"climate denier" hahah. That expression really makes no sense at all. Im pretty sure the issue is not whether we have a climate or not, rather if man's actions causes any noticeable change...
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
national environmental satellite data and information service doesn't even make a the claim that water vapor doesn't affect global warming, I'm surprised you do. They do want they can do best without proper information, say they don't know. But I'm glad you "know".
Here's a mathematical model for the fuel tank in my car. C = capacity in gallons of gas it holds. M = miles per gallon of my car. Prediction for the future: if I drive more than M*C miles without refills, my car will stop. That is a statement about the future.
Doesn't matter how many times a similar event (different points in spacetimes) have occurred. Denialists would say "models" are not fact.
Guess what? Ideas are not fact, either. Ideas are just abstractions, too, then.
Majority rule on statements about what is when it is a majority of those who do the proofs: scientific, mathematical, finding (or not finding) WMDs.
Majority rule on what should be is determined by those who suffer the majority of the effect.
e.g. If 1 person works had and earns 100oz gold, just because 50 other people who didn't work want that gold doesn't mean they should get it, because that 1 person would suffer the loss of their gold and sweat, a bigger loss than the 2oz gain to 50.
Pathetic desperate deniers. Glad to see the 389 upvotes to the ignorants' 39 (and even some of THOSE could have downvoted because they know that AGW is real and serious and so they don't like educational videos with any humor thrown into them). Keep up the great work, greenman!
Like I said elsewhere in these comment boxes: I don't waste my time trying to prove anything to these fanatics anymore. I go / think outside the box and attack and belittle and doubt them on ANYTHING they say about anything - whether statements about what is or what should be - so that they know what the consequences of their actions / behavior are like to climate scientists and environmental activists.
Who is this "they" you speak of? Can you provide a primary cite for this "giant gw flood" you are speaking of? Please acite directly from the "they" people.
VirusAsshole never read a book, let alone ever read what the real scientists and real peer-reviewed science have said about human-made climate change and its real dangers.
Typical climate-change denier: rightwing christian fanatics who think jesus was real and is going to come down and take them to 72 virgins.
@mphello You kind of just destroyed all of your credibility by making fun of his username and affirming the stereotype that skeptics are all rightwing Christian-Muslim fundamentalists. I'm just saying, for future scientific debate, you might want to try to be a little less childish in your conviction.
@AngryRantingNerd Actually, no, I didn't. Only those who do not have the mental ability to logically determine cause and effect would say that I can "cause" other people not to take my statements seriously.
i.e. there is no such thing as "losing credibility". Only lunatics believe in that. It is up to the OTHER person to believe or not believe.
Now, since you don't have a math PhD, I know you did not notice that I laid out a simple math model, which is not childish.
>Typical climate-change denier: rightwing christian fanatics who think jesus was real and is going to come down and take them to 72 virgins.
You're just arguing semantics now, and claiming that I didn't notice your 'math model'. People like you, arrogant people, are the reason so many people decide to turn a blind eye to this kind of debate. You give atheists a bad name. You give debaters in general a bad name. Please try to be respectful.
@AngryRantingNerd No, I do not give atheists a "bad name". Extreme free-market anti-socialist pseudo-libertarian atheists, who vociferously defend corporate welfare and corporate CEOs being bailed out and being handed TRILLIONS of dolllars and national assets for little to no work, are the atheists who give atheists a bad name.
Your pompous anti-free-speech holier-than-thou attitude is what gets people angrier and less willing to care about the content of what you say.
@mphello While I agree with the first paragraph in that those kinds of people do seem to give atheists a bad name, I'm not anti-free-speech. And while I agree that I have been a little bit condescending in this argument, I think that you've been a bit of a stereotyping name caller. All I'm trying to say is that when debating with someone, take the high road and don't be arrogant. A smart person like you shouldn't have to fall back on name calling and stereotyping.
the planet heats up and cools down constantly, doomsayers use data from the last hundred years, so when they see a raise in temperature or a fall they think the world is going to end. and an asteroid wiped out 99% of all species yet life still exist.
@greenman3610 ass hole, species adapt. the only reason people are freaking out is that they have to do that to. even tough they wont have to because the world is not gonna end. 50 years ago they said that there is gonna be an ice age now and now you say the world is going to heat up so much that were almost gonna boil and that only 1% of all species will survive douche bag its a little temperature change not a freaking asteroid
@greenman3610 i am pretty sure that the Permian extinction is the second biggest one, but the Permian extinction just proves my point that the climate constantly changes without human interference. sorry for calling you D.B and A.H don't know what got over me
@greenman3610 ass hole, species adapt. the only reason people are freaking out is that they have to do that to. even tough they wont have to because the world is not gonna end. 50 years ago they said that there is gonna be an ice age now and now you say the world is going to heat up so much that were almost gonna boil and that only 1% of all species will survive. douche bag its a little temperature change not a freaking asteroid
@greenman3610 At least you hearing some science and not some silly prediction of doom. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. How does it get to the stratosphere?
by your logic, the atmosphere would be layered like a layer cake, with all the oxygen at higher levels, and the co2 down at the ground, suffocating all animal life.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. Atmospheric gases are well mixed.
@greenman3610 By your logic the atmosphere is like a greenhouse just as silly as your layered cake. By the way co2 mixed with water vapour cools the planet. A couple more freezing winters and your precious theory will be laughed at.
Consider the planet with no atmosphere. The planet would be too hot during the day and too cold at night for life to exist. The oceans and atmosphere along with the Sun's affect on them control the climate. How foolish can you be to suggest that water is a positive feedback? Try pouring it on something hot! The Greenhouse theory is dying i give it 5 years at most.
@david222444 Hello again David. Still flogging your childish nonsense I see. Well, thankyou for this comment to greenman. I urge you to keep your youtube account for the next five years.
Inaccurate again! There has to be seeding in order to start the formation of water droplets that form the clouds!
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!
Because seeding can come from fine particulates, aerosols or most importantly by high energy cosmic radiation. You guys don't account for this latest phenomenon that does NOT depend on CO2 concentration. There is nothing we can do about the cosmic radiation. All we can do is to account for it in our models, like Piers Corbyn does!.
@RicardoClaro Go read what I have said... I'm not a climate denier. I'm not here to debunk manmade global warming as a whole. I'm here to debunk certain aspects of climate science that have been revised and will continue to be revised. You want to keep it as a monologue? Well, we live in a free country and if you speak to me, I can speak back. Publish or die? Hey, is that a death threat just like the racists threatening climate scientists? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Bring it!
Greenman has a serious ego complex. He's an absolutist who never admits being wrong even when being wrong in a few details don't necessarily make him wrong in general. When you tell him that there's a lot that we don't know, he'll say that he and scientists know a lot more than you think and call you ignorant. When you show him new information that increases the level of uncertainties in projections, he'll call you a revisionist fascist. Keep the insults coming Chairman Mao ahem I meant Greenman
@greenman3610 You're just playing the word game right now. You've never said those words exactly but one can easily imply you can call people who don't agree with you fascists. You said that I should listen to Rush Limbaugh because I sound like him. And look at your post from yesterday.
"right.
you don't support the fossil fuel companies, you just work extra hours parroting their BS.
@mrdrfez Please, give us examples of information you've presented and Mr. Sinclair has ignored. Or are you just mouthing drivel and ad hominems in an attempt to hide your own ignorance? Those of us that care about empirically collected data will be waiting......
@ebwgnome Just like how Greenman kept on trying to present himself as a knowledge messiah while the rest of us are "ignorant". Quote from Greenman:
"Clearly you have not been paying attention.
If you would watch my videos, you would be able to avoid these embarrassments -
Ignorance hurts - I'm here to help."
Then when I present data that conflicts with his oversimplified statements, he changes the subject and accuses those who have even minor disagreements with him as industrial trolls.
@greenman3610 I already did on the revaluation of methane's contribution to the greenhouse effect and the radical revaluation (still going on) of the amount of methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. And then, unable to refute those statements, you throw in scare facts like the possible positive methane feedback in Siberia. I'm not the two-bit skeptic that you think everybody is and your scripted tactics won't work.
Greenman hasn't read the work of Dr. Petra Kroon of the Energy Centre of the Netherlands about the current shortcomings of the methods used to measure nitrous oxide and methane. "It involves certain assumptions, for instance that concentrations in the chamber rise in a linear fashion. "These assumptions may make analysis easier, but they don't always fit the facts, and this leads to underestimates in emission levels.""
@greenman3610 And what is your solution to throttling back greenhouse gasses? Build more nuclear power plants around the world? Enforce vegetarianism and slaughter livestock? I don't have the answer. You don't have the answer. NASA doesn't have the answer. The IPCC doesn't have the answer. However, with time, we can all find out. The only thing I can bet on right now is that the Fifth Assessment report will be markedly different from the Fourth.
So if mainstream science discovers that North America and South America are drifting apart again (which will likely cause a LOT more warming than even the worst of the doomsday scenarios), will the alarmists try to start a program to keep continental drift from happening?
@greenman3610 Yes, I know the difference between manmade global warming and continental drift. However, you obviously don't know as much about the atmosphere and the climate as you claim in your "debunkings", and that is the reason I'm challenging you. You have failed to account for some of NASA's statistics (for which some I could debunk), yet you try to debunk some debatable subjects as "crock". You claim that I'm ignorant because I don't know about earth's climate but neither do you!
@greenman3610 Yes... It's the same National Academy that you claim to be the "Supreme Court of Science" supporting your "hockey stick". The reality of course is that the National Academy of Science said that the "hockey stick" claim can not be confirmed past 400 years. And NO I don't listen to Glenn Beck either! I'm actually a centre-left economist who is frustrated by extreme left wing lies!
@greenman3610 There goes Greenman with his namecalling after he fails to explain certain phenomena. Do I claim the earth is cooling? NO! Do I claim that CO2 is unrelated to warming? NO! The only thing I claim is that our current science is insufficient to accurately project the impact of manmade global warming. And that claim is supported in "mainstream science's" constantly changing climate research results. Just look at how they now they now admit that methane has been underestimated.
@greenman3610 Just look up Drew Shindell's own admission about methane. “We undervalue methane. The whole point of having a scale is to relate different gases together, to enlarge the pool of mitigation options. But if you’ve got the wrong value for one, clearly you don’t have maximum efficiency.”
Yes, we know of huge methane deposits in Siberia, but knowing the existence of something does not mean knowing exactly how it works.
@mrdrfez Yes, I do watch your videos and have found them to be mostly propaganda. You talk about a disappearing lake in Siberia without giving the name or exact location of the lake. You throw out videos showing flooding and hurricanes to scare people ignoring the fact that Pacific typhoons are now occuring at much lower annual rates than in the 1960s (you can look this up).
You claim videos as propaganda because the name of a lake is left out. ( there are MANY MANY lakes disappearing as per NASA satellite photos - use Google) while you submit outright errors eg: "the number is closer to a 29% increase and not quite 40%." and consistently seek to minimize well founded scientific findings
BTW - the AGW MODELS SAY that in a warmer world hurricanes will be less frequent, but more intense with more rain - you pretend not to know this for propaganda reasons
@BeondaPale That's not an error, go look up the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 and that number is very close to 29%. As for disappearing lakes, the Aral Sea is also disappearing and not even the most extreme alarmists can blame global warming as the main culprit.
@mrdrfez Lair! I don't know how YOU do EXTREMELY SIMPLE MATH, but when I divide 280 PPM (before industrial revolution) into 389 PPM (current) I get 1.39 or 38.9% . Now for it to have been 29% the current PPM would have had to have been 361 ppm
"As for disappearing lakes, the Aral Sea is also disappearing and not even the most extreme alarmists can blame global warming as the main culprit."
@BeondaPale And not every model will produce the same result. You and Greenman take these climate models as spiritual canon when they're constantly getting changed and updated due to new discoveries and measurements (i.e revisal in nitrous oxide and methane readings). Climate models have also indicated that rice production in East Asia can go up by 20%. Do I believe that number? No. The day I see a tropical cyclone surpassing Typhoon Tip in size and intensity, then I'll believe these models more
@BeondaPale These models can never be scientific fact because they all deal with the future. If you actually studied the scientific method, you would understand. You can look up the IPCC's 2007 agriculture and climate change report that projects increases in overall food production for temperature change of 1 to 3 degrees. But going back to the models argument, you can look up Petra Kroon's work on methane levels and Drew Shindell's work on methane's contribution to warming. Neither are deniers.
@BeondaPale You have to realize that I'm NOT denying manmade global warming. AND, I also do NOT believe the 2007 agriculture and climate change report in full. When it comes to the climate, our information is incomplete and thus our models are still woefully inaccurate. Remember the 2006 hurricane season forecasts? Perhaps in 5 to 10 years, we'll know a lot more to make better models but right now, they're insufficient. Just look at how they're now reassessing N2O and NH4's impact on warming.
@BeondaPale You can also read about the findings of oceanographer Gerald Dickens. And no Dickens is not a climate change denier. He merely stated that the current models may be wrong because they're based on certain assumptions that have not been fully established.
Yes, there is still a good deal of mystery about the PETM - 55 million years ago. This does NOT mean that assessments of the physics in the CURRENT warming should be under valued. Hind-casting bears this out.
If you had bothered to contact Dr Dickens he would have told you the very same thing
@BeondaPale I'm not saying that all current models should be dismissed but they should be called into greater question given that there is still new information coming in that can drastically change the assumptions of the models. Perhaps in the next 5 years, with better research on the mechanics, we can have a much more accurate model than right now. And NO, I am NOT saying that we should keep spew out more CO2. It's a necessary precaution. I'm just saying at the same time we need more research.
"there is still new information coming in that can drastically change the assumptions of the models. "
Can you please give a SPECIFIC example of a time when new information has come in that had the effect of DRASTICALLY changing the assumptions of any particular climate model?
"I'm just saying at the same time we need more research."
...And this is what you ALWAYS will say, regardless of how much research is performed
- You and your agenda are as transparent as they come
@BeondaPale The NH4 revaluation has drastically changed the assumptions enough to where Drew Shindell admits that we need a more comprehensive climate change strategy than the one before. And YES, we do NEED MORE RESEARCH! You keep attacking people who are against some of views as evil big oil men. The prior underestimation of NH4 and N2O shows us that there are obvious shortcomings on our knowledge. Also, there is not yet consensus in how much aerosols mask CO2 warming.
@BeondaPale Now the general consensus is that we must dramatically both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions because methane is now estimated to have 33 times the warming effect of CO2 instead of 25 times as previously thought. The overall warming model remains the same, but with methane having a bigger role, now CO2's role is reduced. With that, a reduction in CO2 may not bring forth as much positive change as previously thought. Just read up Drew Shindell's research on methane.
"EPA numbers for methane stating that most methane emissions are man-made"
Yes, from animal farming - And human sources are both directly and indirectly reducible. This however does not reduce the significance of natural methane release or its place as a feedback
@BeondaPale So you're trying to claim that natural methane is a huge danger because of positive feedback while at the same time blaming solely CO2 for creating that feedback? Has it ever occurred to you that manmade methane can create that feedback as well especially given that the methane increase from 1750 onwards is over 230%?
"So you're trying to claim that natural methane is a huge danger "
It is an added danger duew to it's properties as a feedback - how big a danger is currently being quantified
"while at the same time blaming solely CO2 for creating that feedback?"
CO2 is a more prominent as a as a GHG (due to it abundance relative to methane) and is rising faster in DIRECT relation to methane. Methane is measured in PPB while CO2 is measured in PPM - an order of 4 magnitudes
@BeondaPale I know that CO2 is in much higher abundance than methane in the atmosphere. However, my question is whether you blame solely CO2. And another thing is that by most scientific accounts, it is easier to reduce methane in the atmosphere than CO2 because methane's average atmospheric life is only 10-12 years whereas CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer (50 years and beyond).
@BeondaPale The breakdown of Methane, a highly effective greenhouse gas, into CO2 a less effective greenhouse gas is a general positive. Methane contributes anywhere from 21-33 times the warming effect of CO2 per unit.
@BeondaPale By no means have I EVER been in favor of delaying action. You are obviously a climate extremist who thinks that anybody who's not bombing big oil companies is a climate traitor. I have always said that we need to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of its effect on climate change. However, by making CO2 a lone bogeyman on climate change, we can be leaving out other serious threats.
@BeondaPale If I have a great plan, then I would be better off working as an economist for the IPCC. I'm not going to claim to be this all knowing savior of the world. It is just my opinion that we need to promote public transportation and energy conservation. Taxes haven't kept enough people from smoking and wouldn't keep enough people from driving. It would be unconscionable to keep people living in remote areas from driving but we can definitely promote public transportation where possible.
Do you believe that mere promotion of public transportation is enough to lesson future harm? Do you believe that energy sources should be changed (away from coal and oil) quickly?
@BeondaPale My only statement is that while I don't know if expanding public transportation is enough, it will be a good start. I can not justify extreme measures at this time. However, as an economist and not a climate scientist, my proposals for a solution don't hold much weight. I will concede that fact. I was able to see errors in climate models because I have extensive training in statistics. Other than that though, I am not qualified to solve the world's climate problem.
"By no means have I EVER been in favor of delaying action." BUT as an economist you are "not qualified to solve the world's climate problem."
Do you therefore leave it to those more qualified to solve the problems?
So you "have always said that we need to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of its effect on climate change." BUT "can not justify extreme measures at this time"
Can you tell me what measures do you NOT consider extreme?
@BeondaPale It is just my personal belief that sudden extreme change creates economic disaster. However, we can start with gradual changes. We can spend more money on expanding public transportation infrastructure and building green power plants without any need for further evidence. If we get better climate models in the near future and they show a greater threat than previously thought, then we can start more extreme measures.
"as an economist I am not qualified to solve the world's climate problem." BUT "If we get better climate models in the near future and they show a greater threat than previously thought, then we can start more extreme measures."
Do you see how someone might think that you are offering is double talk?
You won't offer solutions because you think that you lack the qualifications to do so but you do apparently believe yourself qualified to assess the level of the threat.
@BeondaPale I am definitely not qualified to assess the threat but are you? My only qualification is that I am able to see flaws with statistics and projections. I believe that with enough research on the inner mechanics with warming, in 10 years, we will have much better climate projections. Not even the most disastrous doomsday projection indicate that 10 years from now is too late to start taxing carbon. In the meantime, we can run precautionary programs.
"I am definitely not qualified to assess the threat but are you?"
This is why we have a national academy of science, so that we can get the word on technical issues from people that DO understand them, as opposed to the armies instant internet experts who have spent 15 minutes on some jackass website and think they have solved the issue
@greenman3610 The issue is that the National Academy of Science isn't quite as sure on the subject as we think. Yes, there is consensus that manmade greenhouse gasses contribute to warming but there is still great uncertainty as to exactly how much each gas contributes to the effect and how much positive feedback and negative feedback is going on. Oversimplification of the problem can have grave consequences both environmental and economical.
"Yes, there is consensus that manmade greenhouse gasses contribute to warming but there is still great uncertainty..."
The uncertainty is not as much as you are attempting to portray. But your solution to any level of uncertainty whatsoever seems to be an unaccountably irresponsible business as usual attitude
Yes cigarette smoking might cause me to get cancer, but quitting is hard so I'll just keep doing it until I'm sure
@BeondaPale EPA estimates on methane's efficacy is 21 times that of CO2 per unit. Shindell's latest estimate is 33 times that of CO2. Petra Koon's study said that we may have underestimated methane levels in the atmosphere by as much as 50%. This means that methane's overall effects on the atmosphere could be over 125% higher than previously thought. And by Shindell's statement that methane was underestimated but overall warming stays the same, this means that CO2 could be overestimated.
@BeondaPale And also... NO, as much as you would like to think of me as an extremist big oil bribetaker, I don't have a political agenda. My main statement is that the current uncertainties in empirical data multiply uncertainties in projections. And the high levels of uncertainty right now can not justify stopping development in the Third World. Industrialized nations can and should reduce emissions, but we can not unilaterally force the same agenda on every country at the same time right now.
@greenman3610 Did I say I support deforestation? No! Should First World countries reduce emissions by building better public transportation infrastructure? ABSOLUTELY YES! Should First World countries start research on improving the efficacy of wind and solar power? ABSOLUTELY YES! But should we stop building coal power plants in Asia and Africa right now based on current projections? NO!
@greenman3610 As I said, you're no climate scientist! You're someone who's parroting environmental extremists. You're just someone who tries to claim that IPCC scientists should be given hegemony over the world. You have failed to explain the changes in methane evaluation but here, I'll give you one more challenge. Go explain to me how East Asia's climate greatly differs from the rest of the world. If you give a proper scientific explanation within 12 hours then I'll believe you more.
@greenman3610 I'm not asking you about East Asian Climate for my own personal knowledge. I have read up on that for years out of personal interest. The information on that has existed for centuries and it doesn't take a genius to project how a warmer Siberia can warm up Hong Kong winters a lot more than a warmer Canada can warm up Miami winters. I have read the Fourth Assessment and it does confirm this. I was only challenging you because you try to act like some beacon of knowledge.
"I was able to see errors in climate models because I have extensive training in statistics. "
Yes - the National Academy saw those very same errors and judged them to be extremely minor in the grand scheme of the science
lol - Why won't you just admit that you favor laissez-faire and therefore the Malthusian trap as a solution? - or in other words "have the courage (if such a "plan" can be considered courageous) to do nothing"
@BeondaPale In the grand scheme, these errors if unchecked can lead to widely diverging projections. I am a libertarian but that does not mean that I'm a laissez faire big oil capitalist. If the climate models improve and indicate a bigger threat than indicated, then yes I think the governments should go for bigger change. However, right now, the statistics have too many imperfections to push for such a need. This does not mean that climate isn't a huge threat, but we need more info.
1.) CO2 absorbs and emits thermal radiation in the infrared range - Please refute
2.) Since the end of the industrial revolution man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40% - Please refute
3) the "greenhouse effect" exists and can be increased or decreased via the increase or decrease of it's constuent gasses - one of which is CO2 - Please refute
Please also refute the sylogistic logical deduction that MUST BE MADE from the above observations
@BeondaPale Scientists cannot give a precise estimate of EXACTLY how much CO2 contributes to global warming. The 9% to 26% estimate based on different light frequencies is inadequate to make any projections.
As for #2 the number is closer to a 29% increase and not quite 40%. And once again, I'm not denying that manmade CO2 is contributing to global warming. I'm just against the notion that CO2 should be the one and only bogeyman for all environmental problems
@greenman3610 I know the difference between the two processes, but apparently you are the one who does NOT. By mentioning obvious facts to me such as "ice caps melting" and "sea levels rising" you are obviously trying to alarm everyone without regards to the facts. I was only making an example to expose your hypocrisy!
@BeondaPale Duh!!! I know my basic science. I was only using it to make a point. But if you want to get all technical, continental drift does not necessarily take hundreds of millions of years to change climate.
My problem with the alarmists is that they have mixed up established empirical measurements with fuzzy hypothetical proxies. Go read the 2010 Climate Change report by the Australian Academy of Sciences. It's still shows frightening prospects but admits certain drawbacks in methodology
We have known about the possibility and then the actuality of human caused climate change for a while now methodologies have advanced significantly and with new technology are only becoming more accurate.
This trend toward ever higher degrees of accuracy will only continue. Climate scientists are more certain than ever of what is headed this way
@BeondaPale We just did a study that U235 is a completely natural element and that nature has in fact made large deposits of it in areas with rivers and trees. If drastic action isn't taken by man all the trees and rivers will be destroyed and the planet will fail. I may be able to fix this problem but I need at least 100 million dollars for research. Don't do it for you or me, do it for the planet! We must end this unfissioned U235 catastrophe!
@BeondaPale We are running out of time and the planet is still dying. Deniers like yourself are really starting to make me upset and since you haven't given me any money to do my research I am now petitioning the government and they will soon give me your money. I plan on holding a convention of other Nuclear Physicists so we can prove this problem is bigger than we thought. After proving it's bigger than we thought we will declare the debate is over and prevent others from refuting our claims.
@BeondaPale We just got 1 person from NASA and 1 from the NOAA to agree with us therefore we can claim these entire organizations agree with us. Do you really think that you as 1 person can really stop our collective goal to reach into your pocket and take our share of your money for research. We are only doing this to better society and you will not get in our way. This danger is of epoch proportions and action must be quick, people like you can't get in our way forever!
Greenman, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for posting such drivel as this video. You clearly have no grasp of basic physics or the rather obvious atmospheric phenomena well known to the rest of us.
The more of these you post, the more a fool you appear.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 I bet that Greenman and BeondaPale were embarrassed when they signed that petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide on TV and now they're out for redemption. I'm also an environmentalist but I can't stand the extremists who think that questioning Al Gore automatically makes me a Nazi cannibal murderer
@mrdrfez I too am an environmentalist. I'm horrified that these brigands, hijacking the environmental conversation, are taking all that focus, energy and funding away from REAL work to protect the environment. THIS is the consequence of their lies (next post...)
@mrdrfez The European Union has mandated a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, mandating that 10 percent of all vehicles be powered by biofuels. Government spends tax dollars, toward this end, on the investments of George Soros in this market. BP and Shell are also players.
Consequence: Vast amounts of Amazon rain forest are destroyed for soybean and sugar cane cultivation to produce biofuels. Brazil announced that deforestation was on track to double in 2009
@greenman3610 Yes, while you may not use that word directly, you start accusing those who question you as deniers and Rush Limbaugh lovers every time you fail to explain something that contradicts your statements. Then you end the arguments with "sea levels rising, polar ice caps melting, polar bears dying etc ." You keep mentioning mainstream science (which itself is constantly having to get revised due to new data and still can not come up with 100 year projections within 2 Kelvins)
"The Sahara desert generally features an arid climate. The Sahara desert is one of the hottest regions of the world, with a mean temperature over 30 °C (86 °F). Variations may also be huge, from over 50 °C (120 °F) during the day during the summer, to temperatures below 0 at night in summer ."
If we had to rely on the CO2 to keep us warm, then the whole freaking world would go freezing every night, even in the Summer, just like the Sahara does.
It is the WATER VAPOR that keeps us warm enough to grow crops, to have green grass and so on. Without it - ICE every night!
Like he said - whoever created this video is completely clueless.
The point to be learned from the Sahara example, and I'm sure I am not the only one to understand it, is this:
Our atmosphere's CO2 is very poor at trapping heat. In fact, if we had to rely on CO2 for heat trapping, the whole Earth would lose a hundred degrees overnight, just like the Sahara. There would be no agriculture if every night froze, like the dry Sahara.
We are LUCKY to have all that water vapor keeping the heat in!
"and I'm sure I am not the only one to understand it"
That's right everyone. Mr GunTrainers here is not the only one who understands that (unlike what all those evil commie scientist write in those papers filled with gobbledygook) CO2 has hardly any significance at all in our atmosphere.
Now Mr GunTrainers hasn't written a thing countering the arguments of atmospheric physicists - But what the hell - listen to him anyway. After all, he's posting anonymously on YOUTUBE!!!
@BeondaPale Actually, let's see you counter what Mr. Guntrainers so eloquently stated. Can you?
Can you show that the CO2 actually DOES keep us warm - by demonstrating how it does so in the Sahara? Oh, wait, it doesn't. It freezes at night there.
But where there is abundant water vapor, like the Amazon, the warmth remains.
The Sahara Desert goes from 120 degrees in the daytime to below freezing at night. In the summer time. CO2 cannot trap the heat even for a few hours.
The Amazon remains relatively warm all night long. Water vapor is the difference.
This video author is an idiot, trying to distract us from the basic truth. Water vapor is THE primary heat sink in our atmosphere - CO2 is insignificant.
@greenman3610 Of course the conditions in the Sahara do not apply to the rest of the planet, because the rest of the planet has enough water vapour in the atmosphere to keep it warm! And what do you mean about "google averaging". What kind of pedestal do you think you built for yourself. Some of us here are professional scientists in fields far far more rigorous than climate science and cousins, and use statistical tools daily. And the non-science in your videos is at the level of Monty Python.
@greenman3610 A camel is a horse designed by committee, my friend. Science is not decided by consensus in committees or academies. But it doesn't mean it didn't happen before to achieve certain goals, like in Soviet Russia (Lysenko's genetics) and Nazi Germany (ostracization of Jewish science). But if you need the opinion of a certain group of people with similar political ideals to make up your mind about a piece of (not even rigorous) science, then you're very gullible!
"The Sahara desert generally features an arid climate. The Sahara desert is one of the hottest regions of the world, with a mean temperature over 30 °C (86 °F). Variations may also be huge, from over 50 °C (120 °F) during the day during the summer, to temperatures below 0 at night in summer ."
More alarmism here... Greenman has failed to account for why we haven't had a Pacific typhoon season with more than 30 storms since 1996. In the 1960s, a cooler period than today, the median average of the West Pacific (typhoon) basin was well over 30 storms. Yet, he would keep on trying to appeal to American pathos by mentioning the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and suffering in Katrina.
@mrdrfez It's not even alarmism. Alarmism is spread by those who benefit from it. He's just a xerox machine with no scientific soul. A 'joiner', as Penn&Teller would put it, and who would sign a petition for the ban of dihydrogen monoxide.
@hvtek LMAO! Greenman wants to say that global warming has caused extinctions before, but failed to mention that those warming events were extreme warming events that not even 200 nuclear bombs could produce (Siberian traps, giant asteroid collisions, etc.). He also failed to explain differing opinion on climate impact on agriculture by stating: "NASA says it's bad", without mentioning that the IPCC stated with medium confidence that a 3 degree temperature increase may increase food production.
current human output of co2 is 100 times natural volcanic activity. Mankind has become a geological force, and is changing co2 levels at a rate 10,000 times faster than normal background of the last 50 million years.
sorry, that's significant, and anyone can google
permian extinction
to see why.
re food production-- the study mentioned is more current than IPCC data.
@greenman3610 So you're saying that a more current study on food production is automatically going to be more accurate? As for the Permian extinction, there is no evidence that CO2 was the sole culprit or even a culprit. General consensus was that methane was the biggest culprit. I really have to wonder why you make almost no mention ever of methane and instead choose the simplified bogeyman CO2 model.
@BeondaPale No. There is no hard evidence that supports that over any other hypothesis about the Permian extinction. Warming definitely CAN create positive feedback by increasing other greenhouse gasses, but there is no hard evidence that CO2 warming caused methane to flow out of the ocean or the Siberian traps during the Permian extinction. Also one has to take into account that the warming during the Permian extinction was likely far more catastrophic than even Al Gore's doomsday scenarios.
"climate denier" hahah. That expression really makes no sense at all. Im pretty sure the issue is not whether we have a climate or not, rather if man's actions causes any noticeable change...
friendofyou 2 weeks ago
Thank you for your work. I just caught a denier using this on. I wouldn't know how to respond if it wasn't for what you do.
quinnmcguee 3 months ago
@quinnmcguee
you're using these the way they are meant to be used. thanks!!!
and rock on!!
greenman3610 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
national environmental satellite data and information service doesn't even make a the claim that water vapor doesn't affect global warming, I'm surprised you do. They do want they can do best without proper information, say they don't know. But I'm glad you "know".
HaphazardCrappola 5 months ago
ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
HaphazardCrappola 5 months ago
Denialist love endless bullshitting with semantics.
Ideas are not fact, because not all ideas are fact, while some are.
Models are not fact, because not all models are fact, while some are.
Theories are not fact, because not all theories are, while some are.
X is not Y, because not all X are members of Y, while some are (and vice versa).
The IDEA that "Al Gore is getting rich off AGW" is JUST an IDEA, not a fact.
FYI: I do know a thing or two about modelling for A.I.
mphello 6 months ago
Here's a mathematical model for the fuel tank in my car. C = capacity in gallons of gas it holds. M = miles per gallon of my car. Prediction for the future: if I drive more than M*C miles without refills, my car will stop. That is a statement about the future.
Doesn't matter how many times a similar event (different points in spacetimes) have occurred. Denialists would say "models" are not fact.
Guess what? Ideas are not fact, either. Ideas are just abstractions, too, then.
mphello 6 months ago
Great work greenman! Working the early shift this morning and am arming myself for local talk radio show!
nickschor1 7 months ago
@nickschor1
hey, give em hell
greenman3610 7 months ago
Majority rule on statements about what is when it is a majority of those who do the proofs: scientific, mathematical, finding (or not finding) WMDs.
Majority rule on what should be is determined by those who suffer the majority of the effect.
e.g. If 1 person works had and earns 100oz gold, just because 50 other people who didn't work want that gold doesn't mean they should get it, because that 1 person would suffer the loss of their gold and sweat, a bigger loss than the 2oz gain to 50.
mphello 7 months ago
Pathetic desperate deniers. Glad to see the 389 upvotes to the ignorants' 39 (and even some of THOSE could have downvoted because they know that AGW is real and serious and so they don't like educational videos with any humor thrown into them). Keep up the great work, greenman!
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello
much, much more coming.
new software in the learning phase.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Looking forward to it!
Like I said elsewhere in these comment boxes: I don't waste my time trying to prove anything to these fanatics anymore. I go / think outside the box and attack and belittle and doubt them on ANYTHING they say about anything - whether statements about what is or what should be - so that they know what the consequences of their actions / behavior are like to climate scientists and environmental activists.
Treat them with absolute disrespect.
mphello 7 months ago
@greenman3610 is the giant gw flood still gonna happen
oiawsome99 6 months ago
@oiawsome99
watch?v=kffsux-ifKk
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 do they still say giant gw flood still gonna happen
oiawsome99 6 months ago
@oiawsome99
Who is this "they" you speak of? Can you provide a primary cite for this "giant gw flood" you are speaking of? Please acite directly from the "they" people.
Trent1492 1 month ago
VirusAsshole never read a book, let alone ever read what the real scientists and real peer-reviewed science have said about human-made climate change and its real dangers.
Typical climate-change denier: rightwing christian fanatics who think jesus was real and is going to come down and take them to 72 virgins.
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello You kind of just destroyed all of your credibility by making fun of his username and affirming the stereotype that skeptics are all rightwing Christian-Muslim fundamentalists. I'm just saying, for future scientific debate, you might want to try to be a little less childish in your conviction.
AngryRantingNerd 6 months ago
@AngryRantingNerd Actually, no, I didn't. Only those who do not have the mental ability to logically determine cause and effect would say that I can "cause" other people not to take my statements seriously.
i.e. there is no such thing as "losing credibility". Only lunatics believe in that. It is up to the OTHER person to believe or not believe.
Now, since you don't have a math PhD, I know you did not notice that I laid out a simple math model, which is not childish.
mphello 6 months ago
@mphello
>VirusAsshole never read a book
>Typical climate-change denier: rightwing christian fanatics who think jesus was real and is going to come down and take them to 72 virgins.
You're just arguing semantics now, and claiming that I didn't notice your 'math model'. People like you, arrogant people, are the reason so many people decide to turn a blind eye to this kind of debate. You give atheists a bad name. You give debaters in general a bad name. Please try to be respectful.
AngryRantingNerd 6 months ago
@AngryRantingNerd No, I do not give atheists a "bad name". Extreme free-market anti-socialist pseudo-libertarian atheists, who vociferously defend corporate welfare and corporate CEOs being bailed out and being handed TRILLIONS of dolllars and national assets for little to no work, are the atheists who give atheists a bad name.
Your pompous anti-free-speech holier-than-thou attitude is what gets people angrier and less willing to care about the content of what you say.
mphello 6 months ago
@mphello While I agree with the first paragraph in that those kinds of people do seem to give atheists a bad name, I'm not anti-free-speech. And while I agree that I have been a little bit condescending in this argument, I think that you've been a bit of a stereotyping name caller. All I'm trying to say is that when debating with someone, take the high road and don't be arrogant. A smart person like you shouldn't have to fall back on name calling and stereotyping.
AngryRantingNerd 6 months ago
the planet heats up and cools down constantly, doomsayers use data from the last hundred years, so when they see a raise in temperature or a fall they think the world is going to end. and an asteroid wiped out 99% of all species yet life still exist.
ViruzErazar 9 months ago
@ViruzErazar
try reassuring your children that its all ok because 1 percent of species will survive.
write back and tell me what their response is.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 ass hole, species adapt. the only reason people are freaking out is that they have to do that to. even tough they wont have to because the world is not gonna end. 50 years ago they said that there is gonna be an ice age now and now you say the world is going to heat up so much that were almost gonna boil and that only 1% of all species will survive douche bag its a little temperature change not a freaking asteroid
ViruzErazar 9 months ago
@ViruzErazar
You're certainly well spoken, for a climate denier.
Actually, the biggest extinction in planetary history was a greenhouse event. You can google permian extinction or watch
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
and that thing about the 70s? also nonsense. see
watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 i am pretty sure that the Permian extinction is the second biggest one, but the Permian extinction just proves my point that the climate constantly changes without human interference. sorry for calling you D.B and A.H don't know what got over me
ViruzErazar 9 months ago
@ViruzErazar
look up permian again. watch the vid.
The onset was due to historically huge volcanic eruptions. It doesn't matter where the carbon comes from.
In that case, 90 percent species loss. We are doing it faster than it occurred then.
You are suggesting that the planet is working differently today than it has for 5 billion years.
It's incumbent that you supply evidence for that claim.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 ass hole, species adapt. the only reason people are freaking out is that they have to do that to. even tough they wont have to because the world is not gonna end. 50 years ago they said that there is gonna be an ice age now and now you say the world is going to heat up so much that were almost gonna boil and that only 1% of all species will survive. douche bag its a little temperature change not a freaking asteroid
ViruzErazar 9 months ago
Heat flows from hot to cold and its freezing in the upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide would transmit any heat it had into space.
david222444 9 months ago
@david222444
thank you , Dr science.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 At least you hearing some science and not some silly prediction of doom. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. How does it get to the stratosphere?
david222444 9 months ago
@david222444
by your logic, the atmosphere would be layered like a layer cake, with all the oxygen at higher levels, and the co2 down at the ground, suffocating all animal life.
Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. Atmospheric gases are well mixed.
But thanks, anyway, Doc.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 By your logic the atmosphere is like a greenhouse just as silly as your layered cake. By the way co2 mixed with water vapour cools the planet. A couple more freezing winters and your precious theory will be laughed at.
david222444 9 months ago
Consider the planet with no atmosphere. The planet would be too hot during the day and too cold at night for life to exist. The oceans and atmosphere along with the Sun's affect on them control the climate. How foolish can you be to suggest that water is a positive feedback? Try pouring it on something hot! The Greenhouse theory is dying i give it 5 years at most.
david222444 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@david222444 Hello again David. Still flogging your childish nonsense I see. Well, thankyou for this comment to greenman. I urge you to keep your youtube account for the next five years.
uknowispeaksense 9 months ago
@greenman3610
Inaccurate again! There has to be seeding in order to start the formation of water droplets that form the clouds!
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!
Because seeding can come from fine particulates, aerosols or most importantly by high energy cosmic radiation. You guys don't account for this latest phenomenon that does NOT depend on CO2 concentration. There is nothing we can do about the cosmic radiation. All we can do is to account for it in our models, like Piers Corbyn does!.
judomagyar 1 year ago
such good videos, an so little views :O
shaithesm0ck 1 year ago
@RicardoClaro Go read what I have said... I'm not a climate denier. I'm not here to debunk manmade global warming as a whole. I'm here to debunk certain aspects of climate science that have been revised and will continue to be revised. You want to keep it as a monologue? Well, we live in a free country and if you speak to me, I can speak back. Publish or die? Hey, is that a death threat just like the racists threatening climate scientists? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Bring it!
mrdrfez 1 year ago
Greenman has a serious ego complex. He's an absolutist who never admits being wrong even when being wrong in a few details don't necessarily make him wrong in general. When you tell him that there's a lot that we don't know, he'll say that he and scientists know a lot more than you think and call you ignorant. When you show him new information that increases the level of uncertainties in projections, he'll call you a revisionist fascist. Keep the insults coming Chairman Mao ahem I meant Greenman
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
you'd have to document where I called you a revisionist fascist.
you've given up even trying, and left reality behind.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 You're just playing the word game right now. You've never said those words exactly but one can easily imply you can call people who don't agree with you fascists. You said that I should listen to Rush Limbaugh because I sound like him. And look at your post from yesterday.
"right.
you don't support the fossil fuel companies, you just work extra hours parroting their BS.
You're a prince."
Keep the insults coming buddy!
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez Please, give us examples of information you've presented and Mr. Sinclair has ignored. Or are you just mouthing drivel and ad hominems in an attempt to hide your own ignorance? Those of us that care about empirically collected data will be waiting......
7othestars 11 months ago
At the end it said skeptics use "fuzzy logic", which is ironic, because that's what this whole video was.
ebwgnome 1 year ago
@ebwgnome Just like how Greenman kept on trying to present himself as a knowledge messiah while the rest of us are "ignorant". Quote from Greenman:
"Clearly you have not been paying attention.
If you would watch my videos, you would be able to avoid these embarrassments -
Ignorance hurts - I'm here to help."
Then when I present data that conflicts with his oversimplified statements, he changes the subject and accuses those who have even minor disagreements with him as industrial trolls.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
uh, first you'd have to present some data.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I already did on the revaluation of methane's contribution to the greenhouse effect and the radical revaluation (still going on) of the amount of methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. And then, unable to refute those statements, you throw in scare facts like the possible positive methane feedback in Siberia. I'm not the two-bit skeptic that you think everybody is and your scripted tactics won't work.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
Greenman hasn't read the work of Dr. Petra Kroon of the Energy Centre of the Netherlands about the current shortcomings of the methods used to measure nitrous oxide and methane. "It involves certain assumptions, for instance that concentrations in the chamber rise in a linear fashion. "These assumptions may make analysis easier, but they don't always fit the facts, and this leads to underestimates in emission levels.""
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
if methane levels are higher than we know, that is more reason to act quickly to throttle back GHGs.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 And what is your solution to throttling back greenhouse gasses? Build more nuclear power plants around the world? Enforce vegetarianism and slaughter livestock? I don't have the answer. You don't have the answer. NASA doesn't have the answer. The IPCC doesn't have the answer. However, with time, we can all find out. The only thing I can bet on right now is that the Fifth Assessment report will be markedly different from the Fourth.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
I'm trying to add more to my solutions video series, but have been preoccupied batting down climate denial nonsense.
So far, here's what I have in the Renewable Solutions series
watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ
watch?v=llIbjC49Fjs
watch?v=WO3V2uXTM6k
greenman3610 1 year ago
So if mainstream science discovers that North America and South America are drifting apart again (which will likely cause a LOT more warming than even the worst of the doomsday scenarios), will the alarmists try to start a program to keep continental drift from happening?
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
continental drift, of course, happens over tens of millions of years.
If current climate changes were happening at that pace, instead of the geological
blink of an eye that we are seeing, there obviously would not be an issue.
It is telling that you can not discern the difference between the two processes.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Yes, I know the difference between manmade global warming and continental drift. However, you obviously don't know as much about the atmosphere and the climate as you claim in your "debunkings", and that is the reason I'm challenging you. You have failed to account for some of NASA's statistics (for which some I could debunk), yet you try to debunk some debatable subjects as "crock". You claim that I'm ignorant because I don't know about earth's climate but neither do you!
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
That's why I rely on the National Academy instead of Glenn Beck.
Helps keep me from saying stupid stuff.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Yes... It's the same National Academy that you claim to be the "Supreme Court of Science" supporting your "hockey stick". The reality of course is that the National Academy of Science said that the "hockey stick" claim can not be confirmed past 400 years. And NO I don't listen to Glenn Beck either! I'm actually a centre-left economist who is frustrated by extreme left wing lies!
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
I'd be embarrassed too, if he was a leading intellectual on my team.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I'm NOT on Glenn Beck's team. And I'd be equally embarrassed having YOU on my team as much as having Glenn Beck on my team!
mrdrfez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrdrfez
"The 9% to 26% estimate based on different light frequencies is inadequate to make any projections."
Why? Predictions can be and are made in ranges as well, right?
"As for #2 the number is closer to a 29% increase and not quite 40%."
No, that's incorrect. The CO2 was 280 ppm before the industrial revolution and is 389 ppm now
389/280 = 1.39 or an increase of 39%
If you say it is lower at 29%, how do you account for the additional 10% = a full 28 ppm?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
You'd better look around man. Your arguments are indistinguishable from the Beck, Palin, Limbaugh crowd.
Ask yourself why.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 There goes Greenman with his namecalling after he fails to explain certain phenomena. Do I claim the earth is cooling? NO! Do I claim that CO2 is unrelated to warming? NO! The only thing I claim is that our current science is insufficient to accurately project the impact of manmade global warming. And that claim is supported in "mainstream science's" constantly changing climate research results. Just look at how they now they now admit that methane has been underestimated.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
please document 'changing research results".
Also, document "methane has been underestimated".
The methane time bomb of the northern permafrost and the methane clathrates have been the subject of dire warnings for years, if not decades.
Clearly you have not been paying attention.
If you would watch my videos, you would be able to avoid these embarrassments -
Ignorance hurts - I'm here to help.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Just look up Drew Shindell's own admission about methane. “We undervalue methane. The whole point of having a scale is to relate different gases together, to enlarge the pool of mitigation options. But if you’ve got the wrong value for one, clearly you don’t have maximum efficiency.”
Yes, we know of huge methane deposits in Siberia, but knowing the existence of something does not mean knowing exactly how it works.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez Yes, I do watch your videos and have found them to be mostly propaganda. You talk about a disappearing lake in Siberia without giving the name or exact location of the lake. You throw out videos showing flooding and hurricanes to scare people ignoring the fact that Pacific typhoons are now occuring at much lower annual rates than in the 1960s (you can look this up).
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
You claim videos as propaganda because the name of a lake is left out. ( there are MANY MANY lakes disappearing as per NASA satellite photos - use Google) while you submit outright errors eg: "the number is closer to a 29% increase and not quite 40%." and consistently seek to minimize well founded scientific findings
BTW - the AGW MODELS SAY that in a warmer world hurricanes will be less frequent, but more intense with more rain - you pretend not to know this for propaganda reasons
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale That's not an error, go look up the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 and that number is very close to 29%. As for disappearing lakes, the Aral Sea is also disappearing and not even the most extreme alarmists can blame global warming as the main culprit.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrdrfez Lair! I don't know how YOU do EXTREMELY SIMPLE MATH, but when I divide 280 PPM (before industrial revolution) into 389 PPM (current) I get 1.39 or 38.9% . Now for it to have been 29% the current PPM would have had to have been 361 ppm
"As for disappearing lakes, the Aral Sea is also disappearing and not even the most extreme alarmists can blame global warming as the main culprit."
STRAWMAN!! No one does
You political clowns are immoral frauds!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale And not every model will produce the same result. You and Greenman take these climate models as spiritual canon when they're constantly getting changed and updated due to new discoveries and measurements (i.e revisal in nitrous oxide and methane readings). Climate models have also indicated that rice production in East Asia can go up by 20%. Do I believe that number? No. The day I see a tropical cyclone surpassing Typhoon Tip in size and intensity, then I'll believe these models more
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"And not every model will produce the same result"
Show me a model that DISAGREES with what I said - you can't
"spiritual canon"??
it's called valid, well founded, scientific EVIDENCE. "Spiritual canons" are found in Jesus camp.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale These models can never be scientific fact because they all deal with the future. If you actually studied the scientific method, you would understand. You can look up the IPCC's 2007 agriculture and climate change report that projects increases in overall food production for temperature change of 1 to 3 degrees. But going back to the models argument, you can look up Petra Kroon's work on methane levels and Drew Shindell's work on methane's contribution to warming. Neither are deniers.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"These models can never be scientific fact because they all deal with the future. "
Dishonest strawman - Nor has anyone said models are fact
Models are reasonable prediction of future event based on available data and have a high degree of likelihood
"2007 agriculture and climate change report that projects increases..."
Dishonest attempt at ADVOCACY science - pointing out a possible "pro" while ignoring the many more "cons" that come with such a development.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You have to realize that I'm NOT denying manmade global warming. AND, I also do NOT believe the 2007 agriculture and climate change report in full. When it comes to the climate, our information is incomplete and thus our models are still woefully inaccurate. Remember the 2006 hurricane season forecasts? Perhaps in 5 to 10 years, we'll know a lot more to make better models but right now, they're insufficient. Just look at how they're now reassessing N2O and NH4's impact on warming.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrdrfez
"You have to realize that I'm NOT denying manmade global warming. "
Just seeking to minimallize it in order to delay any and all proposed action.
"Perhaps in 5 to 10 years, we'll know a lot more to make better models but right now."
As technology had progressed modeling has gotten far more certain - this trend will continue
"look at how they're now reassessing N2O and NH4's impact on warming."
True science is constantly in the process of reassessment and refinement.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You can also read about the findings of oceanographer Gerald Dickens. And no Dickens is not a climate change denier. He merely stated that the current models may be wrong because they're based on certain assumptions that have not been fully established.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
Yes, there is still a good deal of mystery about the PETM - 55 million years ago. This does NOT mean that assessments of the physics in the CURRENT warming should be under valued. Hind-casting bears this out.
If you had bothered to contact Dr Dickens he would have told you the very same thing
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale I'm not saying that all current models should be dismissed but they should be called into greater question given that there is still new information coming in that can drastically change the assumptions of the models. Perhaps in the next 5 years, with better research on the mechanics, we can have a much more accurate model than right now. And NO, I am NOT saying that we should keep spew out more CO2. It's a necessary precaution. I'm just saying at the same time we need more research.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"there is still new information coming in that can drastically change the assumptions of the models. "
Can you please give a SPECIFIC example of a time when new information has come in that had the effect of DRASTICALLY changing the assumptions of any particular climate model?
"I'm just saying at the same time we need more research."
...And this is what you ALWAYS will say, regardless of how much research is performed
- You and your agenda are as transparent as they come
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale The NH4 revaluation has drastically changed the assumptions enough to where Drew Shindell admits that we need a more comprehensive climate change strategy than the one before. And YES, we do NEED MORE RESEARCH! You keep attacking people who are against some of views as evil big oil men. The prior underestimation of NH4 and N2O shows us that there are obvious shortcomings on our knowledge. Also, there is not yet consensus in how much aerosols mask CO2 warming.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"The NH4 revaluation has drastically changed the assumptions "
Of the CURRENT MODELS?? On what do you base this? Explain
"And YES, we do NEED MORE RESEARCH! "
More research will ALWAYS be needed - We are still researching gravity. But the ploy of your agenda is to obfuscate and continually delay all action.
"The prior underestimation of NH4 and N2O... how much aerosols mask CO2 warming."
Please define how "drastically" these two factors alter any particular current model
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Now the general consensus is that we must dramatically both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions because methane is now estimated to have 33 times the warming effect of CO2 instead of 25 times as previously thought. The overall warming model remains the same, but with methane having a bigger role, now CO2's role is reduced. With that, a reduction in CO2 may not bring forth as much positive change as previously thought. Just read up Drew Shindell's research on methane.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrdrfez
"With that, a reduction in CO2 may not bring forth as much positive change as previously thought."
Even though it is known that methane release is a feedback of warming from CO2 - eg Siberian permafrost melt?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Why don't you read up on the EPA numbers for methane stating that most methane emissions are man-made?
mrdrfez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrdrfez
"EPA numbers for methane stating that most methane emissions are man-made"
Yes, from animal farming - And human sources are both directly and indirectly reducible. This however does not reduce the significance of natural methane release or its place as a feedback
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale So you're trying to claim that natural methane is a huge danger because of positive feedback while at the same time blaming solely CO2 for creating that feedback? Has it ever occurred to you that manmade methane can create that feedback as well especially given that the methane increase from 1750 onwards is over 230%?
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"So you're trying to claim that natural methane is a huge danger "
It is an added danger duew to it's properties as a feedback - how big a danger is currently being quantified
"while at the same time blaming solely CO2 for creating that feedback?"
CO2 is a more prominent as a as a GHG (due to it abundance relative to methane) and is rising faster in DIRECT relation to methane. Methane is measured in PPB while CO2 is measured in PPM - an order of 4 magnitudes
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
sorry - that's an order of 3 magnitudes
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale I know that CO2 is in much higher abundance than methane in the atmosphere. However, my question is whether you blame solely CO2. And another thing is that by most scientific accounts, it is easier to reduce methane in the atmosphere than CO2 because methane's average atmospheric life is only 10-12 years whereas CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer (50 years and beyond).
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"my question is whether you blame solely CO2."
No, methane is a GHG as well
"because methane's average atmospheric life is only 10-12 years "
-- Before it breaks down into CO2 and water itself (via hydroxyl radicals) - which also make it act on the ozone layer
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale The breakdown of Methane, a highly effective greenhouse gas, into CO2 a less effective greenhouse gas is a general positive. Methane contributes anywhere from 21-33 times the warming effect of CO2 per unit.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
True enough
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Here's the article on aerosols: Some Particles Cool Climate, Others Add To Global Warming. ScienceDaily.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
Are you attempting to cite this article as a reason to delay action until we know more???
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale By no means have I EVER been in favor of delaying action. You are obviously a climate extremist who thinks that anybody who's not bombing big oil companies is a climate traitor. I have always said that we need to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of its effect on climate change. However, by making CO2 a lone bogeyman on climate change, we can be leaving out other serious threats.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
By no means have I EVER been in favor of delaying action.
Really? Please enumerate what actions you suggest
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"I have always said that we need to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of its effect on climate change."
Specifically, how do you propose we achieves such reductions?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale If I have a great plan, then I would be better off working as an economist for the IPCC. I'm not going to claim to be this all knowing savior of the world. It is just my opinion that we need to promote public transportation and energy conservation. Taxes haven't kept enough people from smoking and wouldn't keep enough people from driving. It would be unconscionable to keep people living in remote areas from driving but we can definitely promote public transportation where possible.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
Do you believe that mere promotion of public transportation is enough to lesson future harm? Do you believe that energy sources should be changed (away from coal and oil) quickly?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale My only statement is that while I don't know if expanding public transportation is enough, it will be a good start. I can not justify extreme measures at this time. However, as an economist and not a climate scientist, my proposals for a solution don't hold much weight. I will concede that fact. I was able to see errors in climate models because I have extensive training in statistics. Other than that though, I am not qualified to solve the world's climate problem.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrdrfez
"By no means have I EVER been in favor of delaying action." BUT as an economist you are "not qualified to solve the world's climate problem."
Do you therefore leave it to those more qualified to solve the problems?
So you "have always said that we need to reduce CO2 emissions regardless of its effect on climate change." BUT "can not justify extreme measures at this time"
Can you tell me what measures do you NOT consider extreme?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale It is just my personal belief that sudden extreme change creates economic disaster. However, we can start with gradual changes. We can spend more money on expanding public transportation infrastructure and building green power plants without any need for further evidence. If we get better climate models in the near future and they show a greater threat than previously thought, then we can start more extreme measures.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"as an economist I am not qualified to solve the world's climate problem." BUT "If we get better climate models in the near future and they show a greater threat than previously thought, then we can start more extreme measures."
Do you see how someone might think that you are offering is double talk?
You won't offer solutions because you think that you lack the qualifications to do so but you do apparently believe yourself qualified to assess the level of the threat.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale I am definitely not qualified to assess the threat but are you? My only qualification is that I am able to see flaws with statistics and projections. I believe that with enough research on the inner mechanics with warming, in 10 years, we will have much better climate projections. Not even the most disastrous doomsday projection indicate that 10 years from now is too late to start taxing carbon. In the meantime, we can run precautionary programs.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"I am definitely not qualified to assess the threat but are you?"
This is why we have a national academy of science, so that we can get the word on technical issues from people that DO understand them, as opposed to the armies instant internet experts who have spent 15 minutes on some jackass website and think they have solved the issue
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 The issue is that the National Academy of Science isn't quite as sure on the subject as we think. Yes, there is consensus that manmade greenhouse gasses contribute to warming but there is still great uncertainty as to exactly how much each gas contributes to the effect and how much positive feedback and negative feedback is going on. Oversimplification of the problem can have grave consequences both environmental and economical.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"Yes, there is consensus that manmade greenhouse gasses contribute to warming but there is still great uncertainty..."
The uncertainty is not as much as you are attempting to portray. But your solution to any level of uncertainty whatsoever seems to be an unaccountably irresponsible business as usual attitude
Yes cigarette smoking might cause me to get cancer, but quitting is hard so I'll just keep doing it until I'm sure
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale EPA estimates on methane's efficacy is 21 times that of CO2 per unit. Shindell's latest estimate is 33 times that of CO2. Petra Koon's study said that we may have underestimated methane levels in the atmosphere by as much as 50%. This means that methane's overall effects on the atmosphere could be over 125% higher than previously thought. And by Shindell's statement that methane was underestimated but overall warming stays the same, this means that CO2 could be overestimated.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@BeondaPale And also... NO, as much as you would like to think of me as an extremist big oil bribetaker, I don't have a political agenda. My main statement is that the current uncertainties in empirical data multiply uncertainties in projections. And the high levels of uncertainty right now can not justify stopping development in the Third World. Industrialized nations can and should reduce emissions, but we can not unilaterally force the same agenda on every country at the same time right now.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
right - Shell oil should be allowed complete free reign to "develop" the Ecuadorian rain forest, and bring those
miserable forest dwellers up to our level...
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Did I say I support deforestation? No! Should First World countries reduce emissions by building better public transportation infrastructure? ABSOLUTELY YES! Should First World countries start research on improving the efficacy of wind and solar power? ABSOLUTELY YES! But should we stop building coal power plants in Asia and Africa right now based on current projections? NO!
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
right.
you don't support the fossil fuel companies, you just work extra hours parroting their BS.
You're a prince.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 As I said, you're no climate scientist! You're someone who's parroting environmental extremists. You're just someone who tries to claim that IPCC scientists should be given hegemony over the world. You have failed to explain the changes in methane evaluation but here, I'll give you one more challenge. Go explain to me how East Asia's climate greatly differs from the rest of the world. If you give a proper scientific explanation within 12 hours then I'll believe you more.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
I'm no climate scientist, nor do I claim to be. I point people to real climate scientists and what they are telling us.
You prefer nonsense, I get it.
If you have questions about east asian climate, suggest you do the research and find out.
You could start, as I did, with the IPCC's fourth assessment.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I'm not asking you about East Asian Climate for my own personal knowledge. I have read up on that for years out of personal interest. The information on that has existed for centuries and it doesn't take a genius to project how a warmer Siberia can warm up Hong Kong winters a lot more than a warmer Canada can warm up Miami winters. I have read the Fourth Assessment and it does confirm this. I was only challenging you because you try to act like some beacon of knowledge.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"I was able to see errors in climate models because I have extensive training in statistics. "
Yes - the National Academy saw those very same errors and judged them to be extremely minor in the grand scheme of the science
lol - Why won't you just admit that you favor laissez-faire and therefore the Malthusian trap as a solution? - or in other words "have the courage (if such a "plan" can be considered courageous) to do nothing"
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale In the grand scheme, these errors if unchecked can lead to widely diverging projections. I am a libertarian but that does not mean that I'm a laissez faire big oil capitalist. If the climate models improve and indicate a bigger threat than indicated, then yes I think the governments should go for bigger change. However, right now, the statistics have too many imperfections to push for such a need. This does not mean that climate isn't a huge threat, but we need more info.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
1.) CO2 absorbs and emits thermal radiation in the infrared range - Please refute
2.) Since the end of the industrial revolution man has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40% - Please refute
3) the "greenhouse effect" exists and can be increased or decreased via the increase or decrease of it's constuent gasses - one of which is CO2 - Please refute
Please also refute the sylogistic logical deduction that MUST BE MADE from the above observations
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Scientists cannot give a precise estimate of EXACTLY how much CO2 contributes to global warming. The 9% to 26% estimate based on different light frequencies is inadequate to make any projections.
As for #2 the number is closer to a 29% increase and not quite 40%. And once again, I'm not denying that manmade CO2 is contributing to global warming. I'm just against the notion that CO2 should be the one and only bogeyman for all environmental problems
mrdrfez 1 year ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrdrfez
"The 9% to 26% estimate based on different light frequencies is inadequate to make any projections."
Why? Predictions can be and are made in ranges as well, right?
"As for #2 the number is closer to a 29% increase and not quite 40%."
No, that's incorrect. The CO2 was 280 ppm before the industrial revolution and is 389 ppm now
389/280 = 1.39 or an increase of 39%
If you say it is lower at 29%, how do you account for the additional 10% = a full 28 ppm?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I know the difference between the two processes, but apparently you are the one who does NOT. By mentioning obvious facts to me such as "ice caps melting" and "sea levels rising" you are obviously trying to alarm everyone without regards to the facts. I was only making an example to expose your hypocrisy!
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"will the alarmists try to start a program to keep continental drift from happening?"
Continental drift is still occurring (never stopped)
watch?v=uGcDed4xVD4
and is a GEOLOGIC process (taking 100's of millions of years)
A climatological process (in this case caused by a single species) can take as little as 100 years or even less
See the extremely obvious difference?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Duh!!! I know my basic science. I was only using it to make a point. But if you want to get all technical, continental drift does not necessarily take hundreds of millions of years to change climate.
My problem with the alarmists is that they have mixed up established empirical measurements with fuzzy hypothetical proxies. Go read the 2010 Climate Change report by the Australian Academy of Sciences. It's still shows frightening prospects but admits certain drawbacks in methodology
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
We have known about the possibility and then the actuality of human caused climate change for a while now methodologies have advanced significantly and with new technology are only becoming more accurate.
This trend toward ever higher degrees of accuracy will only continue. Climate scientists are more certain than ever of what is headed this way
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
"Climate scientists are more certain than ever of what is headed this way"
A big fat check from the tax payers...
thebestsumoeva 11 months ago
@thebestsumoeva
Well, if it isn't our neighborhood roving YouTube Nuclear Physicists. Got any science for us today Mr Nuclear Physicist?
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale We just did a study that U235 is a completely natural element and that nature has in fact made large deposits of it in areas with rivers and trees. If drastic action isn't taken by man all the trees and rivers will be destroyed and the planet will fail. I may be able to fix this problem but I need at least 100 million dollars for research. Don't do it for you or me, do it for the planet! We must end this unfissioned U235 catastrophe!
thebestsumoeva 11 months ago
@thebestsumoeva
"We just did a study..."
Still waiting.
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale I need your money to fund the research, if you don't give it to me I will petition the government to take it from you and give it to me.
I'm trying to save the environment after all, how could you be against the environment?
thebestsumoeva 11 months ago
@thebestsumoeva sayzzz:
"I know, in lieu of evidence or any real argument, I'll act like a clown"
Great strategy, sumo
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale We are running out of time and the planet is still dying. Deniers like yourself are really starting to make me upset and since you haven't given me any money to do my research I am now petitioning the government and they will soon give me your money. I plan on holding a convention of other Nuclear Physicists so we can prove this problem is bigger than we thought. After proving it's bigger than we thought we will declare the debate is over and prevent others from refuting our claims.
thebestsumoeva 11 months ago
@thebestsumoeva
"I plan on holding a convention of other Nuclear Physicists so we can prove this problem is bigger than we thought."
Yeah, do that and get back to me. Until then:
NASA, NOAA, WMO and every single established scientific organization on the planet = CREDIBLE
Whlie
thebestsumoeva = CLOWN
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale We just got 1 person from NASA and 1 from the NOAA to agree with us therefore we can claim these entire organizations agree with us. Do you really think that you as 1 person can really stop our collective goal to reach into your pocket and take our share of your money for research. We are only doing this to better society and you will not get in our way. This danger is of epoch proportions and action must be quick, people like you can't get in our way forever!
thebestsumoeva 11 months ago
@thebestsumoeva
Nope, yer still just a bozo making stuff up
BeondaPale 11 months ago
Greenman, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for posting such drivel as this video. You clearly have no grasp of basic physics or the rather obvious atmospheric phenomena well known to the rest of us.
The more of these you post, the more a fool you appear.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 I bet that Greenman and BeondaPale were embarrassed when they signed that petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide on TV and now they're out for redemption. I'm also an environmentalist but I can't stand the extremists who think that questioning Al Gore automatically makes me a Nazi cannibal murderer
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"I can't stand the extremists who think that questioning Al Gore automatically makes me a Nazi cannibal murderer"
:0) Thanks for the laugh
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@mrdrfez I too am an environmentalist. I'm horrified that these brigands, hijacking the environmental conversation, are taking all that focus, energy and funding away from REAL work to protect the environment. THIS is the consequence of their lies (next post...)
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@mrdrfez The European Union has mandated a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, mandating that 10 percent of all vehicles be powered by biofuels. Government spends tax dollars, toward this end, on the investments of George Soros in this market. BP and Shell are also players.
Consequence: Vast amounts of Amazon rain forest are destroyed for soybean and sugar cane cultivation to produce biofuels. Brazil announced that deforestation was on track to double in 2009
- John Truman Wolfe
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@mrdrfez OH, and that dihydrogen oxide video was knee-slapping funny! Gawd, there are stupid people getting sucked in! (Nightversionn...)
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
cannibal?
is there something you want to tell us?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Yes, while you may not use that word directly, you start accusing those who question you as deniers and Rush Limbaugh lovers every time you fail to explain something that contradicts your statements. Then you end the arguments with "sea levels rising, polar ice caps melting, polar bears dying etc ." You keep mentioning mainstream science (which itself is constantly having to get revised due to new data and still can not come up with 100 year projections within 2 Kelvins)
mrdrfez 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The Sahara desert generally features an arid climate. The Sahara desert is one of the hottest regions of the world, with a mean temperature over 30 °C (86 °F). Variations may also be huge, from over 50 °C (120 °F) during the day during the summer, to temperatures below 0 at night in summer ."
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Sahara_Desert_(ecoregion)
Significance? CO2 cannot keep us warm - we NEED the water vapor!!
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
Okay, Guntrainers gets it clearly.
If we had to rely on the CO2 to keep us warm, then the whole freaking world would go freezing every night, even in the Summer, just like the Sahara does.
It is the WATER VAPOR that keeps us warm enough to grow crops, to have green grass and so on. Without it - ICE every night!
Like he said - whoever created this video is completely clueless.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
From the video:
Best estimates of the warming effect of water vapor are 36% to 66% for water vapor alone and 66% to 85% if cloud droplets are included
SOURCE: UCAR
OK, Have at it political BS clowns
BeondaPale 1 year ago
So, in summary, whoever created this video is either a complete moron with no grasp of basic physics - or a willful deceiver.
Either way, thumbs down on this piece o' garbage.
GunTrainers 1 year ago
The point to be learned from the Sahara example, and I'm sure I am not the only one to understand it, is this:
Our atmosphere's CO2 is very poor at trapping heat. In fact, if we had to rely on CO2 for heat trapping, the whole Earth would lose a hundred degrees overnight, just like the Sahara. There would be no agriculture if every night froze, like the dry Sahara.
We are LUCKY to have all that water vapor keeping the heat in!
GunTrainers 1 year ago
@GunTrainers
"and I'm sure I am not the only one to understand it"
That's right everyone. Mr GunTrainers here is not the only one who understands that (unlike what all those evil commie scientist write in those papers filled with gobbledygook) CO2 has hardly any significance at all in our atmosphere.
Now Mr GunTrainers hasn't written a thing countering the arguments of atmospheric physicists - But what the hell - listen to him anyway. After all, he's posting anonymously on YOUTUBE!!!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Actually, let's see you counter what Mr. Guntrainers so eloquently stated. Can you?
Can you show that the CO2 actually DOES keep us warm - by demonstrating how it does so in the Sahara? Oh, wait, it doesn't. It freezes at night there.
But where there is abundant water vapor, like the Amazon, the warmth remains.
Water vapor is THE heat sink in our atmosphere.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
The Sahara Desert goes from 120 degrees in the daytime to below freezing at night. In the summer time. CO2 cannot trap the heat even for a few hours.
The Amazon remains relatively warm all night long. Water vapor is the difference.
This video author is an idiot, trying to distract us from the basic truth. Water vapor is THE primary heat sink in our atmosphere - CO2 is insignificant.
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
the conditions in the sahara do not apply to the whole planet, nor do those in the Amazon.
google
averaging
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 It appears to me, sonny, that you missed the point. It is precisely because they are different that they are a good demonstration.
The Sahara, without water vapor (only has the CO2), cools a hundred degrees very quickly when solar forcing is switched off.
The Amazon, with water vapor, hardly cools at all due to water's specific heat capacity as well as the heat-release of condensation.
The moron who made that video disparaging water vapor clearly has no grasp of basic physics.
GunTrainers 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Of course the conditions in the Sahara do not apply to the rest of the planet, because the rest of the planet has enough water vapour in the atmosphere to keep it warm! And what do you mean about "google averaging". What kind of pedestal do you think you built for yourself. Some of us here are professional scientists in fields far far more rigorous than climate science and cousins, and use statistical tools daily. And the non-science in your videos is at the level of Monty Python.
hvtek 1 year ago
@hvtek
better write to the national academy. They apparently are deluded as well.
We await your publication, and Nobel.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 A camel is a horse designed by committee, my friend. Science is not decided by consensus in committees or academies. But it doesn't mean it didn't happen before to achieve certain goals, like in Soviet Russia (Lysenko's genetics) and Nazi Germany (ostracization of Jewish science). But if you need the opinion of a certain group of people with similar political ideals to make up your mind about a piece of (not even rigorous) science, then you're very gullible!
hvtek 1 year ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
"The Sahara Desert goes from 120 degrees in the daytime to below freezing at night. In the summer time. "
BS -- NO WHERE in the Sahara desert does it go from 120 degrees in the daytime to below freezing at night. In the summer time.
You people are LIARS
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Even Wikipedia gets this one right:
"The Sahara desert generally features an arid climate. The Sahara desert is one of the hottest regions of the world, with a mean temperature over 30 °C (86 °F). Variations may also be huge, from over 50 °C (120 °F) during the day during the summer, to temperatures below 0 at night in summer ."
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Sahara_Desert_(ecoregion)
Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself?
AmericaSpeakOut1 1 year ago
More alarmism here... Greenman has failed to account for why we haven't had a Pacific typhoon season with more than 30 storms since 1996. In the 1960s, a cooler period than today, the median average of the West Pacific (typhoon) basin was well over 30 storms. Yet, he would keep on trying to appeal to American pathos by mentioning the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and suffering in Katrina.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez It's not even alarmism. Alarmism is spread by those who benefit from it. He's just a xerox machine with no scientific soul. A 'joiner', as Penn&Teller would put it, and who would sign a petition for the ban of dihydrogen monoxide.
hvtek 1 year ago
@hvtek LMAO! Greenman wants to say that global warming has caused extinctions before, but failed to mention that those warming events were extreme warming events that not even 200 nuclear bombs could produce (Siberian traps, giant asteroid collisions, etc.). He also failed to explain differing opinion on climate impact on agriculture by stating: "NASA says it's bad", without mentioning that the IPCC stated with medium confidence that a 3 degree temperature increase may increase food production.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
current human output of co2 is 100 times natural volcanic activity. Mankind has become a geological force, and is changing co2 levels at a rate 10,000 times faster than normal background of the last 50 million years.
sorry, that's significant, and anyone can google
permian extinction
to see why.
re food production-- the study mentioned is more current than IPCC data.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 So you're saying that a more current study on food production is automatically going to be more accurate? As for the Permian extinction, there is no evidence that CO2 was the sole culprit or even a culprit. General consensus was that methane was the biggest culprit. I really have to wonder why you make almost no mention ever of methane and instead choose the simplified bogeyman CO2 model.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
"there is no evidence that CO2 was the sole culprit or even a culprit. General consensus was that methane was the biggest culprit."
Warming from an increase in ANY warming gas cause a complementary warming from other gasses.
CO2 will cause an increase in warming from water vapor and methane
Methane will cause an increase in warming from water vapor and CO2 etc
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale No. There is no hard evidence that supports that over any other hypothesis about the Permian extinction. Warming definitely CAN create positive feedback by increasing other greenhouse gasses, but there is no hard evidence that CO2 warming caused methane to flow out of the ocean or the Siberian traps during the Permian extinction. Also one has to take into account that the warming during the Permian extinction was likely far more catastrophic than even Al Gore's doomsday scenarios.
mrdrfez 1 year ago