confused. Are Global warming denialists saying there is no global warming, and that the temperatures are actually unchanging/decreasing or are they saying that it is completely natural and not man made?
Yes that 1500 year cyclic warming there is something like a seesaw (or first order lever) . First the variation in the south pole is not as large as in the north and second how is that different from what is happening now see here in satellite data:
don't discuss the science attack the man repeat the mantra.
Dansgaard Oechger events in glacial Bond events in interglacials.
Sure there is a see saw (happens every year orf hadn't he noticed) but the global averages follow a different law so why is this dishonest person showing it the way he is. The global average tends to follow the northern hemisphere.
I am not talking about Climate-gate. On April 15 Trenberth admitted to a significant deficit in his climate modeling. (See missing-heat-mayaffect-future-climate-change.) One of the possible explanations he offers is that either the satellite data or the interpretation of data is wrong. See Douglas-Christy paper, 2007 for an earlier version of this story.
Again you are misreading. Trenberth is saying we do not have adequate sensors, especially in places like the deep ocean, to know where incoming heat is going.
We are going to see the effects, but we don't know when or where.
He's not expressing a doubt, he's sounding a warning.
@greenman3610 Whatever your interpretation--it was an awesome press release!
Have you read Pielke's blog? "First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean."
@JuanVoyce Trenberth has released his findings only last week
sify . com/news/satellite-instruments-ocean-sensors-inadequate-to-detect-missing-earth-heat-news-scitech-kerakKcbdfj . html
Trenberth: "The reprieve we've had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate."
It's like a snake going down a hole, it'll be back!
sify . com/news/satellite-instruments-ocean-sensors-inadequate-to-detect-missing-earth-heat-news-scitech-kerakKcbdfj . html
Trenberth: "The reprieve we've had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate."
Article: "But a new set of ocean monitors since then has shown a steady decrease in the rate of oceanic heating"
@bernzeppi I read this over a week ago. If you have the study--that I would be interested in. Do you remember this part of the article? "A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory, the result of imprecise measurements by satellites and surface sensors or incorrect processing of data from those sensors."
-didnt-read the-book, but D-O events occurred during the Holocene--they are ice-rafting events and clearly not applicable to the Holocene. Even if regionalthey had a far greater impact than any likely scenario resulting from 2 x CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere—home to 90% of the worlds population. We need more research on D-Os Holocene counterpart, ENSO. Have you addressed the current questions yet about the missing CO2 fingerprint/warmth from credible critics like Christy and Trenberth?
Trenberth has been misquoted, and is not a "critic" of AGW. Christy is a fundamentalist creationist who has been wrong more than he's been right - simple fact.
@greenman3610 wups...I should have read my own comment, please strike the first "Holocene" and replace with Ice Age. So, I take you response to be--no, you haven't addressed those questions. I didn't know that Christy was a fundamentalist creationist. That's a bit inconsistent with his profession, but I suppose we can all have irrational beliefs that we would rather not question.
125,000 years ago a +2C rise in global temps. correlated with a 6-9 meter (25ft) rise in sea levels.
For a clear assessment of the most recent Climate Change science watch:
FORA (dot) tv
Global Warming: How Policy Can Catch Up With Science, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, 2/23/10 (Environment)
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University & was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 & 2007.
Come on Greenman, post something, i claim , you are nothing more then an climate change advocate regarding of truth, you are part of the coverup, you post blogs claiming "indifference" and truth, but you hide behid bullshit. come on, show us the data behind the models and where it was derived from. Prove to us we are at the very peak of temps and we will all die if we dont change, prove to us that by 2100 all human life wil die.
Greenman i would point you to the "runaway see saw" idea, its not fact, its not even a theory its an idea someone pulled out of their poop hole, it has never been proven, nor has it ever been shown to exist in the past, you should be resoponsible enought to exclude it or issue a disclaimer, considering you claim to be a speaker of truth.
Robhoneycutt i have a copy of that book, and i will read it
on my flight over to the UK, sorry about the carbon, i am encouraged however that this books synopsis even disagrees with his lord almighty al gores predictions.
and am even more curious to read his findings considering,
our own australian governments stance on coal power stations a dozen new ones under consideration, an expansion of coal export and our current governments sheer greed on exporting 'FOSSIL fuels" for money,
our honorable PM Rudd who took over 100 people to copengagen and it wasnt by row boat or solar boat or even nuclear sub.
Once he came back and saw the tide was turning on an ETS he has cowered away from the issue in fear of losing the next election, instead he has said that our hospitals were of vital importance. ETS?? and climate change is not even discussed of anymore.
Politics and science should be as polar as religion and politics.
Being an intelligent Aussie, you probably saw this report from the CSIRO and BOM
csiro . au/resources/State-of-the-Climate . html
Your demands for proof are outrageous "all human life will die"- jeez, your an idiot
what is happening is people are losing their seaside properties to the ocean (Byron Bay, Northern Beaches of Sydney) and though the courts allow those owners to protect (in Byron) it'll only make matters worse (say the hydrologists)
@bernzeppi saintmacgyver is a subhuman shithead. Observe that the less of value he, like all anthropogenic GW deniers, has to say, the more they write. They are mentally not capable of doing math.
yawn, ok im back from Europe, man that volcano, one volcano... cause so much, grief, ANYWAY, apparently i cant do maths? well shit man i guess i should throw my masters in engineering away. YOU duckthing dont propose a single thing? no paper? noidea? nothing? i guess you should... what? go to iceland and jump in the volvcano? oh wait... i read more, i should give up eating meat... ?? for fucks sake, WHY? tell me why i should stop eating meat?.
@saintmacgyver That volcano caused you no grief. There is no scientific proof that the VOLCANO caused you any disruption. You were delayed because you are too mentally stupid to organize your luggage & crap. Do you have any mathematical calculations or peer-reviewed articles proving that the VOLCANO caused you any problems? No. However, in contrast, scientists HAVE proved GW.
@duck24x duck24 you pass go, however, in your assesment of GW... you fail to PROVE scientists have proven man made CO2 causes GW, at the very least to the extent that the IPCC hsa claimed.
@saintmacgyver I couldn't care less if meat-eaters die of heart-attacks or cancer sooner than vegans. In fact, I hope they do. But, even *I* do NOT believe all the health-claims of a vegan diet. You should be vegan because you GW-deniers have got NO concept of what loss of freedom really means, unlike the animals you force against their will into factory farms.
The sky is blue, some roses are red ... therefore Global Warming is Real!
CaptainSparrow1964 2 months ago
Comment removed
bigolol 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
current CO2 levels are at 391 ppm and rising. it wont be long before antarctica thaws enough like greenland has, which is rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. when antarctica thaws enough it too will rise out of the sea. it is connected to every tectonic plate around the world and will crack the earths crust. this isnt doomsday bull, this is science, and quite likely the worse threat facing mankind.
vengencefrom1979 2 weeks ago
@Greenman3610, do you get paid to do those presentations on climate change?
AnotherGlenn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
The frequency of extreme events is becoming so high now I think the deniers are trying to blame them on geoengineering :-/ The only justification being an exploratory conference on it.
dragontal 5 months ago in playlist Climate Change Crock of the Week
This came in really handy just then, thanks so much for covering this in such an easy to understand format and the graphic of the Northern V Southern temperatures slowly rolling across the screen was really helpful! Fantastic work!
TheEclipsenow 6 months ago
@TheEclipsenow
I always aim for maximum clarity, simplicity and transparency, so people know what the data says, and where it comes from - so thanks for noticing.
greenman3610 6 months ago
if you move the antarctica graph just 2 mm to the right we have a match in the rise and fall. one lags a little but is doing the same thing. both fall down at almost the same time and rise again. a seesaw would be extremely different than what i see in this graph, it would mean that one should be flipped upside down.
andreiuta171 6 months ago
@andreiuta171
well if I had some ham I could make ham and eggs if I had some eggs.
the data do not support your interpretation.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 even if you don`t have ham and eggs they are still not in a seesaw relation. they are doing the same thing.
andreiuta171 6 months ago
@andreiuta171
write to the editors of the journal, and tell them they and their expert reviewers have made a terrible mistake.
let me know when they get back to you.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 this is to obvious. if i see the blue sky, do i have to ask somebody if it`s blue? what if they say it`s green? do i believe them? what is wrong with you? the graphs are doing the same thing with a slight delay (which can be human error - who knows). but to go as far as saying they are in a seesaw relationship!? you have real issues...
andreiuta171 6 months ago
@andreiuta171
obviously you've picked up on something the editors missed.
I'm sure they'd love to hear from you, let me know when you publish your response to the article.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@andreiuta171 - we will neglect the fact that that shift is in the magnitude of 500-1500 years...not that trivial. Additionally the oscillating temperature changes between the poles are related but not exclusive, the heat transfer is not only between these regions but with the rest of the globe too (you know that part between the poles that the heat flux must pass through?).
uChakide 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part A:
Denial: oi52.tinypic.
com/35d2nie.jpg
Oceans: oi53.tinypic.
com/35b9g08.jpg
Thermometers: oi52.tinypic.
com/2agnous.jpg
Ice: oi52.tinypic.
com/2upvlvm.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago in playlist * Real Climate Science / Global Warming Info - NO BS *
This has been flagged as spam show
I present The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming Part B:
Earth: oi56.tinypic.
com/16ifevq.jpg
Authority: oi54.tinypic.
com/dny4nt.jpg
Prophecy: oi54.tinypic.
com/2hq5tae.jpg
Psychopathy: oi52.tinypic.
com/i56fsg.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago in playlist * Real Climate Science / Global Warming Info - NO BS *
@jimbocidman spell-check would help ya dude!
9LinesOfHell 8 months ago
@greenman360 you have opened my eyes to the error of my ways. when I think of the thousands and thousands of hours I'm wasted studying, researching, boringness roof peer reviewed papers, traveling to exotic often cold places I could just kick myself! all I had to do was google the stuff!
jimbocidman 8 months ago
There is truth on both sides. The 1500 year cycle is not as significant as the 10,000 year (minor) cycle and the 100,000 year cycle, as shown by the Vostok cores.
I am no climate denier! Hubbert's Peak suggests we've burned roughly 1/2 of the ~1trillion barrels global supply of oil. That means we've dumped ~500B bbls of smog and soot into the atmosphere, mostly in just the last 50 years. This must have some effect! Climate change is reasonable science.
Still, there are large, glacial cycles.
billhuston 10 months ago
@billhuston
there are large glacial cycles, and we know where we are in that cycle now. By orbital factors, we should be slightly cooling, whereas in fact we are warming rapidly. There is no explanation other than GHGs.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 I have a background in science, and I think we are on the same side of the Carbon fuel -> climage change thing. I'm just saying, your arguments are wholly unconvincing.
By calling the other side a "crock", this is ad hominum. If you hold the truth, let it stand naked on its own merit. Truth gains no benefit from your epithets.
Next, anyone who argues for scientific certainty has not been keeping up with the literature. No science can accurately predict these cycles. Need proof?
billhuston 10 months ago
@billhuston
If someone says the earth is flat, I'm sorry, that's not "just their opinion" and worthy of respect - it's a crock.
Likewise, if someone says the earth is 5000 years old. Its a crock. It's not an opinion.
Reality is not a cafeteria.
In that glacial/interglacial cycles seem to coincide with orbital changes, yes they are predictable.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 There is an axis of truth / wisdom on one end, and ignorance / illusion at the other. "Crock" is an insult, a judgment. It does not rest on this axis. It is "out of bounds".
There also competing realms of truth. e.g. in cosmology, there is Monism (Advaita Vedanta), Dualism (Western Science, Christianity), 3 Elements (Trigunas), 4 Elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water), 5 elements (energy, matter, time, space, vaccuum), etc. These all have rich fields of inquiry. All are "true".
billhuston 10 months ago
@greenman3610 Back to global warming, again, you concentrate on 1500 year cycles. Why? The last ice age was 10,000 years ago. The Vostok data clearly shows a) minor cycles ~10k years, b) major cycles 100k years, and c) wide variations... i.e., these are NOT perfectly predictable.
Your a) insults, 2) your claims to exclusive truth, and 3) claims of certainty weaken your position.
billhuston 10 months ago
@billhuston
the video is about a book called "Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 Years", which I am debunking. Does that give you a clue why I am concentrating on that cycle?
Again, I make no comment whatever on ancient vedantic science - have you actually watched one of the videos?
I say, if someone says the earth is flat, the sun goes around it, or its only 5000 years old, or there is no greenhouse effect, that is a crock, that is not "true" in any sense of the word.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@billhuston Criticising a video to which haven't paid enough attention to comprehend doesn't give much credence to whatever position you hold.
R4t10n4L 7 months ago
@billhuston Great points on this croc of a video!
harp1925 10 months ago
@billhuston No its not an ad hominum, if you are a scientist you failed philosophy. You dont understand logic.
thesparitan 7 months ago
@billhuston Ad hominem attacks seem to work pretty well for the other side; to the point where they've changed the minds of a substantial number of people. And they've used much stronger language than "crock". This is not only science; it's been heavily politicized for quite some time and politics is frequently ugly.
R4t10n4L 7 months ago
@billhuston Volcano’s have spewed more toxins into the atmosphere far more than mankind has done in the last 50years.
vexviper 9 months ago
Interesting idea, @vexviper. Where's the data?
500B bbl of oil burned over roughly 50 years is of a magnitude scientists refer to as a "shitload".
You could be correct. I'd still want to see the data.
And if true, I'd be inclined to say "so what"? No offense. But what does that matter?
The question is whether this human-caused activity is fucking up the atmosphere beyond all recognition, and if so, maybe we humans should consider another way...
billhuston 9 months ago
Ref:greenman3610 "therefore.... heat on Venus is an illusion." Exchange CO2 on Venus with Nitrogen, the temp would nearly be the same. Venus's atmosphere has nearly 4 times the Nitrogen of Earth. Venus has no GHE. The temperature is due to 90 bars of pressure. It's crust is thinner than the Earth's allowing the internal core heat to reach the surface. Actually, the fact that Venus's atmosphere is CO2 helps to cool the planet more than a mixed atmosphere like the one on Earth.
wayne487msc 11 months ago
@wayne487msc
clearly you are more knowledgeable than amateurs like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking
watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU
greenman3610 11 months ago
ref:smartmusicfreak:"You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. Since the warming is logarithmic, the effect is dependent on the ratio between two levels."
Sorry for the confusion. The CO2 atmosphere warming curve flattens out along the x-axis at about 200ppm CO2 and no more meaningful warming occurs. Are you having problems with following a simple curve like this. It is a fact, like 9 million bicycles in Beijing.
wayne487msc 11 months ago
@wayne487msc
therefore t he 800 degree heat greenhouse heat on Venus is an illusion. Because I say so.
greenman3610 11 months ago
The role of CO2 is blown way out of proportion. It truly has little to do with global warming once past about 200 ppm. The atmosphere becomes opaque to the wavebands as the photons are all absorbed. This is a proven fact of science. No amount of bogus peer reviewed junk science can change the facts.
wayne487msc 11 months ago
@wayne487msc
for the 4 billion year story of co2 and atmosphere, from the American Geophysical union, google
the biggest control knob
for specifics on your claim, google
a saturated gassy argument
you are parroting talking points that were disproved in the 1950s
greenman3610 11 months ago
Referenece: smartmusicfreak reply: Yes, that was just my way of trying to explain that the CO2 atmospheric temperature curve comes down sharply and levels off horizontally with little additional warming (past about 200 ppm) even if you double the CO2 ppm. You must have seen such a graph mentioned before. The vertical Y-axis is temperature and the horizontal X-axis is ppm CO2. It is a decreasing logarithmic curve.
wayne487msc 11 months ago
What a load of crap. Dont attack the evidence, attack the persons presenting the evidence. Im no scientist, and sure as hell not a believer in the Globa Warming Farce. Five years from now, we will be freezing our rears off, and these buffoons will still be arguing for GW. Any scientist willing to ignore the solar activity data, is a failure of science, and should hang himself in shame when the truth becomes so obvious that he has no more ability to argue.
cshaw76 11 months ago
@cshaw76
I have cited peer reviewed evidence as to why the central claim of this person's book is incorrect.
Surely you should be able to rebut it with actual evidence as opposed to bluster and posing.
If you have solar data not available to the National Academy of Science and NASA, it is your duty as a human being to produce it.
if you have no such data, then you are a phony and a blowhard.
greenman3610 11 months ago
How can warming in Greenland vs. the cooling in antarctic not be global. This video obscures the truth with such idiotic comments and becomes twisted by what he sees is twisted. CO2 has a more positive correlation with global cooling than with global warming. In the troposphere, the CO2 radiative link for warming is the weakest link.
wayne487msc 11 months ago
@wayne487msc "CO2 has a more positive correlation with global cooling than with global warming."
Really? Any evidence?
I have evidence that it definitely have a correlation with warming temps over the past 150 years:
tinyurl (dot) com / 34eknwg
smartmusicfreak 11 months ago
The NOAA/NCDC data set, depicts the annual global temperature changes from 1880-2010 vs the rising levels of CO2, with little to no impact of CO2 for the last 130 years. CO2's impact decreases logarithmically as photons become scarce in the required wavebands. So 98% of CO2's warming occurs in the first 300 ppm. Tropospheric warming is 95% water vapor and 5% CO2. Cloudy water droplets absorb 20% or so of earth's longwave radiation . So adding more greenhouse gases will have little effect.
wayne487msc 11 months ago
@wayne487msc "CO2's impact decreases logarithmically as photons become scarce in the required wavebands. So 98% of CO2's warming occurs in the first 300 ppm."
You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. Since the warming is logarithmic, the effect is dependent on the ratio between two levels. That means that a doubling of CO2, no matter the level, will cause the same change in warming.
smartmusicfreak 11 months ago
Man made climate change is fiction from the base stooges to nuclear power
JonThm 1 year ago
"did" (sp.)
nickschor 1 year ago
I've told Greenman this in the past, but I have to say, that this book by Singer and Avery was the book that changed my opinion from being a denier to one who finally accepted the theory on AGW. For me it was the wishy washy stance of Singer, who dif in fact waffle on whether warming was happening...and then how much....and then to what extent. Talk about laws of unintended consequences! Thanks, Fred. Now, let's talk about how you smeared Ben Santer!
nickschor 1 year ago
greenman ur comebacks are the best lol
ImAnEvilGirl 1 year ago
Straw man argument. This guy insinuates that anyone who questions man-made GW is a stupid redneck and says they almost always read a particular book. Then he attacks the book. This is a straw man. He frames the debate and then attacks the opposition. There are many other books and scientists who debate the cult of man-made GW, but he chose to insinuate that the skeptic is retarded (King of the Hill) and then say they almost always read the book he attacks.
Buckeyefarmer 1 year ago
@Buckeyefarmer
Dude,
that's retarded.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@Buckeyefarmer, want to discuss strawmans? Then quote one SPECIFICALLY and then take it apart.
To say this 6.5 minute video which clearly focuses on a popular denier book by Singer and Avery, is dishonest framing, is like saying George W. Bush is a great warrior. Got a problem with the video's content? Then address what SPECIFICALLY is wrong. You can't.
As for your claim of "many other books and scientists who debate the cult of man-made GW", name some REPUTABLE examples. You can't.
ZangaroZen 1 year ago
@Buckeyefarmer Did you watch the rest of the video?
Crustanarchy 11 months ago
You global warming crooks, are experts in manipulation, which you Socialist usually are.
Climate change is real, who the hell have said it is not ?.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn Please re-read that...
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
@MakoSharkX
What re-read ?
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnsenkenn Let's see...
"are experts in manipulation, which you Socialist usually are."
Bad english for one, wrong for two, and thankyou for using the oh so predictable "SOCIALIST!!!" strawman which sounds quite hillarious the moment you leave the US.
"Climate change is real, who the hell have said it is not ?."
Clearly you've never done research on the subject, or watched the majority of this video series.
MakoSharkX 1 year ago
Obfuscate and create paralysis is a good phrasing. Companies that pump hydrocarbons obfuscate and create paralysis as long as they can. Just as the tobacco co's did.
bdhcarbon 1 year ago
Can you say "ad hominem"?
XFuncCaRteR 1 year ago
Those involved in the AGW issue use it mainly to promote unrelated agendas. If you really believe in AGW doomsaying, what you have been doing during the last election cycle? Working to prevent Harry Reid from being reelected so we can get America's nuclear power industry moving again. Germany, citadel of AGW, is actually shutting down its nuclear industry. So there is no relationship between belief in AGW and actually doing something about it.
kauffner 1 year ago
Climate change is real, clever global warming crooks argument, who says that climate change is not real, on the contrary, climate change all the time, and all those Greenland - Antarctica - sea drill holes, what ever, shows it does. And the climate change of to day is nothing out of the ordinary. It's a leftist false flag operation.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
I understand the U.S. government stopped funding the C.R.U. East Anglia while it digested the results of the "climategate" investigation. Is their any news about a resumption of funding ?
otipua08 1 year ago
Readers wishing to read what the actual *science* says should refer to one of the papers I mentioned: "Reconstruction of Regional Mean Sea Level Anomalies", or " Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry".
Both papers conclude sea level rise is moderate (~6 inches/century) and not accelerating.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Indeed, I often picture Dale in his basment when reading some of the ludicrous comments denying climate change. The conspiracy theorists, especially - and I'm surprised nobody has mentioned The Beast yet.
monco66 1 year ago
It's not working any more Greenman. Your kind has cried wolf too many times. A 1.5 degree temperature rise isn't going to kill us all. Man lives anywhere on the planet from an average temperature of over 90 degrees down to less than zero.
In fact, warming is far more likely to benefit us. Looking back through history, its the warm periods (Roman Warm Period, Medieval Climate Optimum) in which civilization flourished. It's the cold periods that hurt.
ttowntom 1 year ago
These videos are a great source of information. I have souced facts from them when replying to the hysterical ranting from two or three climate deniers writting to my local paper.Keep up the good work.
otipua08 1 year ago
@otipua08
Great to hear.
That's exactly what they are for. In the most recent ones, especially, I try to
put as many links as possible in the descriptions, but most of the vids show you the sources well enough so that with a little googling, they are easy to find.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Con't: This is moreso the case because not only are we adding an extra input into the carbon cycle in the form of fossil fuels, but also degrading the ability of the biosphere to absorb some of that excess by way of massive deforestation. This may be exacerbated by warming ocean temps or somewhat offset my increased algal blooms, etc - the point is, we don't really know enough to keep our current CO2 output and "see what happens".
ferrett78 1 year ago
We may not have seen feedbacks cause runaway global warming on Earth, but I would hesitate in saying that they don't exist, or that it's impossible. A look to Venus should at least set some alarm bells ringing when making statements like that...
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78
There are some that believe if we adopt a "burn it all" regime, that earth could go the way of venus. that would be a worst case in the far future.
if consequences are a bell curve between "good for you" and "end of the world",
there are a whole lot of more likely intermediate states, many, if not most of which, are a substantial degradation of the life support system.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 For sure. The Earth is exceptionally good at self-regulation when talking in geological time. However, as we know so little about climate, I still have concerns regarding feedback mechanisms and what might be termed 'tipping points'. I mean, there's a fair amount of data regarding what the Earth will do with natural variations - but there's almost none regarding what happens when non-natural inputs occur. At best, we can make hypotheses based on previous impact or volcanic events.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 Venus is hot because the air pressure is way higher than on Earth. It would be the same temperature no matter what gas the atmosphere was made of.
kauffner 1 year ago
@kauffner Of course the atmospheric pressure plays a part, but so does the composition. The gases composing the atmosphere of Venus have a much stronger greenhouse effect than those of Earth.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 The entire surface of Venus is permanently cloud covered. There is no greenhouse going on.
kauffner 1 year ago
@kauffner
"The entire surface of Venus is permanently cloud covered. There is no greenhouse going on."
grossly ignorant comment.
watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU
greenman3610 1 year ago
@kauffner Just like on Earth, sunlight does penetrate the cloud cover on Venus. The suphur dioxide clouds reflect about 60% of the sunlight falling on them, but you also have to remember that Venus is closer to the sun, so the sunlight per unit area is roughly twice that on Earth, with the net effect being the equivalent of a somewhat overcast day here - still plenty of energy available for a greenhouse effect ;-)
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 You can explain the surface temperature of Venus just by extrapolating from solar radiation and atmospheric pressure. So why bring up exotic theories? It's Carl Sagan using planetary science to play politics.
kauffner 1 year ago
@kauffner Im sure Greenman has a link to one of his videos where you can learn to build a science experiment for yourself to show that CO2 has a stronger greenhouse effect than air. Disregarding pressure and solar radiation, the science behind this is well known. If you want to argue that it's suddenly non-existent on the planetary scale, or at differing pressures or distances to the sun, be my guest and show your evidence.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@kauffner
exotic theories?
The proven radiative properties of co2 are an exotic theory?
Dude, we use millions of co2 lasers in industry, that would not work without the
well known and quantified characteristics of the gas.
You would have to throw out quantum mechanics and nearly all we know about earth's geologic history.
Your assumption is beyond absurd.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Venusian clouds are 30 to 40km thick. The fact that there is virtually no difference in temperature between night and day suggests that very little sunlight reaches the surface. The surface temperure is 485C AT NIGHT. The clouds absorb virtually all the outgoing longwave radiation, so there is no role for CO2 absorption. In short, enough with the Vensusian greenhouse fantasies already.
kauffner 1 year ago
@kauffner
astoundingly distorted logic.
The high temps at night are due to the continued re-radiation of heat by greenhouse gases.
You are way, way out on a limb arguing for a dismissal of 150 years of physical science and chemistry. You might as well be arguing for a flat earth my friend.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@kauffner Can I still have fantasies about the Venusian women?
drmodestoesq 1 year ago
Feedbacks don't solve that problem, Greenman, they make it worse. Every past temperature rise in the geologic record does the same thing. Temps rise, CO2 goes up in response, temps rise further in response to that CO2 -- and then temps GO BACK DOWN. Every time. Irrefutable proof that negative feedbacks dominate. If the positive-dominant feedback that AGW theory predicts were true, we would have seen runaway warming before. We haven't...so it doesn't exist.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
wrong.
suggest you watch Richard Alley's talk "The Biggest Control Knob"
When temps go up, icecaps melt, more rock is exposed, and becomes more reactive with the air.
That accelerates the process of carbonate weathering, which is a long, s-l-o-w geological brake on greenhouse warming - not on human time scales.
When carbon is weathered down too low, the planet freezes up, weathering drops, carbon rises due to volcanic activity, and you have another feedback.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@ttowntom
what you're not getting is that different feedbacks operate on geologically different time scales.
Albedo and water vapor are on decade to centennial scale.
Ice sheet melting on centennial to millenial.
carbonate weathering on 100 thousand year and longer scales.
We are concerned mostly with the "fast feedback" of albedo and water vapor, and secondly with slower feedbacks like ice sheet and tundra melting.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@ttowntom
I should say
"Ice sheet melting on centennial to millenial." --- WE HOPE
greenman3610 1 year ago
But a few climate modelers believe the basic physics here is wrong. They think that not only will CO2 cause a small amount of direct warming, but a much larger amount of indirect warming, via positive feedback mechanisms (primarily H20 amplification).
It doesn't matter to them that such positive feedbacks have never been seen before in the geologic record. Their models say it must be so, so it must be so, even though the current observational evidence counters it.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
"never been seen before in the geologic record"
This is incorrect.
Please see my vid here:
watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
We know the feedbacks are strong and positive, because we can't come up with the cause of the temp swings between glacial and interglacial conditions without very strong climate feedbacks.
If you deny the feedbacks, it is incumbent on you to come up with a whole new understanding (flying saucers? bigfoot? fairies?) of how the ice ages came about.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Sort of, but not quite. The problem is that no one disputes that Co2 can cause warming. The issue is that a small cadre of environmental-minded researchers are trying to claim that **future** warming will be catastrophic, based on the unproven assumption of positive feedbacks in the climate system.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Continuing...
"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . ."
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Per the National Academy:
“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”
sort of like e=mc2
greenman3610 1 year ago
When faced with facts, you cry consensus. Here are some words on that fallacy:
"Science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results..
ttowntom 1 year ago
Green, the problem is that if you stick to nothing but scientific papers -- there is no catastrophe. There's no looming disaster at all. If people read the actual scientific papers rather than listening to what a few loons like Hansen and Mann tell reporters, we wouldn't be thinking about spending tens of trillions of dollars on a "problem" that, scientifically, will be anything from a mild annoyance to a moderate benefit.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Well, the 97 percent of all working climate scientists who get it about climate not only read, but write the studies.
The many climate scientists who write to me, and advise me on this series, very much get what the literature says, and they respect my adherence to it.
A good start is reading IPCC chapter 6, paleoclimate, which is interesting and accessible.
Or, try the National Academy's
"origin and evolution of earth"
chapter 3, "A habitable planet
5 buck download, well worth it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
But ignore Hansen's alarmist rhetoric. After 30 years of selling global warming as a problem "we have only ten years to stop" -- what are the REAL effects we're seeing? Worldwide last year, over 3 times as many cold record were set as heat records. Over five times as many people died from cold weather as hot weather. Over 15 times as much crop damage caused by frost compared to heat stress.
Hurricane activity is down, Antarctic ice is increasing, and sea level isn't accelerating. Oops.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
The world is so much simpler when you can just pull "factoids" out of your butt.
Sorry, but actual citations get respect around here.
Bloviating, not so much.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Your bias is right. I gave you the actual names of Hansen's 1988 paper, and his testimony before Congress that same year. It's all a matter of public record. The interview with a Salon reporter is also public .... you ignore that by claiming a liberal reporter is "lying", even when she confirmed again in 2001 he stood by his predictions. Nice way to stick your head in the sand.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
I've read the 88 paper. I heard the testimony when he first made it. It's completely at variance with the journalistic account you reference.
One rule I have here is to stick to the published stuff that has made the peer review cut, that people are willing to stand behind.
You have a different standard. I get it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. James Hansen, the "father of global warming" predicted in 1988 that within 20 to 25 years, large parts of NYC would be flooded, and that winds would be so strong that the rest of the city would have to tape over windows to prevent them from being broken. He also predicted fresh water would be so scarce that water would be "by request only" in restaurants, and a vast increase in crime due to the "summer heat waves" NYC would have even in the winter.
All total balderdash, of course.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
When I asked this poster for a link, he pointed me, not to an interview with Hansen, but to a 9 year old interview of one journalist, with another journalist, who claimed to have (then!) 13 year old recollections of Hansen saying things that are entirely at odds with all of his publications.
The difference between myself and deniers - I insist on either peer reviewed pubs, or the actual words of credible people and organizations, as opposed to blog hearsay and rumor
My bias. Sorry.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Good on you, Peter.
Keep up the good work.
There's so much crap on the web from the denial industry. We need shows like yours. People like to believe what's simple and easy. The denialists are abusing that phenomenon. You are the translator of all the scientists seemingly not getting enough of a grip to the common audience.
Good luck to all of us.
TheMrSirCharles 1 year ago
More to the point, the godfathers of the "climate change" (or "global warming") movement - politicians like Al Gore - are making billions of dollars trading in carbon stocks.
It¡a a scam!
costatropicalgranada 1 year ago
@costatropicalgranada
It must be grand to live in a world where just saying something makes it so.
I understand reading is hard, but it's nice when someone actually makes the effort.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Have you done a video on this specific point?
I'm curious to know where it comes from. I remember a particular video of a Bill O staffer trying to confront Al Gore who was apparently in a hurry to get somewhere and did not stop to answer the guy's questions about how much money he was making from climate change economics. Naturally, Bill O naturally considered this an admission of fault...
Eron2828 1 year ago
@Eron2828
I'm confused.
I thought making money was good. I thought dealing with climate change was supposed to make us poor.
So, it's bad that people are making money on it?
Actually, Gore has made by far most of his money by being a major stockholder of Apple and Google, and being on their boards.
He got there, of course, by being a visionary, and by being an early participant and supporter of the internet revolution - people that are smarter, and see farther, do better.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
All good points.
Just more hypocrisy from the right wingers.
Eron2828 1 year ago
Sorry, but you're talking crap. "Climate change" (it used to be global warming, didn't it?) is a scam. The fact that there are people getting paid to repudiate it and obfuscate the issue doesn't make it a fact. The scientists who are promoting "climate change" are also benefiting financially - in fact they are benefiting far more than the scientists representing the skeptical position.
costatropicalgranada 1 year ago
I love your channel and your videos. Thank you so much for doing what you do. 5***** #FTW
JixYt 1 year ago
Those of you who agree that AGW is the most likely explantion for recent rapid warming might like this "climate change deniers, stop asking for proof".
checkyoursources 1 year ago
So what is anyone supposed to do?(about global warming if it is happening) I think you want to continue using oil, gas, electricity, energy as you have always done, but you want it to be labeled GREEN. What do you want to happen? Every one else should turn in to rice paddy farmers but you continue your normal life style? What?
springhill1958 1 year ago
@springhill1958
see my new series, "Renewable Energy Solution of the Month"
greenman3610 1 year ago
How many times do we hear from the warmist that the polar caps are melting faster than they ever have? What a crock! A total lie. Go look at the graph for the last 750,000 yrs and you will see that the increase in the ice melting is getting greater every 100,000yrs for the last 750,000yrs. we've only been on the planet for about 250,000yrs. IT'S NATURAL! GET OVER IT!
MrOTLChamp 1 year ago
@MrOTLChamp
"go look at the graph"
hmmm
Don't see it.
Would that be the graph that the voices in your head are showing you?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I'm sorry. I thought you knew how to use a computer. My bad.
Try googling "Climate and the Carboniferous Period" and look at the diagram regarding ice levels for the last 750,000yrs. Oh, by the way. There's probably something called google on your bar at the top of your page. Give it a try.
MrOTLChamp 1 year ago
@MrOTLChamp
sorry, I thought you could freakin read.
The carboniferous period was 350 million years ago.
Where you got the 750, 000 I don't know.
By the way, the geocraft site is one of the biggest scam sites for credulous denialist boobs on the web.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Don't be a freakin idiot. You didn't even look at the site. Don't be afraid. There is a graph specifically for the last 750,000 yrs of ice core records.
Only a fool would avoid it. Happy learning.
MrOTLChamp 1 year ago
You lost me with organic farming bro.
Doazic 1 year ago
People - watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', 'Global Warming: Emergins Science' and Lord Christopher Monckton's oct 2009 address to the Minnesota Free Market Institute.
RicoRichmond 1 year ago
@RicoRichmond i'm making money off of global warming hand over fist, yepper, i'm rich now. care for a t-shirt? its a hot item, no pun intended.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
@vengencefrom1979 Eh?! - what are you on about?
RicoRichmond 1 year ago
@greenman3610...I checked the snow and ice data center...interesting, ice reached its maximum extent in March 31, latest recorded date (it's getting colder), and sea ice HAS been increasing since 2007, see the graph. Peace...
jimccolorado 1 year ago
@jimccolorado
you can check the graph daily. It shows that ice extent is now below the same point in the low record year of 2007. Ice volume, of course, is lower still. Anyone can read what it says by googling
nsidc daily image update
click on the graph that is labeled "daily image update". It speaks for itself.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@jimccolorado correlate your data with sunspot activity and what do you have? a people that WANT to believe that glabal warming is fake and one cold winter is all they need to prove it.
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimccolorado surface area != volume.
ExperienceCounts2 1 year ago
That was well done, thanks.
ggessex 1 year ago
how do you feel your little religion living out its last painful days?
AGW = bullshit
prikhod 1 year ago
Isn't it fascinating that the cooling predicted by Singer and Avery are actually occuring, just as they predicted? Also interesting that the greenman3610 has to attack the individuals and not the science?
BTW, check the recent arctic ice measurements, increasing since 2007. As of 5/20/2010 no melting yet, a very late start to the melt cycle. Hmmmm.......
jimccolorado 1 year ago
@jimccolorado
check national snow and ice data center.
ice area melt is now below 2007 levels for the same month.
As to "cooling", we have just had the hottest january to april in the instrumental record, following the warmest decade in the same record.
Please document "cooling".
greenman3610 1 year ago
@jimccolorado
be advised, Glenn Beck is not considered
"documentation" here.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@jimccolorado You are not paying very good attention. He did address the science, and he wasn't making random ad hominim attacks, he was exposing their obvious bias, ie that they are being paid to mislead gullible people like you.
Split539 1 year ago
I'm confused. Are Global warming denialists saying there is no global warming, and that the temperatures are actually unchanging/decreasing or are they saying that it is completely natural and not man made?
BlackRaptor31 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31
both
greenman3610 1 year ago
@BlackRaptor31 LOL, they say the both :). Go figure
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Missing link
vortex. nsstc. uah. edu/ data/ msu/ t2lt /uahncdc. lt
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
That you are not a scientist is obvious.
Yes that 1500 year cyclic warming there is something like a seesaw (or first order lever) . First the variation in the south pole is not as large as in the north and second how is that different from what is happening now see here in satellite data:
*global* trend +.14 at the south pole -0.05
like you say up in the north down in the south.
You are out to mislead.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OvoidCranium
vortex. nsstc. uah. edu/ data/ msu/ t2lt/ uahncdc. lt
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OvoidCranium you tube won't allow the link but use google to get to
uah satellite temperature data
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
lol you wish you knew what your talking about!...our planet will soon undergo a massive change and there is nothing we can do!
lukejsoren 1 year ago
AGW, al gore and all promotions of this scam are the crock of the century.
Alarmists are trying to re-write history by denying the Medieval Warming Period.
Greenland was much warmer, they used to grow grapes there. The 1990's were not "the warmest decade EVER!"
31,000 scientists know man-made global warming is a lie:
~petitionproject
co2isgoodal 1 year ago
don't discuss the science attack the man repeat the mantra.
Dansgaard Oechger events in glacial Bond events in interglacials.
Sure there is a see saw (happens every year orf hadn't he noticed) but the global averages follow a different law so why is this dishonest person showing it the way he is. The global average tends to follow the northern hemisphere.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
I am not talking about Climate-gate. On April 15 Trenberth admitted to a significant deficit in his climate modeling. (See missing-heat-mayaffect-future-climate-change.) One of the possible explanations he offers is that either the satellite data or the interpretation of data is wrong. See Douglas-Christy paper, 2007 for an earlier version of this story.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce
Again you are misreading. Trenberth is saying we do not have adequate sensors, especially in places like the deep ocean, to know where incoming heat is going.
We are going to see the effects, but we don't know when or where.
He's not expressing a doubt, he's sounding a warning.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Whatever your interpretation--it was an awesome press release!
Have you read Pielke's blog? "First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean."
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce Trenberth has released his findings only last week
sify . com/news/satellite-instruments-ocean-sensors-inadequate-to-detect-missing-earth-heat-news-scitech-kerakKcbdfj . html
Trenberth: "The reprieve we've had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate."
It's like a snake going down a hole, it'll be back!
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce
sify . com/news/satellite-instruments-ocean-sensors-inadequate-to-detect-missing-earth-heat-news-scitech-kerakKcbdfj . html
Trenberth: "The reprieve we've had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate."
Article: "But a new set of ocean monitors since then has shown a steady decrease in the rate of oceanic heating"
Read it
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi I read this over a week ago. If you have the study--that I would be interested in. Do you remember this part of the article? "A percentage of the missing heat could be illusory, the result of imprecise measurements by satellites and surface sensors or incorrect processing of data from those sensors."
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce Good on ya! A week ago! Wow!... And you read the caveat... outstanding!
Did you also read the climategate emails?... and cringe at the false accusations of your brethren?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi I see a lot of words...what do they mean?
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
-didnt-read the-book, but D-O events occurred during the Holocene--they are ice-rafting events and clearly not applicable to the Holocene. Even if regionalthey had a far greater impact than any likely scenario resulting from 2 x CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere—home to 90% of the worlds population. We need more research on D-Os Holocene counterpart, ENSO. Have you addressed the current questions yet about the missing CO2 fingerprint/warmth from credible critics like Christy and Trenberth?
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
@JuanVoyce
Trenberth has been misquoted, and is not a "critic" of AGW. Christy is a fundamentalist creationist who has been wrong more than he's been right - simple fact.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 wups...I should have read my own comment, please strike the first "Holocene" and replace with Ice Age. So, I take you response to be--no, you haven't addressed those questions. I didn't know that Christy was a fundamentalist creationist. That's a bit inconsistent with his profession, but I suppose we can all have irrational beliefs that we would rather not question.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
Unless you give up eating meat, saintmacgyver, you have zero credibility on any subjects related to the environment.
duck24x 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
125,000 years ago a +2C rise in global temps. correlated with a 6-9 meter (25ft) rise in sea levels.
For a clear assessment of the most recent Climate Change science watch:
FORA (dot) tv
Global Warming: How Policy Can Catch Up With Science, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, 2/23/10 (Environment)
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is Professor of Geosciences at Princeton University & was the Lead Author on the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001 & 2007.
goog2k 1 year ago
cant post more?
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
Come on Greenman, post something, i claim , you are nothing more then an climate change advocate regarding of truth, you are part of the coverup, you post blogs claiming "indifference" and truth, but you hide behid bullshit. come on, show us the data behind the models and where it was derived from. Prove to us we are at the very peak of temps and we will all die if we dont change, prove to us that by 2100 all human life wil die.
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
I would challenge you to show where I have made either of those claims.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Greenman i would point you to the "runaway see saw" idea, its not fact, its not even a theory its an idea someone pulled out of their poop hole, it has never been proven, nor has it ever been shown to exist in the past, you should be resoponsible enought to exclude it or issue a disclaimer, considering you claim to be a speaker of truth.
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver er... the see-saw... AKA the lever
... first used by Archimedes, now in every mechanical object made by man.
It stands equal to if not greater than the invention of the wheel.
So I guess it was pulled out of Archimedes ass eh?
Well it's a good ass, we have him to thank for modern boats too!
S'pose you aren't that well edjuckated eh?
You're one of those guys who call white black eh?
... and not a hint of irony
Your deliberately playing dumb surely?
If not, then the jokes on you
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi run away effect "theory" proposed greenman= lever?/wheel? you are insane benz...
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver No, are you an idiot?
Or are you deliberately being obtuse?
You probably wouldn't know
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver I would challenge you to read Dr. Hansen's book titled Storms of My Grandchildren.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Robhoneycutt i have a copy of that book, and i will read it
on my flight over to the UK, sorry about the carbon, i am encouraged however that this books synopsis even disagrees with his lord almighty al gores predictions.
and am even more curious to read his findings considering,
our own australian governments stance on coal power stations a dozen new ones under consideration, an expansion of coal export and our current governments sheer greed on exporting 'FOSSIL fuels" for money,
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
our honorable PM Rudd who took over 100 people to copengagen and it wasnt by row boat or solar boat or even nuclear sub.
Once he came back and saw the tide was turning on an ETS he has cowered away from the issue in fear of losing the next election, instead he has said that our hospitals were of vital importance. ETS?? and climate change is not even discussed of anymore.
Politics and science should be as polar as religion and politics.
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
Saintmacacacac
Being an intelligent Aussie, you probably saw this report from the CSIRO and BOM
csiro . au/resources/State-of-the-Climate . html
Your demands for proof are outrageous "all human life will die"- jeez, your an idiot
what is happening is people are losing their seaside properties to the ocean (Byron Bay, Northern Beaches of Sydney) and though the courts allow those owners to protect (in Byron) it'll only make matters worse (say the hydrologists)
So now they can't get insurance
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi saintmacgyver is a subhuman shithead. Observe that the less of value he, like all anthropogenic GW deniers, has to say, the more they write. They are mentally not capable of doing math.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
yawn, ok im back from Europe, man that volcano, one volcano... cause so much, grief, ANYWAY, apparently i cant do maths? well shit man i guess i should throw my masters in engineering away. YOU duckthing dont propose a single thing? no paper? noidea? nothing? i guess you should... what? go to iceland and jump in the volvcano? oh wait... i read more, i should give up eating meat... ?? for fucks sake, WHY? tell me why i should stop eating meat?.
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver That volcano caused you no grief. There is no scientific proof that the VOLCANO caused you any disruption. You were delayed because you are too mentally stupid to organize your luggage & crap. Do you have any mathematical calculations or peer-reviewed articles proving that the VOLCANO caused you any problems? No. However, in contrast, scientists HAVE proved GW.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x duck24 you pass go, however, in your assesment of GW... you fail to PROVE scientists have proven man made CO2 causes GW, at the very least to the extent that the IPCC hsa claimed.
saintmacgyver 1 year ago
@saintmacgyver I couldn't care less if meat-eaters die of heart-attacks or cancer sooner than vegans. In fact, I hope they do. But, even *I* do NOT believe all the health-claims of a vegan diet. You should be vegan because you GW-deniers have got NO concept of what loss of freedom really means, unlike the animals you force against their will into factory farms.
duck24x 1 year ago