For everyone who thinks Freeman Dyson doesn't advocate taking action on climate change and that this video is somehow proof that we should do nothing to save the environment, WATCH THE SECOND PART and LISTEN!!
"...the public thinks that you have to wait until global warming has been proved before you do something about it but thats completely ridiculous..."
But Al was ready to believe all and charge you for it! And to think he was almost president! Which doesnt much matter,their all just fake choice for the people anyhow!
@litterbug206 No, that's not correct, Dyson is one of the top nuclear physicists alive. By "problems with nuclear energy" he meant that because of the bombs and the leaks of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc., the study of nuclear physics become "target" as something not good or non natural, which of course he does *not* agree having in sight the deep knowledge he has on the subject.
Dyson: He(Hanson) has all the credentials. I have none. I don’t have a Ph.D. He’s published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven’t. By the public standard he’s qualified to talk and I’m not. But I do because I think I’m right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it’s true my career doesn’t depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate.” When no one was into AGW Dyson was into it. Now that everyone is Dyson is agin it.
2/24/11 A new investigation into the 'Climategate' controversy has exonerated U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The probe was conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
"In our review...we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures."
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
@fireofenergy Dyson in this video says that the "infrared absorber" part of the co2 in the atmosphere is not the problem, but the interaction of co2 with the ionosphere. The disruption of the ionosphere with the resulting increased incidence of high energy radiation from outer space on the surface of Earth and possible diseases and mutations it may bring. He's sceptical about GW and I myself am pretty much convinced that GW is not happening at all.
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
Today's climate models are sophisticated beasts. About two dozen of them, developed in the US, Europe, Japan and Australia, aim to predict the evolution of our climate. Still, today's complex models are...because they incorporate our best knowledge of the Earth and climate processes.
Today's models...say, global temperature in 2100. ...uses an "ensemble" approach'
w w w.newscientist. c o m/article/mg20927951.400-casting-a-critical-eye-on-climate-models.html
KILL THE ELITES THAT STARTED THIS BULLSHIT...RIP OFF THIER ARMS AND BEAT THEM TO DEATH WIH THEM....CHOP OFF THIER HEADS....HANG THEM...SHOOT THEM....SHOVE THIER HEADS IN A SLEEPING BAG AND FART IN IT....GIVE THEM TITTY TWISTERS!!!! STAB THEM...BITCH SLAP THEM.....ETC ETC.....
On my PhD into Chemical Engineering I found that global warming from nuclear power. Plants take in carbon dioxide to support all life on earth. They leave only two parts per 1,000,000 in the air, as they have done fall last 200 years. Climate change is similarly relish designed to scare the stupid, and kill everybody
@SomeLittleShoe I have no argument with that. All models in all sciences are wrong to some degree, or there would be no further need for science. Climate models are worse than most because the system is so complicated. Good science requires continuously refining the models through confrontation with measurements of the sort Dyson is advocating in this clip. It also requires quantifying the uncertainty, which I have seen too little of in climate discussions.
@bernzeppi He lost his credibility because he wants the science to be based on observations rather than completely inadequate computer models (which don't correctly model the effects of clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, or glaciers)?
@bernzeppi So many errors, so few characters. 2010 was not the hottest year on record. We have an abundance of paleoclimatalogical data on record and we're in a cool period. Between 10000 and 500000 years ago there were four PEAK temperatures greater than 2010 (which means dozens of years with higher temperatures). Starting at about 3 million years ago the earth was almost always hotter than 2010. At its warmest the Earth has been about 7 degrees warmer than now.
@bernzeppi I know it's not the instrumental record. That's only existed for a couple hundred years. We have billions of years of temperature and CO2 data. The instrumental record is an infinitesimal slice of temperature data. While the instrumental data is more accurate the paleoclimate data is precise enough for us to know that we're currently in a cool period, historically speaking. What's disingenuous is ignoring all that data that's not conducive to alarmism.
A review of > 200 climate studies led by rsrchrs at the Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest nor that with the most extreme weather of the past 1M yrs. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800-1300 & the Little Ice Age of 1300-1900 were global events not ltd to Europe and N. America. While 20th c. temps are much higher than in the LIA, many parts of the world show the MWP to be greater than that of the 20th c.
@bernzeppi I also never attacked computer modeling in general. That's just your strawman. I attacked climate models for specific reasons which you did not address.
@bernzeppi Hey Aussie Hippie do you still stand by the statement you posted below ? "Hey, didja know every single molecule of water that evaporates has to reach boiling point??? 100C 212F Didja know that???" * bernzeppi 5 hours ago * There seems to be some issues with it's content.
I have a great deal of respect for dyson and agree that computer modelling would be difficult to "programme". however, its equally true that "observations" could be missinterpreted . It seems that there would be too many variables in either method.
Interesting talk and the more accurate measurements of the Carbon cycle would be an important addition to our understanding of things, but it seems to me he is making a fundamental error.
He seems to say that without this information we have no way of knowing if increases in CO2 are due to humans or nature. However we have observations of Carbon isotopes that clearly demonstrate that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is rising at the same rate as overall CO2. This is strong evidence it is us.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
@tza420 Maybe. But there are numerous downsides to more CO2. In the end, the balance of evidence says it would be a bad thing for us especially if that change happens as rapidly as it is occurring.
why doesn't he go invent a fridge-freezer with a see-thru door, since his name's dyson, and lessen the amount of greenhouse gas emissions cause u don't have to open it to see what u want out the fridge anymore, instead of being a fucking oil-shill whore talking absolut garbage that's sure to help kill nature all the more.
Models have successfully predicted prior warming and sea level rise in the 1990s. The only thing they haven't accurately predicted is ice cap retreat. Polar ice has been melting FASTER than models predicted.
But reality shows that climate models ARE reliable, they match the observations very well within the estimated margin of error and they made numerous predictions that have been already confirmed by actual observations and measurement data. All whining and complaining from AGW denialists (and 'real' skeptics like Dyson) doesn't change this simple and obvious fact.
@quidproquo2004 the "carbon tax" is code for a tax on living/breathing. but of course this is just prep for later on-when your shot in the head and kicked into a pit.
don't think they are evil enough to do this? well ask the people (who are left) in iraq.
@whitemagic2222 - greenhouse gas emissions are just one of many polluting things that need to be taxed to fuck. are u aware for example that even just OTC and prescription medicines flushed down toilets, affect the water supply so much that traces of them remain in the water after its 'treated' (ie - has poison added to it) and recycled back to ur taps? and that it alters ur biology when u bathe in and drink it? u must be a shill posing as a white magician to not favor the planet.
@whitemagic2222 - u should change ur username to 'i misuse left-hand-path magic for evil purspoes only, instead of for protecting the Earth like it's actually meant for' u nasty little fuckhead. kill yourself.
Its the ocean that really sequesters Co2 (coral reefs et al) the vegetation decays. The rate of loss of rain florist makes Dyson's interpretation a lot more frightening then he would are to voice. The models have proven to be wrong all right, the really is actually worse (see polar warming).
Keep in mind co2 is only one compound humans a spewing into the environment
He mentions a "trick" .. Regarding climategate those scientist also mentioned a trick. There's no conspiracy, just stupid rightwingers hell bent on skewing scientific terms and words
You are claiming that there is this ''entity'' called a right-wing media, and this ''entity'' is working hard to claim your believes as a liberal conspiracy?
Whatever it takes to keep our climate working .. if global warning due to co2 emissions was all hoax , IT DOESNT mean we can go back to our v8 engines and chop more forests down (even tho monster amounts of wood is chopped everyday ) .
How about the fact that at the current, increased rate the polar ice will be gone 70 years sooner then predicted. The sad facts are that he is right. The models were terribly off, and miss lots of data. Like acidification of the ocean, and increased ocean temp. decreasing the amount of absorbed CO2. The reality makes the models look like a walk in the park. Oooops.
Dyson does not "diss" computer modeling. He simply points out that its value is limited by the quality of its empirical input. Nothing here can be interpreted as dismissing climate modeling, as long as it is done correctly. He is advocating improving the models. Dyson knows this is a complex problem and has come up with intelligent proposals for improving the science. If he would "diss" anything, it is the simplistic abuse of climate modeling by those who use it to advance a political agenda.
@DustyCatty - in that case, yt needs to get their finger out their ass, and stop allowing liars to falsely interpret videos they put up, and slap on some description that doesn't match what is in the video.
@DustyCatty Actually, much here can be interpreted as a dismissal of climate modeling. If by "as long as it is done correctly" you intend to give laymen the false impression that the real issues Dr. Dyson brings up are surmountable, then you are being misleadingly disingenuous. You give the false impression that models exist on a sliding scale from simplistic to more rigorous, but this is incorrect. The very nature of the phenomena being modeled constrains the use of mathematics as a useful tool
@DustyCatty Climate is a complex system whose emergent order is the result of innumerable interactions of innumerable particles affected by endogenous and exogenous factors too innumerable to be accounted for in any finite mathematical expression (i.e. model) yielding useful results. Climate is incapable of controlled observation s.t. irrelevent factors are accounted for. Inputs, appart from being innumerable, suffer from unnacountable feedback signals. You end up w/ high-order non-linear
We have fossilized sea shells in NORTH DAKOTA....we've evidence of glacial presence in So. Wisconsin into northern Missoui. OBVIOUSLY we've experienced the extreme's of temperature's WITHOUT combustion fuels involved. To believe man-kind has THAT much influence on a global scale is not just preposturous, it's ludicrous!!!
@DustyCatty partial (innumerable dimensions) differential equations whose solutions are non-calculable. Trying to predict the weather in effect is an excercise in futility. At least that's what I get from Dyson's remarks.
@SomeLittleShoe This is a serious oversimplification. What he is saying is that computer modeling is misleading without real-world measurements, and that too much effort is going into modeling vs direct observation. As a physicist, I can assure you that computer modeling is an essential part of understanding any natural system, not just the climate, but the models are only as good as their inputs, and the uncertainties must be quantified. Too often, this has not been adequately acknowledged.
Dyson disses computer modeling. Computer modeling allowed the H Bomb to be shrunk to incredibly small dimensions. That computer modeling happened a long, long time ago.
Problem is a tool like a simulator is only as good as the data and variables you stick into it
They had all the variables for a H omb,there is no worldwide CO2 data for next 100 years o conclusive proof that Co2 concentration drives Tempature tough that parameter is stuck in it
P.S. the GLorified SImearth Program already predicted a 8 foot tidal wave that never came to Hawaii and got the Icland Volcano cloud covering 1/4 of Europe wrong.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Data indicates that only 1-3% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere come from anthropogenic sources. The rest comes from other natural sources.
There is no definitive proof that humans are causing the warming. What we do know is that climates are in a constant state of change (both warming and cooling), and there was a significant warming period in the Middle Ages. Last time I checked, there were no fossil fuels being burned during this era.
Sorry but your argument is very shallow. Only 1-3%!?!? So the millions and millions of cars today in the world, and the carbon dependent industry of today, and the continuing deforestation of the world's forests are all contributing only 1-3%. Sorry but I think that's highly unlikely. You're arguing that 97% is coming from natural sources, such as volcanos. Even the most hardened climate denialist will have a hard time to take your suggestion seriosly.
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) * American Meteorological Society (AMS) * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) * Woods Hole Resarch Center * American Association of State Climatologists
Of course it's a hoax. And it's been going on a lot long than most people realize. Something on the order of 40 to 50 years, who knows, maybe even longer.
When it was revealed the the "global climate change" scientists faked their data, a lot of what my father told me 35 years ago suddenly made sense. He said "they" would eventually try to convince us we're heating up the planet. But that "they" already knew that was impossible.
Any changes we observe now is part of the natural cycle.
@Honestinwilkesbarre - When will you so called "skeptics" learn to do basic fact checking?
One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. - Freeman Dyson (8 August 2007). "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society"
A link to the article can be found on his wikipedia page.
It is like a top notch scientist (a PhD), commenting on the physics of the Earth, the Sun, CO2, heat transfer, ocean cycles, ocean currents, atmospheric particulates, energy transfer, radiation absorption, the atmosphere, cloud patterns, wind, ice cores, snow cover, tree rings, and even magnetic poles, and space particles.
Human beings produce less than 1/10 of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere - which is just .038 percent (methane isn't even a trace element). Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas by volume at 1 percent. What really drives climate change is the wobble (axial rotation) of the earth's axis over a 26,000 year cycle (Precession of the Equinoxes).
Lake Vostok and University of Melbourne studies indicate that carbon dioxide rises with global warming for about 21,000 years and then drops again.
Al Gore was one of the architects of two of the most anti-American, anti-human rights, & anti-environmental legislation in the history of the United States. He was in office when NAFTA & GATT expansion to the WTO happened.
Multiple tens of millions of jobs that paid good wages were shipped to Al Gore's Marxist friends in China & the third world so that corporations who greased Gore's pockets could exploit the Environment & Human Rights & stuff their fat pockets with money
Hear Hear to LordVigeous666999. Level headed reaction is the key. The only thing "the sky is falling" accomplishes is rash response which the great majority of the time is the wrong response. The best climate models in existance can't accurately predict the future yet all we hear is doom & gloom. Oh & make sure you buy Al Gore's carbon credits so he can make another million. Cap & trade system doesn't work. Look at UK. Even Dr. Hansen said it wouldn't work. We can do better.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Sorry deniersglobal warming is the readily demonstrated cause and effect of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere
Regardless of what was happening with the natural Ice Age cycle of the last few millenia, or orbital cycles, subduction, ocean and atmospheric chemistry, changes in the geometry of the continents etc
...the gases our industrial waste processes have dumped into the atmosphere are having an extra effect which is causing things to warm up faster than they would have otherwise
Plants absorb CO2 and water, and produce food and oxygen by this formula;
CO2 + H2O = CxHy + O2
Then you eat CxHy; when you eat a plant, or eat an animal that ate a plant. You inhale the oxygen and turn it into energy for your body, as well as releasing CO2 and water back out, via this eqn;
CxHy + O2 = CO2 + H20
So..... I fail to see how CO2 is industrial waste. I mean, is water industrial waste? Our coal plants produce that too, so does you car
@LordVigeous666999 The issue is all about carbon sinks. Fossil fuels in the the ground were a huge, very long term carbon sink. Plant-life is a sink. We're liberating carbon from an otherwise "forever" sink into the atmosphere and liberating it from the plant-life sink by destroying that. The annual sawtooth CO2 pattern is a distraction from the real issue, which is the overall slope of the sawtooth curve. Indeed CO2 is industrial waste. Your irrelevant equations, intended to impress... don't.
You won't convince me that CO2 is industrial waste. Also, I have been a skeptic for awhile, mostly because the "Sky is falling, sky is falling!!!!" crowd really have made a poor case, but I am mostly sold on CO2 playing a big role in recent warming, or at least adding to it in recent years (ie 50 years)
However, lets take the level headed approach. CO2 is an amplifier, something to be added to what is already happening by the dominant forces in climate
The recent leveling of temp has suggested, that without CO2 we would have declining temp, and if we truly are on a climatic knife edge, CO2 would appear to be keeping us on it, not shoving us off
Also, Solar Physicists are suggesting the Sun may be going into a prolonged "cold" period, CO2 may blunt this cooling
And, if you want to get really level headed, countries aren't going to collapse their economies, and plunge themselves into social turmoil to make YOU feel better
@Nightversionn The intent of this farce of "Global Warming" is Control of the lives of human beings at the level of the carbon atom. It is pukes like you ruining lives.Your type tells me not to light a charcoal briquette while the Toyota Prius' are being made! A Prius is the end result of all the polluting technology in the world. while a diesel engine is 100yrs of highly effecient proven reality. Way past gas. One volcano makes mockery of ALGoreLogic. Please ask Al what those "Chemtrails" are!
the recent warming cannot be explained without factoring in the warming effect of the greenhouse gas rise. On the flip side of that, the warming effect of the greenhouse gas rise necessitates such a warming.
You say you never accepted warming was there in the first place. So why did you claim the whole debate was whether the cause was anthropogenic or not?
The debate over whether there has been warming is over. There has been warming. Eg the satellite record.
Again youve formed a prior opinion and then attributed the cause to man.
Youve not tested it, youve attributed it.
You say the miniscule rise of co2% is the reason for warming right? But we already know warming isnt created by the co2 rise, the temperature goes up first then the co2 rises.
Since 98, no rise in temps. Explain it. Its at travesty that we cant.
The debates wide open theres been no warming for over 10 years.
I am just repeating what the weight of current science on the matter says. If that changes my view will change.
co2 rise causes warming, there's a strong degree of certainty about that. In the past temperature rise has caused co2 rise. There's a strong degree of certainty about that too.
1998 was a strong el nino year, so the high temps that year were due to a movement of heat temporary. Years since 1998 are getting close without such a strong el nino.
Thats Al the Bore Gore speaking, he got it ass backwards!
CO2 follows temperature.
So if the temperature goes UP and the Co2 follows it in the form of a rise, what can we deduce? AGW????? Co2 "causes GW"????
No. Obviously we have to look somewhere else.
BTW cracks appearing in ipcc "consensus".
According to IPCC scientist Mojab Latif it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze. Latif is known as one of the worlds leading climate modelers.
temperature does follow co2. This is well known from physics. co2 absorbs IR and IR is the only means Earth can lose energy. More co2 means less IR into space and heat builds up on earth and the planet warms.
Mojab Latif accepts manmade global warming. He says flat temperature for 10 years then accelerated warming due to the rise in greenhouse gases. He doesn't say a decades long freeze at all.
CO2 does absorb heat. But, thats not enough to say its causing ALL or MOST of the warming of the last 100 years. Nor is it enough to say it will end the world
Have you seen the error bars on cloud forcing? They are pretty much guessing. The error bar on cloud forcing, ALONE, changes Climate Change from "no big deal" to "We are all going to die"
They are just guessing. Period. Thats what data says. If you look at the data, thats what it says. Until they figure out clouds, they are guessing
From what I understand, it takes only a 1% change in global average cloud cover to cause substantial climate change, either warming or cooling. The models assume no variation. Roy Spencer says that they haven't been able to isolate the causality in regard to cloud feedback being negative or positive. Computer models are not controlled experiments.
@LordVigeous666999 A mere 1% change in cloud cover negates all warming for the last ~120 years. A 2% change leads to another ice age. They must get this part right and currently, the modelers have no clue. The best authority on cloud cover is Richard Lindzen and he is rather famously in the skeptic camp.
Not everyone agrees that it is humans causing global warming but this makes no odds, as all scientists are in agreement over whether or not man could possibly stop it! We can't! So why are we spending so much money on trying to, instead of spending this money one building sea defenses etc. Things that will help us when it does start to happen? It's insane
Depopulation of the entire human race (except for me) is the only answer. We must erase the human parasite plague that endlessly leeches upon our limited resources. We, the Wealthy Elite shall eradicate Global Warming, snuffing out the human life whoes very breath suffocates our Goddess Earth. With your help we'll create a better pandemic, a more lethal virus, a deadlier plague, in hopes that one day, the disease called Humans are utterly extinct. Because the world is a better place without YOU.
We do have a need to stop burning coal and oil even if it has nothing to do with increase levels of CO2 or global temperature. It is a non renewable resource. If our civilization is based on something we know will run out, then we also know our civilization will have to make a major change at some point, or fall. Also, drilling and mining fossil fuels is an environmental disaster. It is also responsible for smog, and poor air quality. It is a health hazard regardless.
It would be nice to know how just much CO2 was being sequestered in the earth's crust. But the fact is there is more being created and released than is being sequestered.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
Q.OK, but how do we know the extra CO2 is from burning or other types of oxidization of carbon?
A. Because the concentration of atmospheric oxygen (O2) has dropped by the same amount that CO2 has increased.
That is a red herring. O2 levels rise as CO2 falls and vice versa. Plantlife draws in CO2 and releases O2. The relative imbalance is due to widespread loss of tree cover through deforestation. Plants retain CO2, and the loss of them as a sponge leaves more of it airborne. Stopping driving your car and huddling in the dark without a fire will not fix that. Replanting trees, slowing deforestation that might be useful. Nothing like that is mentioned in the Copenhagen Tax Scam, and that's all it is.
Deforestation accounts for a lot of the CO2 in the atmosphere. But so does the burning of coal and oil. Of course no science can ever be 'settled' in the absolute sense. But the fact that CO2 is a key driver of recent warming is generally accepted. Even working climatologists much beloved by the deniers - like Michaels, Christy and Spencer - admit CO2 has an effect. They dispute the size and nature of its impact.
Do you read the mainstream stuff as well as the denier stuff?
CO2 is a small molecule, accounting for less than 4% of atmpsheric gases. Of that we account for about 10%, or about .04 % of the total atmosphere. You need to think heptanes, cetanes, methanes, pentanes, Hydrosulfides, hydrosulphuric acid in dilute amounts, large molecule benzine-ring compounds. The IPCC report is based on CRU figures which were falsified by their own admission. Whether leaked or hacked, the reports and documents are genuine. The cheating is too. Yes, I read it all, by the way.
Today CO2 comprises 390ppm or 0.039% of the atmosphere (in terms of partial pressure, not weight). Before the industrial revolution the concentration was 280ppm. The increase of 110ppm is matched by a similar decrease in O2, indicating that the net gain in CO2 is from the breakdown/burning of vegetation and burning fossil fuels. The 'new' CO2 therefore comprises 110/390 = 28% of total atmospheric CO2.
agreed, but keep in mind that the forests of the western countries have increased, its the poorer countries that cut down their forest out of desperation which only reinforces building the third world economies, this will have a positive effect on forests. That said the fastest way to build their economies is fossil fuels.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there have been periods as recent as 1000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period where there were much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the seas did not rise, Borneo was not submerged, the Poles both survived and the only residual change is that you cannot grow crops in Iceland and Greenland that grew in the age of the Vikings. Mankind did not die off and they got along without the UN, Gore or the Alarmists holding their hands. This is a global scam.
I note your citing NOAA, whose numbers are in part derived from bogus numbers from the CRU. I find that assumption faulty at the least. Also NASA iss being sued as we discuss this for opting to not report satellite info which shows consistent cooling of the southern oceans and pole. I prefer the unbiased numbers of the folks at MIT, who say temos have decreased since 1960, hence the "Trick" mentioned in Dr Jones emails and his quote "hide the decline." His words not mine. Your sources are bad.
So Chris Horner of the Competetive Enterprise Institute (funded by ExxonMobil) is "threatening" to sue NASA is he?
Sounds serious. This reminds me of John Coleman who "wanted" to sue Al Gore for 'fraud' watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
He's probably still 'thinking' of phoning a lawyer!
Do you know what 'decline' they wanted to hide with "real temps"? Check the videos on my channel. Gotta watch out for those real temps though. They could hide a decline that's not real, and ruin a good story.
newz2me28792. It's interesting that you prefer the numbers of the folks at MIT. Their most recent modeling predicts a rise of 5.1C by the end of this century.
web.mit. edu /newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519. html
Because you take them seriously, you are now finally concerned about global warming. This must have been a bit of an eye opener for you, right?
But if you want the raw data, (e.g. tree rings and stalagmite growth etc in millimeters) what you do is you write to the authors of the various papers incorporated in the graph I linked you to and ask for their raw data.
Do it! Read the papers that back up the graph. Get interested. Get the data and perform your own analyses.
Maybe you will be the one denier who is genuinely curious, and has the patience to have a close look at the science.
Can you give an example of something that would qualify as a human signal? The extra 110 ppm of CO2 produced over the last 150yrs is matched by a similar decrease in atmospheric O2. This, together with isotope data shows that the extra CO2 is from recently oxidized carbon.
Its destroyed by the comprehensive rigging of data by CRU.
The figures you produced are from the pro side and heavily influenced by jones et al.
I have no confidence in them or in the impartiality of your sources.
From NOAA:
"It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures."
"It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide..." etc
I can't find any link between this "quote" and the NOAA. I only found it on a right wing message board called "The Mighty Right."
Would I be right in thinking you find this unsubstantiated snippet from some message board more "credible" than a swag of scientific papers? Do you think you will ever read any of those papers?
If ever you get interested in science, get back to me and I'll link you to the relevant papers.
The satellite records show similar warming to the surface records over the past 30 years. Boreholes also show it and of course sea surface temperature also shows warming over this period. There's no plausible way to deny recent warming.
You are one of the closed mind sheeple. Anything that shows warming you will, in your own word - "deny". You will claim it's "from the same people who are selling global warming".
A convenient tactic but not one which intelligent reasonable open minded people like myself will fall for.
The UAH satellite record is authored by 2 global warming skeptics. So good luck trying to write off the fact it shows warming over the past 30 years like the surface record. Where is your god now?
This has been flagged as spam show
For everyone who thinks Freeman Dyson doesn't advocate taking action on climate change and that this video is somehow proof that we should do nothing to save the environment, WATCH THE SECOND PART and LISTEN!!
"...the public thinks that you have to wait until global warming has been proved before you do something about it but thats completely ridiculous..."
feynman1988 1 month ago
Comment removed
feynman1988 1 month ago
Comment removed
feynman1988 1 month ago
Comment removed
feynman1988 1 month ago
Is this Freeman Dyson? He looks so young, how old is this footage?
BelRiose2000 2 months ago
@BelRiose2000
i think it's june 1999
theluke01 1 month ago
the whole story is on webofstories
theluke01 1 month ago
Who to believe? Him or AlGore? Lol...
rdangelo 6 months ago 3
@rdangelo: Algore is the great genius who invented the internet you idiot!
VictorLepanto 2 months ago
@rdangelo No, you would believe the majority of climate scientists who accept that fact of global warming. Not Dyson, who is not a climate scientist.
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@rdangelo lol yes Al Gore must know more? Ha ha ha
jbfrodsham 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Sidewinder77
Oh my god it's Michael Rosen!
randompoliceofficer 7 months ago
But Al was ready to believe all and charge you for it! And to think he was almost president! Which doesnt much matter,their all just fake choice for the people anyhow!
semiLivedj 9 months ago
what was Oarkridges "problems with nuclear energy" i guess this guy just doesn't like nuclear energy ?? this guy seems a little biased ?
litterbug206 9 months ago
@litterbug206 I think he's referring to mishaps or other research problems, not with the use of nuclear power itself.
FantasticBob7000 8 months ago
@litterbug206 No, that's not correct, Dyson is one of the top nuclear physicists alive. By "problems with nuclear energy" he meant that because of the bombs and the leaks of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, etc., the study of nuclear physics become "target" as something not good or non natural, which of course he does *not* agree having in sight the deep knowledge he has on the subject.
angelpbj 8 months ago
danger0usknowledge 11 months ago
New News:
Google: climategate investigation clears scientists huffington
2/24/11 A new investigation into the 'Climategate' controversy has exonerated U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The probe was conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
"In our review...we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures."
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The truth about global warming. You won't be disppointed.
The most devious conspiracy ever.
watch?v=wBfMT3q6n9A
TheElasticJesus 11 months ago
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
fireofenergy 11 months ago
@fireofenergy Dyson in this video says that the "infrared absorber" part of the co2 in the atmosphere is not the problem, but the interaction of co2 with the ionosphere. The disruption of the ionosphere with the resulting increased incidence of high energy radiation from outer space on the surface of Earth and possible diseases and mutations it may bring. He's sceptical about GW and I myself am pretty much convinced that GW is not happening at all.
angelpbj 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
fireofenergy 11 months ago
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
fireofenergy 11 months ago
Garbage centre for astrophysics eh?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
We are a carbon based life form . Do not believe computer models they are silicone based.
david222444 1 year ago 12
@david222444 Really? They're made of the same stuff as breast implants?
Mechness 11 months ago
@Mechness Yes be carefull they do not take on a life of their own lol
david222444 11 months ago
@david222444 We are a cartoon based life-form. Do not believe puppets.
burlearth 4 months ago
@burlearth Yes like the muppets that follow Al Gore.
david222444 4 months ago
Today's climate models are sophisticated beasts. About two dozen of them, developed in the US, Europe, Japan and Australia, aim to predict the evolution of our climate. Still, today's complex models are...because they incorporate our best knowledge of the Earth and climate processes.
Today's models...say, global temperature in 2100. ...uses an "ensemble" approach'
w w w.newscientist. c o m/article/mg20927951.400-casting-a-critical-eye-on-climate-models.html
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
Before you claim to know what is going on with the climate you should spend a few hours reading through the "skepticalscience" website.
katakanadian 1 year ago
Freeman Dyson is best known by star trekkers
bernzeppi 1 year ago
Great one. Put a tower above the forest.
Has nobody informed this eminent idiot that they're chopping all the rainforest down and planting CO2/Methane machines in their place?
Enjoy your burger. But don't expect any oxygen afterwards to help it digest.
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago
KILL THE ELITES THAT STARTED THIS BULLSHIT...RIP OFF THIER ARMS AND BEAT THEM TO DEATH WIH THEM....CHOP OFF THIER HEADS....HANG THEM...SHOOT THEM....SHOVE THIER HEADS IN A SLEEPING BAG AND FART IN IT....GIVE THEM TITTY TWISTERS!!!! STAB THEM...BITCH SLAP THEM.....ETC ETC.....
treon123456 1 year ago
On my PhD into Chemical Engineering I found that global warming from nuclear power. Plants take in carbon dioxide to support all life on earth. They leave only two parts per 1,000,000 in the air, as they have done fall last 200 years. Climate change is similarly relish designed to scare the stupid, and kill everybody
JonThm 1 year ago
@SomeLittleShoe I have no argument with that. All models in all sciences are wrong to some degree, or there would be no further need for science. Climate models are worse than most because the system is so complicated. Good science requires continuously refining the models through confrontation with measurements of the sort Dyson is advocating in this clip. It also requires quantifying the uncertainty, which I have seen too little of in climate discussions.
profyost 1 year ago
Ohhh Freeman, you've lost your credibility. What happened?
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi He lost his credibility because he wants the science to be based on observations rather than completely inadequate computer models (which don't correctly model the effects of clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, or glaciers)?
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister ... ah, 2010 hottest year on record
ah... we're in hottest decade on record
ah... he's the crazy fruit-loop that came up with the Dyson sphere... that uses a mathematical model...
Ah... you use a model to successfully cross the road each day
Ah... we use a mathematical model to predict the outcome of gravity
.. it got us to the moon, mars and beyond
you appear to be a complete moron parroting someone else, for nature doesn't born people that stupid
You needed help
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi So many errors, so few characters. 2010 was not the hottest year on record. We have an abundance of paleoclimatalogical data on record and we're in a cool period. Between 10000 and 500000 years ago there were four PEAK temperatures greater than 2010 (which means dozens of years with higher temperatures). Starting at about 3 million years ago the earth was almost always hotter than 2010. At its warmest the Earth has been about 7 degrees warmer than now.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Ahhh... tha's NOT the instrumental record.
You hypocritical deniers complain of GW scientists using models then launch off into a time where we had no thermometers.
2010 is the hottest year on instrumental record
Also England, China, Pakistan and Australia had the biggest floods on instrumental record.
Check the one in Queensland right now.. it's bigger'n France and Germany combined, bigger'n Texas
you are disingenuous, duplicitous, mercurial hypocrites
bernzeppi 1 year ago
@bernzeppi I know it's not the instrumental record. That's only existed for a couple hundred years. We have billions of years of temperature and CO2 data. The instrumental record is an infinitesimal slice of temperature data. While the instrumental data is more accurate the paleoclimate data is precise enough for us to know that we're currently in a cool period, historically speaking. What's disingenuous is ignoring all that data that's not conducive to alarmism.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
A review of > 200 climate studies led by rsrchrs at the Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest nor that with the most extreme weather of the past 1M yrs. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800-1300 & the Little Ice Age of 1300-1900 were global events not ltd to Europe and N. America. While 20th c. temps are much higher than in the LIA, many parts of the world show the MWP to be greater than that of the 20th c.
jimrennison1 1 year ago
@jimrennison1 reference?
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@bernzeppi I also never attacked computer modeling in general. That's just your strawman. I attacked climate models for specific reasons which you did not address.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister - it's the models, its the computer power
From Nature:
Julia Slingo UK MET office- "we know Pakistan flooding... Russian heat wave... Chinese flooding, 3 gorges dam [almost] overtopped...
we need more space weather resources as US has [we know its effect]...
... accurate models... we access to supercomputers... talking $10-20mpa..."
All those disasters can be predicted... the so called money grubbing scientists cant get access to supercomputers because of funding
bernzeppi 1 year ago
PrairleDogged 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She is my sister and become naughty benaughtyman.info
dinesikakonara 1 year ago
I have a great deal of respect for dyson and agree that computer modelling would be difficult to "programme". however, its equally true that "observations" could be missinterpreted . It seems that there would be too many variables in either method.
6488ott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thousands of real profiles real Russian women gettop5.info
chayaweres 1 year ago
There is already more than enough plant life to have sunk all man's CO2: AGW and ACC are fiction from nucl;ear power.
JonThm 1 year ago
Photosynthesis has sun kall man's CO2
JonThm 1 year ago
Interesting talk and the more accurate measurements of the Carbon cycle would be an important addition to our understanding of things, but it seems to me he is making a fundamental error.
He seems to say that without this information we have no way of knowing if increases in CO2 are due to humans or nature. However we have observations of Carbon isotopes that clearly demonstrate that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is rising at the same rate as overall CO2. This is strong evidence it is us.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
more more CO2 in the air - more life on Earth
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm More plant life!
tza420 1 year ago
@tza420 Maybe. But there are numerous downsides to more CO2. In the end, the balance of evidence says it would be a bad thing for us especially if that change happens as rapidly as it is occurring.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
why doesn't he go invent a fridge-freezer with a see-thru door, since his name's dyson, and lessen the amount of greenhouse gas emissions cause u don't have to open it to see what u want out the fridge anymore, instead of being a fucking oil-shill whore talking absolut garbage that's sure to help kill nature all the more.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
This is Freeman Freakin' Dyson people!
Absolutely one of the greatest geniuses of ALL TIME!
If HE says it makes very little sense to pay attention to the climate models... You had better believe it!
AntiEcoTerror 1 year ago
@AntiEcoTerror - kill yourself u lying evil grail-murdering scumfuck.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
Models have successfully predicted prior warming and sea level rise in the 1990s. The only thing they haven't accurately predicted is ice cap retreat. Polar ice has been melting FASTER than models predicted.
NashvilleKildCountry 1 year ago
But reality shows that climate models ARE reliable, they match the observations very well within the estimated margin of error and they made numerous predictions that have been already confirmed by actual observations and measurement data. All whining and complaining from AGW denialists (and 'real' skeptics like Dyson) doesn't change this simple and obvious fact.
Tervinger 1 year ago
Computer models do not necessarily model reality, its only as good as its input and the algorithm.
Dyson makes a very good point, and the point applies in all of science. That includes biology.
logicCplusplus 1 year ago
i remember joking in the 80's "they will tax us for breathing next".. not so funny or silly now... :-(
whitemagic2222 1 year ago
@whitemagic2222 No one's taxing you for breathing, you nut.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 the "carbon tax" is code for a tax on living/breathing. but of course this is just prep for later on-when your shot in the head and kicked into a pit.
don't think they are evil enough to do this? well ask the people (who are left) in iraq.
whitemagic2222 1 year ago
@whitemagic2222 - greenhouse gas emissions are just one of many polluting things that need to be taxed to fuck. are u aware for example that even just OTC and prescription medicines flushed down toilets, affect the water supply so much that traces of them remain in the water after its 'treated' (ie - has poison added to it) and recycled back to ur taps? and that it alters ur biology when u bathe in and drink it? u must be a shill posing as a white magician to not favor the planet.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
@randomlaughingman you are confused. i'm sorry about that.
whitemagic2222 1 year ago
@whitemagic2222 - no, u r disguisting and a liar. u indisious evil scumfuck, kill yourself.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
@whitemagic2222 - u should change ur username to 'i misuse left-hand-path magic for evil purspoes only, instead of for protecting the Earth like it's actually meant for' u nasty little fuckhead. kill yourself.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
*purposes, that should read
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@randomlaughingman i rest my case
whitemagic2222 1 year ago
Its the ocean that really sequesters Co2 (coral reefs et al) the vegetation decays. The rate of loss of rain florist makes Dyson's interpretation a lot more frightening then he would are to voice. The models have proven to be wrong all right, the really is actually worse (see polar warming).
Keep in mind co2 is only one compound humans a spewing into the environment
jfxcoll 1 year ago
He mentions a "trick" .. Regarding climategate those scientist also mentioned a trick. There's no conspiracy, just stupid rightwingers hell bent on skewing scientific terms and words
MrAvenged 1 year ago
@MrAvenged
I consider myself a progressive and a liberal, but in the eyes of postmarxians like yourself i am a rightwing nut.
croscream 1 year ago
@croscream the term "trick" - last year those emails dubbed "climategate" where the right-wing media proclaimed there was a liberal conspiracy etc..
MrAvenged 1 year ago
@MrAvenged
You are claiming that there is this ''entity'' called a right-wing media, and this ''entity'' is working hard to claim your believes as a liberal conspiracy?
I don't believe that.
croscream 1 year ago
Whatever it takes to keep our climate working .. if global warning due to co2 emissions was all hoax , IT DOESNT mean we can go back to our v8 engines and chop more forests down (even tho monster amounts of wood is chopped everyday ) .
monkpkey 1 year ago
The Dog-n-Tail analogy is absolutely brilliant. As usual in cases like Global Warming .... the "Tail Wags the Dog".
100287481 1 year ago
How about the fact that at the current, increased rate the polar ice will be gone 70 years sooner then predicted. The sad facts are that he is right. The models were terribly off, and miss lots of data. Like acidification of the ocean, and increased ocean temp. decreasing the amount of absorbed CO2. The reality makes the models look like a walk in the park. Oooops.
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
Dyson does not "diss" computer modeling. He simply points out that its value is limited by the quality of its empirical input. Nothing here can be interpreted as dismissing climate modeling, as long as it is done correctly. He is advocating improving the models. Dyson knows this is a complex problem and has come up with intelligent proposals for improving the science. If he would "diss" anything, it is the simplistic abuse of climate modeling by those who use it to advance a political agenda.
DustyCatty 1 year ago 39
@DustyCatty - in that case, yt needs to get their finger out their ass, and stop allowing liars to falsely interpret videos they put up, and slap on some description that doesn't match what is in the video.
randomlaughingman 1 year ago
@DustyCatty Actually, much here can be interpreted as a dismissal of climate modeling. If by "as long as it is done correctly" you intend to give laymen the false impression that the real issues Dr. Dyson brings up are surmountable, then you are being misleadingly disingenuous. You give the false impression that models exist on a sliding scale from simplistic to more rigorous, but this is incorrect. The very nature of the phenomena being modeled constrains the use of mathematics as a useful tool
suitabledude 1 year ago
@DustyCatty Climate is a complex system whose emergent order is the result of innumerable interactions of innumerable particles affected by endogenous and exogenous factors too innumerable to be accounted for in any finite mathematical expression (i.e. model) yielding useful results. Climate is incapable of controlled observation s.t. irrelevent factors are accounted for. Inputs, appart from being innumerable, suffer from unnacountable feedback signals. You end up w/ high-order non-linear
suitabledude 1 year ago
@suitabledude
We have fossilized sea shells in NORTH DAKOTA....we've evidence of glacial presence in So. Wisconsin into northern Missoui. OBVIOUSLY we've experienced the extreme's of temperature's WITHOUT combustion fuels involved. To believe man-kind has THAT much influence on a global scale is not just preposturous, it's ludicrous!!!
YooperShane 1 year ago
@DustyCatty partial (innumerable dimensions) differential equations whose solutions are non-calculable. Trying to predict the weather in effect is an excercise in futility. At least that's what I get from Dyson's remarks.
suitabledude 1 year ago
@DustyCatty
quite wrong---DYSON SAYS THE COMPUTER MODELS ARE USELESS
SomeLittleShoe 1 year ago
@SomeLittleShoe This is a serious oversimplification. What he is saying is that computer modeling is misleading without real-world measurements, and that too much effort is going into modeling vs direct observation. As a physicist, I can assure you that computer modeling is an essential part of understanding any natural system, not just the climate, but the models are only as good as their inputs, and the uncertainties must be quantified. Too often, this has not been adequately acknowledged.
DustyCatty 1 year ago
@DustyCatty
The models used in global warming are wrong. They do not account the effects of H2O worth a hill of beans.
SomeLittleShoe 1 year ago
@SomeLittleShoe LIKE YOUR BRAIN AND YOUR GENITALS....COMP. MOD.S ARE USELESS!
treon123456 1 year ago
Dyson disses computer modeling. Computer modeling allowed the H Bomb to be shrunk to incredibly small dimensions. That computer modeling happened a long, long time ago.
Dyson knows better.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
Problem is a tool like a simulator is only as good as the data and variables you stick into it
They had all the variables for a H omb,there is no worldwide CO2 data for next 100 years o conclusive proof that Co2 concentration drives Tempature tough that parameter is stuck in it
P.S. the GLorified SImearth Program already predicted a 8 foot tidal wave that never came to Hawaii and got the Icland Volcano cloud covering 1/4 of Europe wrong.
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The ice caps are NOT melting:
arctic. atmos. uiuc. edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice. anomaly. arctic. png
arctic. atmos. uiuc. edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice. anomaly. antarctic. png
The sun caused the warming. Total Solar Irradiance from the year 1600 onwards:
ww w. junkscience. com/Greenhouse/irradiance. gif
(remove spaces in urls)
MrOllyK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
Data indicates that only 1-3% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere come from anthropogenic sources. The rest comes from other natural sources.
There is no definitive proof that humans are causing the warming. What we do know is that climates are in a constant state of change (both warming and cooling), and there was a significant warming period in the Middle Ages. Last time I checked, there were no fossil fuels being burned during this era.
RackedRabbi 1 year ago 2
Sorry but your argument is very shallow. Only 1-3%!?!? So the millions and millions of cars today in the world, and the carbon dependent industry of today, and the continuing deforestation of the world's forests are all contributing only 1-3%. Sorry but I think that's highly unlikely. You're arguing that 97% is coming from natural sources, such as volcanos. Even the most hardened climate denialist will have a hard time to take your suggestion seriosly.
Btw Dyson is no expert on this matter
FreeThinkingAlbanian 1 year ago
Well the relation is complicated then that. That is 1-3% EXTRA over the balanced natural CO2 in the atmosphere, even Roy Spencer accepts that.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
Comment removed
RackedRabbi 1 year ago
I can't say I agree with these comments
No-one can suggest that because we can't understand GW, it isn't happening, especially when you can SEE CO2 levels and av temps increasing
Does anyone know whether the AMOUNT of "extra" carbon in the air matches the AMOUNT of "extra" carbon Man has burnt?
I'm ALL FOR a determined attempt to quantify exactly ALL atmospheric transactions in order to promote a culture-wide understanding of GW
By doing so we will all be able to swiftly make the best of it
beachcomber2008 1 year ago
correlation does not indicate causation.
hash1212 1 year ago
Wow yet another reason to write off Dyson.
SaganAppreciationSoc 1 year ago
climate change in a word: BULLSHIT!
dewy9uk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Terrific new NASA YouTube:
Our Earth has a FEVER! - the Climate Change puzzle
/watch?v=XzfRs74b-qw
For excellent data & scientific info. on Climate Change search:
1) Climate Change: Key indicators
2) Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth (These are the BEST sites)
3) NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
4) Climate change odds much worse than thought MIT
-- and for some other great scientific YouTubes see the greenman3610
& potholer54 channels.
goog2k 1 year ago
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) * American Meteorological Society (AMS) * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) * Woods Hole Resarch Center * American Association of State Climatologists
and so on..
All in support of the IPCC/AGW
Nightversionn 1 year ago
Of course it's a hoax. And it's been going on a lot long than most people realize. Something on the order of 40 to 50 years, who knows, maybe even longer.
When it was revealed the the "global climate change" scientists faked their data, a lot of what my father told me 35 years ago suddenly made sense. He said "they" would eventually try to convince us we're heating up the planet. But that "they" already knew that was impossible.
Any changes we observe now is part of the natural cycle.
Honestinwilkesbarre 1 year ago
@Honestinwilkesbarre - When will you so called "skeptics" learn to do basic fact checking?
One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas. - Freeman Dyson (8 August 2007). "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society"
A link to the article can be found on his wikipedia page.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
Luke - come over to the dark side - we will rule the universe - side by side.
:)
FreeAgain2 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
What the fuck is a theoretical physicist doing commenting on global warming, its like a barber commenting on toenails.
BraniusBalki 1 year ago
no - no it is not.
It is like a top notch scientist (a PhD), commenting on the physics of the Earth, the Sun, CO2, heat transfer, ocean cycles, ocean currents, atmospheric particulates, energy transfer, radiation absorption, the atmosphere, cloud patterns, wind, ice cores, snow cover, tree rings, and even magnetic poles, and space particles.
There is a lot that up Earth's temperature.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago 2
Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years.
h t t p : / / sercblog . si . edu / ?p=466
See-oh-too is good-for-you.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1 Yes 1 sixth of the worlds food exists because of co2 at least. So 1 out of every 6 items of food owes itself to our enhanced atmosphere.
thefudge123321 1 year ago
@thefudge123321 Bull
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
Dyson was an old man when they invented computers.
robhoneycutt 2 years ago
Human beings produce less than 1/10 of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere - which is just .038 percent (methane isn't even a trace element). Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas by volume at 1 percent. What really drives climate change is the wobble (axial rotation) of the earth's axis over a 26,000 year cycle (Precession of the Equinoxes).
Lake Vostok and University of Melbourne studies indicate that carbon dioxide rises with global warming for about 21,000 years and then drops again.
AcePilot2009 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Al Gore was one of the architects of two of the most anti-American, anti-human rights, & anti-environmental legislation in the history of the United States. He was in office when NAFTA & GATT expansion to the WTO happened.
Multiple tens of millions of jobs that paid good wages were shipped to Al Gore's Marxist friends in China & the third world so that corporations who greased Gore's pockets could exploit the Environment & Human Rights & stuff their fat pockets with money
Treason
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Hear Hear to LordVigeous666999. Level headed reaction is the key. The only thing "the sky is falling" accomplishes is rash response which the great majority of the time is the wrong response. The best climate models in existance can't accurately predict the future yet all we hear is doom & gloom. Oh & make sure you buy Al Gore's carbon credits so he can make another million. Cap & trade system doesn't work. Look at UK. Even Dr. Hansen said it wouldn't work. We can do better.
MrSampy22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Duh??
goog2k 2 years ago
whats next... 911 was a inside job?
leenooi31 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9 Out of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record.
2009 = 2nd HOTTEST year on record.
(and Solar Irradiance is at a 34 year low)
See NASA: Graphs & Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years)
Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
See also the latest on YouTube:
It's Cold, so there is no Global Warming
/watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub
goog2k 2 years ago
/watch?v=m9ikE1foaJI
Tacair1 2 years ago
Sorry deniersglobal warming is the readily demonstrated cause and effect of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere
Regardless of what was happening with the natural Ice Age cycle of the last few millenia, or orbital cycles, subduction, ocean and atmospheric chemistry, changes in the geometry of the continents etc
...the gases our industrial waste processes have dumped into the atmosphere are having an extra effect which is causing things to warm up faster than they would have otherwise
Nightversionn 2 years ago
industrial waste? You mean plant food?
Plants absorb CO2 and water, and produce food and oxygen by this formula;
CO2 + H2O = CxHy + O2
Then you eat CxHy; when you eat a plant, or eat an animal that ate a plant. You inhale the oxygen and turn it into energy for your body, as well as releasing CO2 and water back out, via this eqn;
CxHy + O2 = CO2 + H20
So..... I fail to see how CO2 is industrial waste. I mean, is water industrial waste? Our coal plants produce that too, so does you car
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
@LordVigeous666999 The issue is all about carbon sinks. Fossil fuels in the the ground were a huge, very long term carbon sink. Plant-life is a sink. We're liberating carbon from an otherwise "forever" sink into the atmosphere and liberating it from the plant-life sink by destroying that. The annual sawtooth CO2 pattern is a distraction from the real issue, which is the overall slope of the sawtooth curve. Indeed CO2 is industrial waste. Your irrelevant equations, intended to impress... don't.
sbergman27 2 years ago
You won't convince me that CO2 is industrial waste. Also, I have been a skeptic for awhile, mostly because the "Sky is falling, sky is falling!!!!" crowd really have made a poor case, but I am mostly sold on CO2 playing a big role in recent warming, or at least adding to it in recent years (ie 50 years)
However, lets take the level headed approach. CO2 is an amplifier, something to be added to what is already happening by the dominant forces in climate
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
The recent leveling of temp has suggested, that without CO2 we would have declining temp, and if we truly are on a climatic knife edge, CO2 would appear to be keeping us on it, not shoving us off
Also, Solar Physicists are suggesting the Sun may be going into a prolonged "cold" period, CO2 may blunt this cooling
And, if you want to get really level headed, countries aren't going to collapse their economies, and plunge themselves into social turmoil to make YOU feel better
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
People; in the third world want to industrialize, to prevent death from disease. Unsanitary water. Burning shit inside their homes to heat and cook
And I would very much like to NOT be the thing in their way. Cheap Fossil Fuels are going to be used for the near future. I suggest you get used to it
If there is going to be a flood, build a dyke. If drought, irrigate
We have no technology that will get us off carbon tomorrow, and anything that will, has enough money in it to happen naturally
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
@Nightversionn The intent of this farce of "Global Warming" is Control of the lives of human beings at the level of the carbon atom. It is pukes like you ruining lives.Your type tells me not to light a charcoal briquette while the Toyota Prius' are being made! A Prius is the end result of all the polluting technology in the world. while a diesel engine is 100yrs of highly effecient proven reality. Way past gas. One volcano makes mockery of ALGoreLogic. Please ask Al what those "Chemtrails" are!
IExposeMormonism 2 years ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 2 years ago
Global Warming is a pseudo-science like they had in the Soviet Union
The head of the Global warming Cult is a flake
The chief quack of the quacks at the IPCC is a railroad conductor
The head of the CUEI is an economist with ties to the IMF
The GW magical cure does not address the #1 factor for environmental degradation, wildlife declines, & GHG production
Yeah Global Warming is a pseudo-science
1984 Choo Choo!
THX 1138
Thisawareness 2 years ago
the recent warming cannot be explained without factoring in the warming effect of the greenhouse gas rise. On the flip side of that, the warming effect of the greenhouse gas rise necessitates such a warming.
You say you never accepted warming was there in the first place. So why did you claim the whole debate was whether the cause was anthropogenic or not?
The debate over whether there has been warming is over. There has been warming. Eg the satellite record.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
Again youve formed a prior opinion and then attributed the cause to man.
Youve not tested it, youve attributed it.
You say the miniscule rise of co2% is the reason for warming right? But we already know warming isnt created by the co2 rise, the temperature goes up first then the co2 rises.
Since 98, no rise in temps. Explain it. Its at travesty that we cant.
The debates wide open theres been no warming for over 10 years.
Your case is unproven- still.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1
I am just repeating what the weight of current science on the matter says. If that changes my view will change.
co2 rise causes warming, there's a strong degree of certainty about that. In the past temperature rise has caused co2 rise. There's a strong degree of certainty about that too.
1998 was a strong el nino year, so the high temps that year were due to a movement of heat temporary. Years since 1998 are getting close without such a strong el nino.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
Temperature does not follow co2!
Thats Al the Bore Gore speaking, he got it ass backwards!
CO2 follows temperature.
So if the temperature goes UP and the Co2 follows it in the form of a rise, what can we deduce? AGW????? Co2 "causes GW"????
No. Obviously we have to look somewhere else.
BTW cracks appearing in ipcc "consensus".
According to IPCC scientist Mojab Latif it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze. Latif is known as one of the worlds leading climate modelers.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1
temperature does follow co2. This is well known from physics. co2 absorbs IR and IR is the only means Earth can lose energy. More co2 means less IR into space and heat builds up on earth and the planet warms.
Mojab Latif accepts manmade global warming. He says flat temperature for 10 years then accelerated warming due to the rise in greenhouse gases. He doesn't say a decades long freeze at all.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
CO2 does absorb heat. But, thats not enough to say its causing ALL or MOST of the warming of the last 100 years. Nor is it enough to say it will end the world
Have you seen the error bars on cloud forcing? They are pretty much guessing. The error bar on cloud forcing, ALONE, changes Climate Change from "no big deal" to "We are all going to die"
They are just guessing. Period. Thats what data says. If you look at the data, thats what it says. Until they figure out clouds, they are guessing
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
mateo3470 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordVigeous666999
From what I understand, it takes only a 1% change in global average cloud cover to cause substantial climate change, either warming or cooling. The models assume no variation. Roy Spencer says that they haven't been able to isolate the causality in regard to cloud feedback being negative or positive. Computer models are not controlled experiments.
mateo3470 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 A mere 1% change in cloud cover negates all warming for the last ~120 years. A 2% change leads to another ice age. They must get this part right and currently, the modelers have no clue. The best authority on cloud cover is Richard Lindzen and he is rather famously in the skeptic camp.
jimrennison1 1 year ago
@Tacair1
pfff that's what happens when you get your info about climate from a certain blog - you get passed fibs.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
Yeah i know what you mean.
That "realclimate" has gone right down since the ecofascists got their hands on it.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Comment removed
Rugbywuff 2 years ago
Freeman Dyson is an absolute genius.
Makes the likes of jones et al look like the boyscouts they are.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Not everyone agrees that it is humans causing global warming but this makes no odds, as all scientists are in agreement over whether or not man could possibly stop it! We can't! So why are we spending so much money on trying to, instead of spending this money one building sea defenses etc. Things that will help us when it does start to happen? It's insane
seansalvador1 2 years ago
Depopulation of the entire human race (except for me) is the only answer. We must erase the human parasite plague that endlessly leeches upon our limited resources. We, the Wealthy Elite shall eradicate Global Warming, snuffing out the human life whoes very breath suffocates our Goddess Earth. With your help we'll create a better pandemic, a more lethal virus, a deadlier plague, in hopes that one day, the disease called Humans are utterly extinct. Because the world is a better place without YOU.
HardlineAthiest 2 years ago
I hope this is irony
seansalvador1 2 years ago
We do have a need to stop burning coal and oil even if it has nothing to do with increase levels of CO2 or global temperature. It is a non renewable resource. If our civilization is based on something we know will run out, then we also know our civilization will have to make a major change at some point, or fall. Also, drilling and mining fossil fuels is an environmental disaster. It is also responsible for smog, and poor air quality. It is a health hazard regardless.
Snoot501 2 years ago
computer models are just fancy computer games
hitamdanputih 2 years ago
It would be nice to know how just much CO2 was being sequestered in the earth's crust. But the fact is there is more being created and released than is being sequestered.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
Q.OK, but how do we know the extra CO2 is from burning or other types of oxidization of carbon?
A. Because the concentration of atmospheric oxygen (O2) has dropped by the same amount that CO2 has increased.
cristop5 2 years ago
That is a red herring. O2 levels rise as CO2 falls and vice versa. Plantlife draws in CO2 and releases O2. The relative imbalance is due to widespread loss of tree cover through deforestation. Plants retain CO2, and the loss of them as a sponge leaves more of it airborne. Stopping driving your car and huddling in the dark without a fire will not fix that. Replanting trees, slowing deforestation that might be useful. Nothing like that is mentioned in the Copenhagen Tax Scam, and that's all it is.
newz2me28792 2 years ago
Deforestation accounts for a lot of the CO2 in the atmosphere. But so does the burning of coal and oil. Of course no science can ever be 'settled' in the absolute sense. But the fact that CO2 is a key driver of recent warming is generally accepted. Even working climatologists much beloved by the deniers - like Michaels, Christy and Spencer - admit CO2 has an effect. They dispute the size and nature of its impact.
Do you read the mainstream stuff as well as the denier stuff?
cristop5 2 years ago
What about all the wrong data that is in the ICCP reports? (the climate bible)
rotorheaddk 2 years ago
Be specific.
cristop5 2 years ago
CO2 is a small molecule, accounting for less than 4% of atmpsheric gases. Of that we account for about 10%, or about .04 % of the total atmosphere. You need to think heptanes, cetanes, methanes, pentanes, Hydrosulfides, hydrosulphuric acid in dilute amounts, large molecule benzine-ring compounds. The IPCC report is based on CRU figures which were falsified by their own admission. Whether leaked or hacked, the reports and documents are genuine. The cheating is too. Yes, I read it all, by the way.
newz2me28792 2 years ago
Today CO2 comprises 390ppm or 0.039% of the atmosphere (in terms of partial pressure, not weight). Before the industrial revolution the concentration was 280ppm. The increase of 110ppm is matched by a similar decrease in O2, indicating that the net gain in CO2 is from the breakdown/burning of vegetation and burning fossil fuels. The 'new' CO2 therefore comprises 110/390 = 28% of total atmospheric CO2.
cristop5 2 years ago
agreed, but keep in mind that the forests of the western countries have increased, its the poorer countries that cut down their forest out of desperation which only reinforces building the third world economies, this will have a positive effect on forests. That said the fastest way to build their economies is fossil fuels.
glennimmortal 2 years ago
Another thing to keep in mind is that there have been periods as recent as 1000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period where there were much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the seas did not rise, Borneo was not submerged, the Poles both survived and the only residual change is that you cannot grow crops in Iceland and Greenland that grew in the age of the Vikings. Mankind did not die off and they got along without the UN, Gore or the Alarmists holding their hands. This is a global scam.
newz2me28792 2 years ago
Global temperatures have exceeded those of the MWP since about 1990.
see: ncdc.noaa. gov /paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
cristop5 2 years ago
I note your citing NOAA, whose numbers are in part derived from bogus numbers from the CRU. I find that assumption faulty at the least. Also NASA iss being sued as we discuss this for opting to not report satellite info which shows consistent cooling of the southern oceans and pole. I prefer the unbiased numbers of the folks at MIT, who say temos have decreased since 1960, hence the "Trick" mentioned in Dr Jones emails and his quote "hide the decline." His words not mine. Your sources are bad.
newz2me28792 2 years ago 2
So Chris Horner of the Competetive Enterprise Institute (funded by ExxonMobil) is "threatening" to sue NASA is he?
Sounds serious. This reminds me of John Coleman who "wanted" to sue Al Gore for 'fraud' watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
He's probably still 'thinking' of phoning a lawyer!
Do you know what 'decline' they wanted to hide with "real temps"? Check the videos on my channel. Gotta watch out for those real temps though. They could hide a decline that's not real, and ruin a good story.
cristop5 2 years ago
newz2me28792. It's interesting that you prefer the numbers of the folks at MIT. Their most recent modeling predicts a rise of 5.1C by the end of this century.
web.mit. edu /newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519. html
Because you take them seriously, you are now finally concerned about global warming. This must have been a bit of an eye opener for you, right?
cristop5 2 years ago
Show us the human signal in the RAW temperature data.
Otherwise quit selling snakeoil.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1
I don't know what the "human signal" is.
But if you want the raw data, (e.g. tree rings and stalagmite growth etc in millimeters) what you do is you write to the authors of the various papers incorporated in the graph I linked you to and ask for their raw data.
Do it! Read the papers that back up the graph. Get interested. Get the data and perform your own analyses.
Maybe you will be the one denier who is genuinely curious, and has the patience to have a close look at the science.
cristop5 2 years ago
FFS! The "human signal" is the whole basis for your global warming story!
Its the reason why people like you are screaming hysterically to "save the planet".
The anthropogenic signal in the RAW data is anything that obviously connects human activities to a rise in global temperature.
So far there has never ( despite 30+years and billions thrown at it) been found such a correlation.
The only such correlation exists in value added or "homogenised" ( read massaged) data by jones and company.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1
Can you give an example of something that would qualify as a human signal? The extra 110 ppm of CO2 produced over the last 150yrs is matched by a similar decrease in atmospheric O2. This, together with isotope data shows that the extra CO2 is from recently oxidized carbon.
I suppose that is a 'human signal'.
cristop5 2 years ago
Your problem is credibility.
Its destroyed by the comprehensive rigging of data by CRU.
The figures you produced are from the pro side and heavily influenced by jones et al.
I have no confidence in them or in the impartiality of your sources.
From NOAA:
"It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures."
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1
"It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide..." etc
I can't find any link between this "quote" and the NOAA. I only found it on a right wing message board called "The Mighty Right."
Would I be right in thinking you find this unsubstantiated snippet from some message board more "credible" than a swag of scientific papers? Do you think you will ever read any of those papers?
If ever you get interested in science, get back to me and I'll link you to the relevant papers.
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5
Smear tactic eh?
Ok, have a looky right here smart arse.
NOAA took the page down when they had it pointed ut to them that a childs scince lesson they used as "proof" was fatally flawed.
Reconstruct the url- remove the excess spaces.
h t t p : / / w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t. c o m / 2 0 0 9 / 11/ 03/ noaa-deletes-an-inconvenient-kids-science-web-page /
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1
The satellite records show similar warming to the surface records over the past 30 years. Boreholes also show it and of course sea surface temperature also shows warming over this period. There's no plausible way to deny recent warming.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
Your data.
Its coming from the same people who are selling you global warming.
Ive just denied your assertion that AGW's happening.
Prove me wrong or i wont buy the product.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Tacair1
You are one of the closed mind sheeple. Anything that shows warming you will, in your own word - "deny". You will claim it's "from the same people who are selling global warming".
A convenient tactic but not one which intelligent reasonable open minded people like myself will fall for.
The UAH satellite record is authored by 2 global warming skeptics. So good luck trying to write off the fact it shows warming over the past 30 years like the surface record. Where is your god now?
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago