The Professional Denialist have YT Channels putting out deceptive videos like this watch?v=z685n4RMx6Y that the naive think proves CO2 is not responsible for warming the planet! Seriously, I honestly think we are doomed! It is mush easier to sell the people STUPIDITY than it is to educate them on what we are doing to the planet! It really should be a crime for knowingly putting the world at risk. This is like telling folks there is no fire in the theater when it is on fire!
It is hard not to be cynical but I don't see us doing anything to stop CO2 output! Here in the US we have a political party that denies almost all science from Evolution to Anthropogenic Climate Change! To see Republican members of Congress invoke the Bible to a panel of Climate scientist in an attempt to show them they are wrong because the deity in Bible said he would never allow the Earth to be harmed again after he flooded the Earth. Seriously, America, the GOP, will screw the world! SAD!!
...the heating of the atmosphere from cloud absorption of Cosmic rays and solar radiation can affect the climate in ways the 'forecast models' currently cannot predict. From NASA's own words... Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field with the moon, ocean flow ... Plants love Carbon Dioxide as it is plant food.
Reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste could cut projected climate warming by 0.5 degree C by 2070.(scientific American Feb 2011) But will IPCC and 'Green energy agenda MegaCorp' take this road or continue the TAX, Biofuel (Nox+) and 3rd world resource dictatorship?
"... a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"
Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED ... YES the carbon climage change SKEPTICS have a science with pretty graph charts too. you can open this document - it has words tho - not just pretty moving pictures....
@Knossos22 Don't you realize there is a economic stimulus agenda in 'Carbon climate change clean Industry' - people are making money from it. Halliburton, BP and all the usual suspects are making Trillions in taking over third world resources in the name of climate change - through a corrupt UN mandate - doesn't this raise your alarms - or are you just set on global population reduction... to reduce mankind to 500 million as is their solution to carbon emissions and "altering' climate?
Use your search engine for 'David Evans - Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming' hit the link to a youtube speech he gave ... This guy is a CLIMATE MODELER - he makes these pretty graphs of the climate - his speech here is irrefutable. The science is NOT IN on carbon climate warming ... the next 'inconvenient truth' of AL Gore will be his Global Cooling theory... hockey stick up or down this time!!?
@Knossos22 Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED some people have trouble with reading. they need pretty graph charts.
@Knossos22 look at you tubes "President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic | National Press Club Address in full" - the man clearly sets out the concerns involved in this socialist structure dogma we are binding ourselves with. Australia is naive - easily led and corrupted by power and influence ... there is a reason why Australia is called the Antipodeans - the British isles - we do as we are told by the OVERLORDS in Britain .. we need to look outside the box and question ridiculous AGENDAS!
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Royal Society Canada, Caribbean, China, Institut de France, Ghana, Leopoldina Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Accademia nazionale delle scienze Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Royal Society New Zealand, Russian Academy Sciences, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Royal Swedish Academy Sciences, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Royal Society United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of:
...the methods used to generate a version of the hockey stick graph was a small field in which most participants collaborated and then served as 'reviewers on each others’ papers, despite the potential for conflicts of interest. That analysis was later published as an independent paper, in which certain styles of research were suggested to be prone to “groupthink, reduced creativity and the possibility of less-rigorous reviewing processes, that is a consensus - a thinktank - i call that CORRUPT!
@evilstoo 2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[12] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India...
@Knossos22 Call me old fashioned but I still think spending Billions on an alternative fuel exploration to solve pollution is better than spending Billions on science/politic/corporatist/theological TAX negotiation ... to install environmentalist fascist corporations into third world economies. 10% of OZ Carbon Tax goes to UN climate fund - which will be over 600 million a year - as resources to 'educate third world economies' - assassinate is a better word. 31,000 scientists disagree.
...the heating of the atmosphere from cloud absorption of Cosmic rays and solar radiation can affect the climate in ways the 'forecast models' currently cannot predict. From NASA's own words... Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field with the moon, ocean flow ... Carbon Dioxide is plant food.
Look at that final frame, with 800k years of co2 data from the ice cores. So scary. Until you pull up a long-term temperature chart based on the same ice cores. Why was it so much warmer during peaks hundreds of thousands of years ago? It's easy to educate yourself, folks--just google words like "vostok core temperature". They show you the charts like the one above so that you assume temperature follows (Gore did it in his movie). But you can see the truth for yourself, and not be a pawn.
The methods used to generate the hockey stick graph generated by Michael Mann, a Penn State climatologist raised questions that showed that it was generated within a small field in which most participants collaborated and then served as reviewers on each others’ papers, despite the potential for criminal conflicts of interest. This creation was “groupthink, reduced creativity and the possibility of less-rigorous reviewing processes occurred. It is Fraudulent consensus pseudo-science/theology.
@Knossos22 ... More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 PhDs in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting global warming. Ask any Climate Modeler - the model they used to base the 'consensus science' upon is not accurate ... it is impossible to predict climate change or in any way adversely alter it ...
@Knossos22 on youtube look up - The Carbon SCAM CO2 Contributed by Human Activity - may address some elements of the carbon tax scam better for you to understand ...
As Global CO2 Climate Changelings 'you people' can cite "any" scientific consensus literature and it is considered accurate and 100% irrifutable. However any opposing opinion made to you people is irrelevant. Any opposing opinion by a scientist or scientists hasn't the "credentials" you require, is just another "crack pot theory" and is promptly censored by the corrupt peer reviewed process your consensus uses. Only one side has a say...... this whole scam is monetary - no pollution solution.
ONE MORE TIME: Do you or do you not have a data set that contradicts what is show in this video. Yes or not?
This is a vast pile of data that is just put in a coherent form in this video. Just a representation of data showing the change of CO2 measurements all over the world over time.
Do you have any idea how much data there is? How many measurements have been made?
Can you refute the data or not? Yes or no?
Stomping your feet is pointless. This is a question of data!
OMG! ... Peer reviewed papers have been done ... This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists. Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED .... swept under the carpet and ridiculed by the 'consensus scientists' - but remember - 25 scientists wrote the consensus graph charts - 31,000 scientists ridicule that!! what can we do but stomp on our feet!! Carbon Tax is no solution!
You wrote: "'you people' can cite "any" scientific consensus literature"
NO!
Do you have data or not that refutes what is show here?
Either you have data or you do not have the data. It is a simple question. It is a simple thing. Show us your data set. That is all. Either we agree on the measurements or we do not. Simple. Not a big thing. Nothing to get bothered over.
How many people do you suppose were involved in making all those measurements?
Literally thousands of scientists had climbed on the global warming consensus bandwagon, scooping up billions in research grants that were all intended to “prove” that global warming was real. Our Nations are making massive 'green energy investments' in third world countries to monopolize and Tax them into further debt and tyranny and control people’s lives based on the hoax. Global Warming is purely Global Governance, where are their solutions? just dollars, that's the real inconvenient truth!
@Knossos22 Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED .... swept under the carpet and ridiculed by the 'consensus scientists' - but remember - 25 scientists wrote the consensus graph charts - 31,000 scientists ridicule that!! what can we do but stomp on our feet!! Carbon Tax is no pollution solution!
You wrote: "any opposing opinion made to you people is irrelevant"
NO!
You are missing the most important detail here. It is not about opinion! This is about measurements. Many many many thousands of measurements. Either the measurements are accurate or not.
@evilstoo Ohh pulease.. !!! The petition you are referring to was an open website petition collection signatures from anyone claiming to be a Dr. or Scientist with absolutely no verification of their education or credentials whatsoever. At one point Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh were promoting the site on their radio program telling listeners they should sign the petition. I personally know of at least 12 people who barely graduated high school who signed it.
@Blaze1024 ha ha ... well of the 120 so called climate scientists attached to the AGW consensus how many are government agenda fundamentalists - they peered their owned work - it wasn't even an open field study - scientists were chosen to participate to answer a hypothesis - how convenient - and look at how dodgy that are - Michael Mann is close to a quack! Yes alot of the petition participants are not climate scientists - but alot are. go back to the TV and bury your head in the sand.
@evilstoo Oh pulease the only one who's got their head buried in the sand around here is you. Not one single credible scientist in the world has been willing to put their reputation on the line and publish a study contradicting the currently accepted understanding of AGW.. Furthermore all the Anti-AGW scientists are employed by the oil industry, They are also the exact same group if scientists who worked for the tobacco industry claiming tobacco wasn't addictive and didn't cause cancer
@Blaze1024 oh ... another genius... 'climate scientists' today are only just beginning to understand how climate works - it is a debatable hypothesis - to claim a TAX will adversely affect climate warming is sheer nonsense ... It is just a Globalization Agenda thru means to gain a "green energy" monopoly by a select few - oil industry will collapse and dump their stock as the US Banks did, they will be taken over and the 'scarcity' of oil scare tactic will rocket prices to make them zillions.
@evilstoo Yet another ignorant contard who's only goal is to politicise everything and anything that they see as a threat to their political agenda of greed and exploitation. All people like you care about is money and politics. Current technology wastes 87% of the energy in fossil fuels yet conservatives oppose any technology that would improve efficiency. The most efficient car built barely extracts 13% of the available energy in gasoline and wastes the remaining 87% as heat.
If we could improve the efficiency of internal combustion engines by a mere 10% We would double the life span of our oil reserves. Yet contards oppose any technology that would make cars more efficient because it means cars would use less fuel and the oil industry would lose money. The most efficient power plants barely extracts 15% of the available energy in coal and oil. By the time the electricity gets to your wall socket and TV 95% of the available energy was waisted as heat..!!
Our current technology wastes between 85 to 95 percent of the available energy in oil and coal yet contards oppose anything and everything that would improve that efficiency. Why? because it means that oil company's and the Stock market wouldn't make nearly as much money exploiting our resources. Lets put this in perspective. If they had to pay 85% of their income in taxes they would be screaming about efficiency yet they don't mind wasting 85% of our fuel if it means making money.
@evilstoo ha ha ... "well of the 120 so called climate scientists attached to the AGW "
Typical contard playing loose with the facts. 120 Scientists my ass! The truth is every single national scientific board, institute and foundation in the entire world accepts AGW. There's only a handful of bought and paid for Anti-AGW scientists and they are the same bought and paid for scientists who worked for the tobacco industry claiming that Tobacco wasn't addictive and didn't case cancer.
@evilstoo Furthermore AGW is only one reason why we should strive to improve our antiquated power generating technology. The primary reason is waste. Our current antiquated technology wastes between 85 to 95 percent of the available energy in both coal and oil. GET IT ..!!! 85 to 95 percent of the available energy in oil and coal is wasted as heat. Its like throwing $85 of every $100 you earn in the trash. Out of every gallon of gas less then 0.13 is actually turned into usable power.
ok you hit some very accurate issues - you have not answered any simple questions about climate science - but the issues are dead on - waste and pollution - what all AGW skeptics (contards is just lowering 'your' intellect) all want is the whole Agenda made REAL! If we are going to make a 'serious' change (and not global rule) either lets create an alternative fuel (hydrogen?) to fossil fuel 'pollutant' energy - or toss out every PC, Fridge, TV, car, candle, light no fires and grow our own food.
@evilstoo I used the term contard because I was offended by your comment regarding my intellect and my understanding of the issues. It seems that "conservatives" are always the first to resort to demeaning those who disagree with them and I was only responding in a manner I though you would understand. At this point AGW is moot point, the point of no return has passed. We now know that unprecedented levels of methane are being released from melting Arctic permafrost, It is too late..!!
If you remember your basic HS science then you would also remember that Methane is a 2000% more potent green house gas than C02. Man started the dominoes falling and nature will finish what man started. All we can hope for now is to slow down the inevitable as we no longer have the power within our current technology to prevent it. Furthermore whether man is actually responsible or not is also a moot point, simply because it won't change the domino effect that's already begun.
The only real question left is how mush we can slow down the inevitable and how much extra time we can buy to find a solution, whether it's 200 years or 20,000 is up to us. We can start by improving the efficacy of our antiquated power generating technology. Leaving AGW out of the picture its still the most prudent thing to do based on the goal of extending our limited nature resource. I don't know anyone who believes a meager 13% efficiency rate or a 87% waste level is acceptable..
I also concede that any drastic changes to our automotive industry or our power generating infrastructure would have deleterious effects on our economy. That means there are no immediate or easy solutions to improving the efficiencies of those technology. Nothing would make me happier than seeing cars using "on demand" hydrogen fuel cells. The current pressurised hydrogen technology is unacceptable. what we need is an "on demand" hydrogen system capable of producing hydrogen as needed
"You have not answered any simple questions about climate science"
That's because in and by itself I really don't care about AGW and whether its a cause in effect scenario or simply coralation. What I do see is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. By addressing and improving upon our antiquated power generating technology we also address any correlation between man and "Global Warming"
Just so you know, I'm an electronics engineer by trade and I'm well versed on the issues I have mentioned. Over the years we have done much to improve the efficiency of consumer electronics. For example the move from linear power supplies with a 40% efficiency rate to switching power supplies with an 80% efficiency rate and the move from antiquated incandescent lighting to advanced CFL lighting which are close to 750% more efficient while also reducing the level of atmospheric mercury
@Blaze1024 AGW scare tactics is a con... Curbing emissions of black carbon, a component of soot, along with methane and tropospheric ozone, could cut projected climate warming by 0.5 degree C by 2070. Possible strategies for reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste.
@evilstoo Such cuts could be made with existing technology, and would "have immediate and multiple benefits for human well-being." But will the IPCC or the UN do anything - no - no alternatives other than - biofuels - an ethanol/kero mix that causes nitrogen oxide - potentially worse than CO2. AGW is about a corporate Green energy agenda - with a deliberate scare tactic to make people pay a TAX and dream the problem away... meanwhile MegaCorp take the money and dictate 3rd world resources.
Mother Nature creates most of the CO2, not industrialization. Warming oceans due to longer wavelength light release CO2. Increased forest density release more CO2. CO2 used to be 4,000 ppm and we fell into an ice age. Clearly CO2 does not dive temperature. BTW, that 380 is in parts per MILLION. It is a trace gas at best.
@ConservativeCavalry You have a graph in front of you that uses very accurate data showing an extreme sudden spike in CO2 which began during the industrial age and continues to this day. I guess that's all coincidence right? I mean coal and fossil fuels in no way impart CO2 when burned, that's just preposterous!
But seriously, you have to realise the span of time in which this change in CO2 is occuring. It's happening at a rate nature could NEVER reproduce, hence this is not a natural thing.
@ConservativeCavalry You are correct, there was a time when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than today. It is that very CO2 that had been sequestered for millions of years in the form of oil, gas, and coal, that we are now re-releasing into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels; burning it at a rate in excess of the flora's ability to reconvert it into biomass; hence the rising trend in CO2. Trace gas? Yes. So?
Obviously you weren't paying attention in High School. Plants convert CO2 to Oxygen and therefore decrease CO2 levels. Furthermore can you please site your source for increased forest density. Your claim is contrary to the well established fact that we are seeing an unprecedented level of global deforestation. Therefore your claim of increased forest density contributing to increased C02 is laughable at best
@willamblackrose Yes, ppm = parts per million, and an "extra 86" does make a big difference in heat absorption and radiative transfer over the HUGE mass of the atmosphere.
It may sound "tiny", but consider this: if you drink alcohol, the amount of alcohol in your blood required to get you "legally drunk" in many places is also a tiny amount, about the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Amazing what difference a "tiny" amount of something can make, no?
@DoubleD2104 Atmospheric water vapor is increasing as a result of warming due to increasing CO2. Water vapor is more potent as a green house gas than CO2. Hence the use of the term "tipping point" when talking about global warming; the idea that a green house point can be reached where there is a thermal run-away to a new global thermodynamic equilibrium where the average global temperature is substantially higher than today. This is the nightmare that is feared by climatologists.
Just to clarify, does ppm stand for parts per million? It's the only thing that cannot be logically inferred and it seems to be an integral piece of the puzzle. An extra 86 parts per million isn't that big a difference from the high of around 300 ppm in 300 kyBCE. Granted it is higher, but where is the scientific fact that shows the effect of a, say, 50 ppm raise in Atmospheric CO2, proving that CO2 levels are to blame for "Climate Change," or "Global Warming?"
Just to clarify, does ppm stand for parts per million? It's the only thing that cannot be logically inferred and it seems to be an integral piece of the puzzle. An extra 86 parts per million isn't that big a difference from the high of around 300 ppm in 300 kyBCE. Granted it is higher, but where is the scientific fact that shows the effect of a, say, 50 ppm raise in Atmospheric CO2, proving that CO2 levels are to blame for "Climate Change," or "Global Warming?"
"Just to clarify, does ppm stand for parts per million?"
Yes.
"An extra 86 parts per million isn't that big a difference from the high of around 300 ppm in 300 kyBCE. "
Says who? Really. Those changes in CO2 levels translate to large changes in the climate. Further the pace of CO2 accumulations is unprecedented in Earth's history.
Physics. The higher the concentration of CO2 in a gas, the more times a given infrared photon is absorbed and re-emitted on it's way out, and the higher equilibrium temperature the surface reaches such that the rate of radiation leaving the planet equals the rate of radiation falling onto it.
@willamblackrose It is parts per million in the molecular sense in this case; 300ppm in this case means there are 300 CO2 molecules per million molecules of total air gases excluding water vapor. An "extra" 86 ppm is almost a 30% increase in CO2 by molecular count and about the same by total mass as well. The "proof" is in what we know of the interaction of radiation with matter (gases) and in the ice core sampling that has allowed the determination of past CO2 activity to name two.
Great Stuff!. This data shows Interglacial period every 100kyrs or so. It should be noted the current peaking of CO2 being measured could similarly have occurred between data points which were 800 - 1000 years apart during historical interglacial periods. It's like having a reading for 1400AD and then 2200AD.
The merchant ships MV Beluga Fraternity and MV Beluga Foresight arrived this week in Yamburg, Siberia, their owner Beluga Shipping GmbH said yesterday.
They travelled from Ulsan, South Korea, in late July to Siberia by way of the North East Passage, a sea lane that, in years past, was avoided because of its heavy ice floes
The North East Passage, open to commercial shipping for the first time in history.
If you're a believer, you should check out real ice core data for Vostok and Tonoku U cores which span tens and hundreds of thousands of years. For short term, you should look at correlation to sun spot activity. Then, you should ponder what is cause and what is effect. Ice mass in Arctic and Antarctic have been increasing, and sea level has not risen. The real concern now is what if sun spot activity remains low, and this cooling trend continues? Cooling is a lot scarier than warming.
Fair question 1)other ice cores from other domes DO match,they only show one;; so *multiple* ice cores, so robust &for more recent years ice cores match other data 2)In 2009boron/calcium ratios used to estimate CO2 for 20mil yrs(Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years sciencemagDOTorg)And? It *matches* ice cores.Spread the word! use economicdemocracyDOTorg/eco/images/650k-yrs-co2.gif
Deniers that human activity is causing climate change are like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It makes no difference how much evidence is presented they will still deny the reality of the situation.
King Arthur: Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound.
So to all you global warming deniers I say "Keep fucking that chicken."
@londubh2007 How much of an easily led fool are you.. Even when you have seen the climategate emails, admission from NASA that their satellite temp readings are wrong, and that most of the land based temp stations cant be trusted you still cling to the " It's man's fault the world is warming" line. 0.00038 percent increase in co2 ? Do you get that? AGW believers are like children believing in Santa.
I say turn of your pc sell you're car buy candles grow you're own food and pump you're own water
@ripripripus This video is showing how CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution. The relationship between global warming and CO2 (by way of the greenhouse effect) is basic physics after that.
@robhoneycutt then why were global temps dropping steadily from 1940-1975? Also, temp drives CO2, not the other way around. Anthropogenic GW is a fallacy, especially when taking into consideration the amount of CO2 animals, bacteria, fermenting vegetation, volcanoes, and oceans release. Human CO2 from fuels and factories are minute compared to natural factors.
And if you actually believe Al Gore wants to save humans, you are very naive.
@robhoneycutt 40-70 was NOT level!! why was there a prediction of a coming ice age in media reports!?..it was because of falling temps that ppl could not account for.
CO2 levels have been recorded as high as 14 times higher in earth's history than today. Have you never seen vegetation exposed to higher CO2 levels? They are MUCH healthier and higher yielding. If CO2 did not exist, life wouldn't either.
I'm not saying humans are not destroying the planet, but get realistic...GW is a CULT
@ripripripus I just plotted 1940-70. You are right there is a cooling trend but it is tiny. Over the entire 30 year period there was cooling of only about 0.05C Essentially flat.
Take note that when CO2 levels on this planet were 14 times higher... there was no land based animal life. The only land based plant life were early non-vascular moss-like plants. Not a place modern life could exist.
@robhoneycutt GW is a scam to introduce Carbon Taxing so govt's can have a tighter hold on resources and humans. Big Gov't loves the GW hype. Do you actually think your gov't gives a shit about its citizens? And why did GM via collusion with Big Gov't (Cheney, Rice, and Bush) put a stop to the electric car in California in the early 90's when it was becoming VERY popular? d/l the documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car'
@robhoneycutt and 2 others - 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' & 'Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off'. They feature many scientists from NASA and the IPCC who were persecuted for saying that they didn't believe, or couldn't prove, anthropogenic GW.
@ripripripus Yes. We all know both of those films. They're full of complete crockery. Like the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than all human activities" when in fact humans emit far more.
Fantastic Video!
AmbientSmiley 3 days ago
great vid you have here
xtremetom180 2 weeks ago
brilliant video some very interesting points
distractionxx 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great video thanks
jjclassjj 2 weeks ago
The Professional Denialist have YT Channels putting out deceptive videos like this watch?v=z685n4RMx6Y that the naive think proves CO2 is not responsible for warming the planet! Seriously, I honestly think we are doomed! It is mush easier to sell the people STUPIDITY than it is to educate them on what we are doing to the planet! It really should be a crime for knowingly putting the world at risk. This is like telling folks there is no fire in the theater when it is on fire!
Viracocha711 3 weeks ago
It is hard not to be cynical but I don't see us doing anything to stop CO2 output! Here in the US we have a political party that denies almost all science from Evolution to Anthropogenic Climate Change! To see Republican members of Congress invoke the Bible to a panel of Climate scientist in an attempt to show them they are wrong because the deity in Bible said he would never allow the Earth to be harmed again after he flooded the Earth. Seriously, America, the GOP, will screw the world! SAD!!
Viracocha711 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...the heating of the atmosphere from cloud absorption of Cosmic rays and solar radiation can affect the climate in ways the 'forecast models' currently cannot predict. From NASA's own words... Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field with the moon, ocean flow ... Plants love Carbon Dioxide as it is plant food.
evilstoo 1 month ago
Reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste could cut projected climate warming by 0.5 degree C by 2070.(scientific American Feb 2011) But will IPCC and 'Green energy agenda MegaCorp' take this road or continue the TAX, Biofuel (Nox+) and 3rd world resource dictatorship?
evilstoo 1 month ago
@phantomofthedrivein When was what 14%?
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
"... a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"
- Max Planck, 1949
Knossos22 6 months ago
Carbon Dioxide is PLANT FOOD ... get real.
evilstoo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evilstoo
'Carbon Dioxide is PLANT FOOD' as in here!
watch?v=4wRoCBluQ50
blackadderthe4 6 months ago
Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED ... YES the carbon climage change SKEPTICS have a science with pretty graph charts too. you can open this document - it has words tho - not just pretty moving pictures....
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
Is this it? The best you can do?
Knossos22 6 months ago
@Knossos22 Don't you realize there is a economic stimulus agenda in 'Carbon climate change clean Industry' - people are making money from it. Halliburton, BP and all the usual suspects are making Trillions in taking over third world resources in the name of climate change - through a corrupt UN mandate - doesn't this raise your alarms - or are you just set on global population reduction... to reduce mankind to 500 million as is their solution to carbon emissions and "altering' climate?
evilstoo 6 months ago
Use your search engine for 'David Evans - Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming' hit the link to a youtube speech he gave ... This guy is a CLIMATE MODELER - he makes these pretty graphs of the climate - his speech here is irrefutable. The science is NOT IN on carbon climate warming ... the next 'inconvenient truth' of AL Gore will be his Global Cooling theory... hockey stick up or down this time!!?
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
What is your problem with answering a simple question.
Only takes a few seconds - YES or NO?
The reason is because you do not have a data set, do you!
Knossos22 6 months ago
@Knossos22 Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED some people have trouble with reading. they need pretty graph charts.
evilstoo 6 months ago
@Knossos22 look at you tubes "President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic | National Press Club Address in full" - the man clearly sets out the concerns involved in this socialist structure dogma we are binding ourselves with. Australia is naive - easily led and corrupted by power and influence ... there is a reason why Australia is called the Antipodeans - the British isles - we do as we are told by the OVERLORDS in Britain .. we need to look outside the box and question ridiculous AGENDAS!
evilstoo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evilstoo
You are a waste of time.
I don't even read your jabber. There is no point. You are just spitting into the wind.
Answer the question... Stop spewing dogma and Republi-con talking points.
You do not understand or value the integrity of science.
When you can answer the question then we can continue.
Is the data presented here correct? What is wrong? Why can't you answer?
YES OR NO?
Knossos22 6 months ago
@evilstoo
How many times have I asked?
Why can you not just write YES or NO?
Simple question. Is the data here accurate?
YES or NO?
Knossos22 6 months ago
@evilstoo
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Royal Society Canada, Caribbean, China, Institut de France, Ghana, Leopoldina Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Accademia nazionale delle scienze Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Royal Society New Zealand, Russian Academy Sciences, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Royal Swedish Academy Sciences, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, Royal Society United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Knossos22 6 months ago
@evilstoo
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of:
Knossos22 6 months ago
...the methods used to generate a version of the hockey stick graph was a small field in which most participants collaborated and then served as 'reviewers on each others’ papers, despite the potential for conflicts of interest. That analysis was later published as an independent paper, in which certain styles of research were suggested to be prone to “groupthink, reduced creativity and the possibility of less-rigorous reviewing processes, that is a consensus - a thinktank - i call that CORRUPT!
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo 2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[12] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India...
Knossos22 6 months ago
@Knossos22 Call me old fashioned but I still think spending Billions on an alternative fuel exploration to solve pollution is better than spending Billions on science/politic/corporatist/theological TAX negotiation ... to install environmentalist fascist corporations into third world economies. 10% of OZ Carbon Tax goes to UN climate fund - which will be over 600 million a year - as resources to 'educate third world economies' - assassinate is a better word. 31,000 scientists disagree.
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
Stop conflating. Stop dancing around the the edge and just answer the question.
Is the data presented here correct?
YES OR NO?
Knossos22 6 months ago
...the heating of the atmosphere from cloud absorption of Cosmic rays and solar radiation can affect the climate in ways the 'forecast models' currently cannot predict. From NASA's own words... Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field with the moon, ocean flow ... Carbon Dioxide is plant food.
evilstoo 6 months ago 2
Look at that final frame, with 800k years of co2 data from the ice cores. So scary. Until you pull up a long-term temperature chart based on the same ice cores. Why was it so much warmer during peaks hundreds of thousands of years ago? It's easy to educate yourself, folks--just google words like "vostok core temperature". They show you the charts like the one above so that you assume temperature follows (Gore did it in his movie). But you can see the truth for yourself, and not be a pawn.
codehead1 6 months ago
The methods used to generate the hockey stick graph generated by Michael Mann, a Penn State climatologist raised questions that showed that it was generated within a small field in which most participants collaborated and then served as reviewers on each others’ papers, despite the potential for criminal conflicts of interest. This creation was “groupthink, reduced creativity and the possibility of less-rigorous reviewing processes occurred. It is Fraudulent consensus pseudo-science/theology.
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
So, do you have a data set that is in contradiction to what is shown?
Please point it out if you do.
Knossos22 6 months ago
@Knossos22 ... More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 PhDs in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting global warming. Ask any Climate Modeler - the model they used to base the 'consensus science' upon is not accurate ... it is impossible to predict climate change or in any way adversely alter it ...
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
Is this the finger-print of the Climate-Change-Denial-Machine, or what?
Again, do you have a data set that is in contradiction to what is shown?
Or just Republi-con talking points?
Knossos22 6 months ago
@Knossos22 on youtube look up - The Carbon SCAM CO2 Contributed by Human Activity - may address some elements of the carbon tax scam better for you to understand ...
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
Not the question! Do you have a data set that contradicts what is show here? Yes or no?
Knossos22 6 months ago
As Global CO2 Climate Changelings 'you people' can cite "any" scientific consensus literature and it is considered accurate and 100% irrifutable. However any opposing opinion made to you people is irrelevant. Any opposing opinion by a scientist or scientists hasn't the "credentials" you require, is just another "crack pot theory" and is promptly censored by the corrupt peer reviewed process your consensus uses. Only one side has a say...... this whole scam is monetary - no pollution solution.
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
ONE MORE TIME: Do you or do you not have a data set that contradicts what is show in this video. Yes or not?
This is a vast pile of data that is just put in a coherent form in this video. Just a representation of data showing the change of CO2 measurements all over the world over time.
Do you have any idea how much data there is? How many measurements have been made?
Can you refute the data or not? Yes or no?
Stomping your feet is pointless. This is a question of data!
Knossos22 6 months ago
OMG! ... Peer reviewed papers have been done ... This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists. Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED .... swept under the carpet and ridiculed by the 'consensus scientists' - but remember - 25 scientists wrote the consensus graph charts - 31,000 scientists ridicule that!! what can we do but stomp on our feet!! Carbon Tax is no solution!
evilstoo 6 months ago
@evilstoo
You wrote: "'you people' can cite "any" scientific consensus literature"
NO!
Do you have data or not that refutes what is show here?
Either you have data or you do not have the data. It is a simple question. It is a simple thing. Show us your data set. That is all. Either we agree on the measurements or we do not. Simple. Not a big thing. Nothing to get bothered over.
How many people do you suppose were involved in making all those measurements?
They are all liars?
Knossos22 6 months ago
Literally thousands of scientists had climbed on the global warming consensus bandwagon, scooping up billions in research grants that were all intended to “prove” that global warming was real. Our Nations are making massive 'green energy investments' in third world countries to monopolize and Tax them into further debt and tyranny and control people’s lives based on the hoax. Global Warming is purely Global Governance, where are their solutions? just dollars, that's the real inconvenient truth!
evilstoo 6 months ago
@Knossos22 Use your search engine for 'Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide' you will see the link to the paper, it is PEER REVIEWED .... swept under the carpet and ridiculed by the 'consensus scientists' - but remember - 25 scientists wrote the consensus graph charts - 31,000 scientists ridicule that!! what can we do but stomp on our feet!! Carbon Tax is no pollution solution!
evilstoo 6 months ago
Comment removed
Knossos22 6 months ago
@evilstoo
Do you have a data set the refutes what is shown here?
YES OR NO?
Knossos22 6 months ago
@evilstoo
You wrote: "any opposing opinion made to you people is irrelevant"
NO!
You are missing the most important detail here. It is not about opinion! This is about measurements. Many many many thousands of measurements. Either the measurements are accurate or not.
Knossos22 6 months ago
@evilstoo Ohh pulease.. !!! The petition you are referring to was an open website petition collection signatures from anyone claiming to be a Dr. or Scientist with absolutely no verification of their education or credentials whatsoever. At one point Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh were promoting the site on their radio program telling listeners they should sign the petition. I personally know of at least 12 people who barely graduated high school who signed it.
Blaze1024 1 month ago
@Blaze1024 ha ha ... well of the 120 so called climate scientists attached to the AGW consensus how many are government agenda fundamentalists - they peered their owned work - it wasn't even an open field study - scientists were chosen to participate to answer a hypothesis - how convenient - and look at how dodgy that are - Michael Mann is close to a quack! Yes alot of the petition participants are not climate scientists - but alot are. go back to the TV and bury your head in the sand.
evilstoo 1 month ago
@evilstoo Oh pulease the only one who's got their head buried in the sand around here is you. Not one single credible scientist in the world has been willing to put their reputation on the line and publish a study contradicting the currently accepted understanding of AGW.. Furthermore all the Anti-AGW scientists are employed by the oil industry, They are also the exact same group if scientists who worked for the tobacco industry claiming tobacco wasn't addictive and didn't cause cancer
Blaze1024 1 month ago
@Blaze1024 oh ... another genius... 'climate scientists' today are only just beginning to understand how climate works - it is a debatable hypothesis - to claim a TAX will adversely affect climate warming is sheer nonsense ... It is just a Globalization Agenda thru means to gain a "green energy" monopoly by a select few - oil industry will collapse and dump their stock as the US Banks did, they will be taken over and the 'scarcity' of oil scare tactic will rocket prices to make them zillions.
evilstoo 1 month ago
@evilstoo Yet another ignorant contard who's only goal is to politicise everything and anything that they see as a threat to their political agenda of greed and exploitation. All people like you care about is money and politics. Current technology wastes 87% of the energy in fossil fuels yet conservatives oppose any technology that would improve efficiency. The most efficient car built barely extracts 13% of the available energy in gasoline and wastes the remaining 87% as heat.
Blaze1024 1 month ago
If we could improve the efficiency of internal combustion engines by a mere 10% We would double the life span of our oil reserves. Yet contards oppose any technology that would make cars more efficient because it means cars would use less fuel and the oil industry would lose money. The most efficient power plants barely extracts 15% of the available energy in coal and oil. By the time the electricity gets to your wall socket and TV 95% of the available energy was waisted as heat..!!
Blaze1024 1 month ago
Our current technology wastes between 85 to 95 percent of the available energy in oil and coal yet contards oppose anything and everything that would improve that efficiency. Why? because it means that oil company's and the Stock market wouldn't make nearly as much money exploiting our resources. Lets put this in perspective. If they had to pay 85% of their income in taxes they would be screaming about efficiency yet they don't mind wasting 85% of our fuel if it means making money.
Blaze1024 1 month ago
@evilstoo ha ha ... "well of the 120 so called climate scientists attached to the AGW "
Typical contard playing loose with the facts. 120 Scientists my ass! The truth is every single national scientific board, institute and foundation in the entire world accepts AGW. There's only a handful of bought and paid for Anti-AGW scientists and they are the same bought and paid for scientists who worked for the tobacco industry claiming that Tobacco wasn't addictive and didn't case cancer.
Blaze1024 1 month ago
@evilstoo Furthermore AGW is only one reason why we should strive to improve our antiquated power generating technology. The primary reason is waste. Our current antiquated technology wastes between 85 to 95 percent of the available energy in both coal and oil. GET IT ..!!! 85 to 95 percent of the available energy in oil and coal is wasted as heat. Its like throwing $85 of every $100 you earn in the trash. Out of every gallon of gas less then 0.13 is actually turned into usable power.
Blaze1024 1 month ago
ok you hit some very accurate issues - you have not answered any simple questions about climate science - but the issues are dead on - waste and pollution - what all AGW skeptics (contards is just lowering 'your' intellect) all want is the whole Agenda made REAL! If we are going to make a 'serious' change (and not global rule) either lets create an alternative fuel (hydrogen?) to fossil fuel 'pollutant' energy - or toss out every PC, Fridge, TV, car, candle, light no fires and grow our own food.
evilstoo 1 month ago
@evilstoo I used the term contard because I was offended by your comment regarding my intellect and my understanding of the issues. It seems that "conservatives" are always the first to resort to demeaning those who disagree with them and I was only responding in a manner I though you would understand. At this point AGW is moot point, the point of no return has passed. We now know that unprecedented levels of methane are being released from melting Arctic permafrost, It is too late..!!
Blaze1024 1 month ago
If you remember your basic HS science then you would also remember that Methane is a 2000% more potent green house gas than C02. Man started the dominoes falling and nature will finish what man started. All we can hope for now is to slow down the inevitable as we no longer have the power within our current technology to prevent it. Furthermore whether man is actually responsible or not is also a moot point, simply because it won't change the domino effect that's already begun.
Blaze1024 1 month ago
The only real question left is how mush we can slow down the inevitable and how much extra time we can buy to find a solution, whether it's 200 years or 20,000 is up to us. We can start by improving the efficacy of our antiquated power generating technology. Leaving AGW out of the picture its still the most prudent thing to do based on the goal of extending our limited nature resource. I don't know anyone who believes a meager 13% efficiency rate or a 87% waste level is acceptable..
Blaze1024 1 month ago
I also concede that any drastic changes to our automotive industry or our power generating infrastructure would have deleterious effects on our economy. That means there are no immediate or easy solutions to improving the efficiencies of those technology. Nothing would make me happier than seeing cars using "on demand" hydrogen fuel cells. The current pressurised hydrogen technology is unacceptable. what we need is an "on demand" hydrogen system capable of producing hydrogen as needed
Blaze1024 1 month ago
"ok you hit some very accurate issues"
Thank you for acknowledging these issues...
"You have not answered any simple questions about climate science"
That's because in and by itself I really don't care about AGW and whether its a cause in effect scenario or simply coralation. What I do see is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. By addressing and improving upon our antiquated power generating technology we also address any correlation between man and "Global Warming"
Blaze1024 1 month ago
Just so you know, I'm an electronics engineer by trade and I'm well versed on the issues I have mentioned. Over the years we have done much to improve the efficiency of consumer electronics. For example the move from linear power supplies with a 40% efficiency rate to switching power supplies with an 80% efficiency rate and the move from antiquated incandescent lighting to advanced CFL lighting which are close to 750% more efficient while also reducing the level of atmospheric mercury
Blaze1024 1 month ago
@Blaze1024 AGW scare tactics is a con... Curbing emissions of black carbon, a component of soot, along with methane and tropospheric ozone, could cut projected climate warming by 0.5 degree C by 2070. Possible strategies for reducing black carbon, methane and ozone include capturing methane produced by landfills and fossil fuel extraction, introducing cleaner-burning cookstoves, installing particulate filters on diesel engines and banning the practice of burning fields of agricultural waste.
evilstoo 1 month ago
@evilstoo Such cuts could be made with existing technology, and would "have immediate and multiple benefits for human well-being." But will the IPCC or the UN do anything - no - no alternatives other than - biofuels - an ethanol/kero mix that causes nitrogen oxide - potentially worse than CO2. AGW is about a corporate Green energy agenda - with a deliberate scare tactic to make people pay a TAX and dream the problem away... meanwhile MegaCorp take the money and dictate 3rd world resources.
evilstoo 1 month ago
Comment removed
evilstoo 6 months ago
i mean if is happend 400 ppm its will be really hot from agstly its very near to happend is thats
ghoost69 7 months ago
its the heat that creates the carbon dioxide not the other way around
joshuahardy95 7 months ago
wow just think when is happend 300 ppm i dont have any idea what will happend
ghoost69 7 months ago
Interesting that deniers do not comment on clips such as this one
clearair 7 months ago
So simple even a child could understand, I love it.
jessyleejones11 9 months ago
Mother Nature creates most of the CO2, not industrialization. Warming oceans due to longer wavelength light release CO2. Increased forest density release more CO2. CO2 used to be 4,000 ppm and we fell into an ice age. Clearly CO2 does not dive temperature. BTW, that 380 is in parts per MILLION. It is a trace gas at best.
ConservativeCavalry 9 months ago
@ConservativeCavalry You have a graph in front of you that uses very accurate data showing an extreme sudden spike in CO2 which began during the industrial age and continues to this day. I guess that's all coincidence right? I mean coal and fossil fuels in no way impart CO2 when burned, that's just preposterous!
But seriously, you have to realise the span of time in which this change in CO2 is occuring. It's happening at a rate nature could NEVER reproduce, hence this is not a natural thing.
OfficeThug 8 months ago
@ConservativeCavalry You are correct, there was a time when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than today. It is that very CO2 that had been sequestered for millions of years in the form of oil, gas, and coal, that we are now re-releasing into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels; burning it at a rate in excess of the flora's ability to reconvert it into biomass; hence the rising trend in CO2. Trace gas? Yes. So?
euclon 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ConservativeCavalry
"Increased forest density release more CO2"
Obviously you weren't paying attention in High School. Plants convert CO2 to Oxygen and therefore decrease CO2 levels. Furthermore can you please site your source for increased forest density. Your claim is contrary to the well established fact that we are seeing an unprecedented level of global deforestation. Therefore your claim of increased forest density contributing to increased C02 is laughable at best
Blaze1024 1 month ago
@willamblackrose Yes, ppm = parts per million, and an "extra 86" does make a big difference in heat absorption and radiative transfer over the HUGE mass of the atmosphere.
It may sound "tiny", but consider this: if you drink alcohol, the amount of alcohol in your blood required to get you "legally drunk" in many places is also a tiny amount, about the same order of magnitude as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Amazing what difference a "tiny" amount of something can make, no?
ArchaeanDragon 11 months ago
Great work!
vislumbresdamargem 1 year ago
I prefer to stay nearer 300ppm rather than test 500ppm.
BTW, what else is changing the climate so? If not CO2 what else?
DoubleD2104 1 year ago
@DoubleD2104 Atmospheric water vapor is increasing as a result of warming due to increasing CO2. Water vapor is more potent as a green house gas than CO2. Hence the use of the term "tipping point" when talking about global warming; the idea that a green house point can be reached where there is a thermal run-away to a new global thermodynamic equilibrium where the average global temperature is substantially higher than today. This is the nightmare that is feared by climatologists.
euclon 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just to clarify, does ppm stand for parts per million? It's the only thing that cannot be logically inferred and it seems to be an integral piece of the puzzle. An extra 86 parts per million isn't that big a difference from the high of around 300 ppm in 300 kyBCE. Granted it is higher, but where is the scientific fact that shows the effect of a, say, 50 ppm raise in Atmospheric CO2, proving that CO2 levels are to blame for "Climate Change," or "Global Warming?"
willamblackrose 1 year ago
Just to clarify, does ppm stand for parts per million? It's the only thing that cannot be logically inferred and it seems to be an integral piece of the puzzle. An extra 86 parts per million isn't that big a difference from the high of around 300 ppm in 300 kyBCE. Granted it is higher, but where is the scientific fact that shows the effect of a, say, 50 ppm raise in Atmospheric CO2, proving that CO2 levels are to blame for "Climate Change," or "Global Warming?"
willamblackrose 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@willamblackrose
"Just to clarify, does ppm stand for parts per million?"
Yes.
"An extra 86 parts per million isn't that big a difference from the high of around 300 ppm in 300 kyBCE. "
Says who? Really. Those changes in CO2 levels translate to large changes in the climate. Further the pace of CO2 accumulations is unprecedented in Earth's history.
Trent1492 11 months ago
@willamblackrose
Physics. The higher the concentration of CO2 in a gas, the more times a given infrared photon is absorbed and re-emitted on it's way out, and the higher equilibrium temperature the surface reaches such that the rate of radiation leaving the planet equals the rate of radiation falling onto it.
personzorz 11 months ago
@willamblackrose It is parts per million in the molecular sense in this case; 300ppm in this case means there are 300 CO2 molecules per million molecules of total air gases excluding water vapor. An "extra" 86 ppm is almost a 30% increase in CO2 by molecular count and about the same by total mass as well. The "proof" is in what we know of the interaction of radiation with matter (gases) and in the ice core sampling that has allowed the determination of past CO2 activity to name two.
euclon 8 months ago
Great Stuff!. This data shows Interglacial period every 100kyrs or so. It should be noted the current peaking of CO2 being measured could similarly have occurred between data points which were 800 - 1000 years apart during historical interglacial periods. It's like having a reading for 1400AD and then 2200AD.
russellhbarnes 1 year ago
Comment removed
russellhbarnes 1 year ago
The merchant ships MV Beluga Fraternity and MV Beluga Foresight arrived this week in Yamburg, Siberia, their owner Beluga Shipping GmbH said yesterday.
They travelled from Ulsan, South Korea, in late July to Siberia by way of the North East Passage, a sea lane that, in years past, was avoided because of its heavy ice floes
The North East Passage, open to commercial shipping for the first time in history.
gamesbok 1 year ago
If you're a believer, you should check out real ice core data for Vostok and Tonoku U cores which span tens and hundreds of thousands of years. For short term, you should look at correlation to sun spot activity. Then, you should ponder what is cause and what is effect. Ice mass in Arctic and Antarctic have been increasing, and sea level has not risen. The real concern now is what if sun spot activity remains low, and this cooling trend continues? Cooling is a lot scarier than warming.
yjtanaka 1 year ago
@yjtanaka
Ice mass increasing at the poles?
Sea level not rising?
Cooling trend?
Wow.
SRNe2 1 year ago
@yjtanaka
Where did you get the idea that Arctic sea ice is increasing?
personzorz 11 months ago
Well done NOAA! A superb science communications resources.
Alas, as the Captain said in Cool Hand Luke, 'Some men you just can't reach...'.
thylacine1930 1 year ago 2
"Don't like that it only uses single ice cores"
Fair question 1)other ice cores from other domes DO match,they only show one;; so *multiple* ice cores, so robust &for more recent years ice cores match other data 2)In 2009boron/calcium ratios used to estimate CO2 for 20mil yrs(Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years sciencemagDOTorg)And? It *matches* ice cores.Spread the word! use economicdemocracyDOTorg/eco/images/650k-yrs-co2.gif
econdemocracy 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Keep on living your religious cult.
jroussin 1 year ago
Excellent visualisation!
blawson1960 1 year ago 4
Having been Chief Scientist at Silicon Graphics in the 1990s, I would say this visualization is *superb.* Thanks.
JohnMashey 1 year ago 5
Awesome visual.
Of course, it's all a big hoax. Just ask Exxon and Glenn Beck.
n9387d 1 year ago 27
Don't like that it only uses single ice cores for the past, but still good job.
TrueMetis 1 year ago
Deniers that human activity is causing climate change are like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It makes no difference how much evidence is presented they will still deny the reality of the situation.
King Arthur: Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound.
So to all you global warming deniers I say "Keep fucking that chicken."
londubh2007 1 year ago 11
@londubh2007 How much of an easily led fool are you.. Even when you have seen the climategate emails, admission from NASA that their satellite temp readings are wrong, and that most of the land based temp stations cant be trusted you still cling to the " It's man's fault the world is warming" line. 0.00038 percent increase in co2 ? Do you get that? AGW believers are like children believing in Santa.
I say turn of your pc sell you're car buy candles grow you're own food and pump you're own water
Adirtybird 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Adirtybird your racist icon tells me everything I need to know about you.
londubh2007 1 year ago
@Adirtybird fools can't spell
youbegreen 1 year ago
@Adirtybird
youbegreen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Adirtybird fools can't spell
youbegreen 1 year ago
is this video insinuating that humans are causing "global warming"?
ripripripus 1 year ago
@ripripripus This video is showing how CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution. The relationship between global warming and CO2 (by way of the greenhouse effect) is basic physics after that.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 3
@robhoneycutt then why were global temps dropping steadily from 1940-1975? Also, temp drives CO2, not the other way around. Anthropogenic GW is a fallacy, especially when taking into consideration the amount of CO2 animals, bacteria, fermenting vegetation, volcanoes, and oceans release. Human CO2 from fuels and factories are minute compared to natural factors.
And if you actually believe Al Gore wants to save humans, you are very naive.
Life THRIVES off CO2.
ripripripus 1 year ago
@ripripripus Answers:
1) 1940-70 was generally level and was the result of aerosols.
2) Preindustrial temps were driven by Milankovitch cycles. CO2 was still the primary feedback driving climate.
3) The amount of CO2 is not the problem. The balance of the system is. We are tipping the climate out of balance.
4) Al Gore is irrelevant.
5) Modern creatures have never seen CO2 levels as high as today so you can't know if it will thrive on these levels.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 3
@robhoneycutt 40-70 was NOT level!! why was there a prediction of a coming ice age in media reports!?..it was because of falling temps that ppl could not account for.
CO2 levels have been recorded as high as 14 times higher in earth's history than today. Have you never seen vegetation exposed to higher CO2 levels? They are MUCH healthier and higher yielding. If CO2 did not exist, life wouldn't either.
I'm not saying humans are not destroying the planet, but get realistic...GW is a CULT
ripripripus 1 year ago
@ripripripus I just plotted 1940-70. You are right there is a cooling trend but it is tiny. Over the entire 30 year period there was cooling of only about 0.05C Essentially flat.
Take note that when CO2 levels on this planet were 14 times higher... there was no land based animal life. The only land based plant life were early non-vascular moss-like plants. Not a place modern life could exist.
GW is science.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 15
@robhoneycutt GW is a scam to introduce Carbon Taxing so govt's can have a tighter hold on resources and humans. Big Gov't loves the GW hype. Do you actually think your gov't gives a shit about its citizens? And why did GM via collusion with Big Gov't (Cheney, Rice, and Bush) put a stop to the electric car in California in the early 90's when it was becoming VERY popular? d/l the documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car'
ripripripus 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt and 2 others - 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' & 'Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off'. They feature many scientists from NASA and the IPCC who were persecuted for saying that they didn't believe, or couldn't prove, anthropogenic GW.
ripripripus 1 year ago
@ripripripus Yes. We all know both of those films. They're full of complete crockery. Like the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than all human activities" when in fact humans emit far more.
You're being duped.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 9
@robhoneycutt There is a theory that the cooling trend was caused by particulates in the air. I haven't seen data.
gamesbok 6 months ago
@robhoneycutt when was it 14%
phantomofthedrivein 5 months ago
This makes me nervous.
beeveemee 1 year ago 2
i know how we can solve the problem....send AL gore money for a new Eco-friendly private jet.
or, grow lot's of hemp.
you decided.
MedicalMarijuanaMini 1 year ago
This is incredible!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago