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...
Calling man-made destruction of Earth 'global warming' or 'climate change' is as inflammatory 2day as saying the Earth was round & not the center of the universe back in the 'dark ages' of early Christian rule. Today, it's the moneyed polluters denying the scientific, obvious facts. So call it pollution & TAX EM LARGE~!
.......... while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
The usual crap that has been sprouted for the last 100 years.....seals finding the water too hot...lol. Its now the polar bears dont like warmer weather lol.
an intriguing headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued,
@arsjth that petition is an amateurish attempt to say the least, lol do u even know what qualifications u need in order 2 sign that petition? NOT A LOT.
@greenman3610 well technically the more "qualified" positions like physicists and biologists do add more to the false ethos. But still, do physicists and biologists even study global warming? Physicists r more likely to study sub-atomic molecules and astrodynamics. Biologists r more likely to study genetics and microorganisms. Do any of them study stuff that's even remotely related to climate change? No.
@greenman3610 Their simply taking a bunch of people with somewhat good credibility and relating their opinion 2 something that they've never have experience in. My dad has a P.H.D. in Nuclear Physics which means he can sign that petition. And with his P.H.D. he givs a lot of credibility 2 that petition because people automatically think "oh he has a P.H.D, he must really know wat he's talking about!" My dad does not know A THING about global warming because he DIDN'T STUDY IT.
major sea ice melting....warning to every one that they could be flooded soon. well that is not happening so what is the problem? nil. The fact that there is ice means there was once not ice...unless you think ice formed in the big bang?
SO no ice will be no problem and no ice is a condition that cant be linked to man or co2. clearly its a natural condition that has occured before in the history of the planet.
But you are welcome to pay more tax to try & prevent it. but i wont be
@phantomscolts2 Nuclear power plants are extremely safe, when not maintained by idiots (as in Chernobyl), and unless people disregard protocol (as in Fukushima) (even so, they're safe unless a separate disaster strikes). As it stands, most nuclear power plants will survive the utter destruction of the land around them.
But when did this become a discussion about the safety of nuclear power generators?
@phantomscolts2 A scientific theory is better than fact. Global warming is a theory, string theory is not. Nuke theory (if that's what you want to call it) is about as likely as creationism.
The data is not precise enough to correlate to specific events - it's climate, not weather. To state the theory fits the timeline is as much verification as saying me going on vacation in Japan caused me to grow a beard.
@phantomscolts2 Like I said, the sun emits four times as much electromagnetic radiation with the same effect as an EMP every second. EVERY TEN MINUTES, the sun has as much effect to the Earth's magnetic field as all the nuclear tests in the history of mankind.
To even request funding for research for this would get you laughed out of the scientific community.
To make it more clear: You are wrong. Science says so. Period.
@phantomscolts2 The EMP of a nuclear detonation is completely ignorable on geological scales. The SUN sends out more electric radiation, and more erratically, per second, than a nuclear weapon. The 1859 solar storm sent out thousands of times more powerful EMP-like radiation than the entire nuclear arsenal of our planet.
Mankind is as close to affecting the Earth's magnetic field as it is to guiding the movement of tectonic plates because of all the cars.
We're all frogs sitting in a slowly warming pot of water. When we realize its much too hot to survive, it'l be too late. Live with it folks. Changes are coming. We're going to have to adapt. That is, less money, less luxuries. Deal with it. I'm going back to subsistance farming and the woods. See ya.
@chuckbyf1 Have you any idea how fast technological advancement is going? Before the 1950s, we couldn't feed 3 billion people, but now we can manage 7 million with barely any more land area. And that's before genetic modification and fusion power. Of course we need to actually invent those things (which requires action, which this video calls for), but I'm certain we'll live through it, with better technology and more luxuries than we have now. In short, screw you, I'm an optimist.
I am going to chuckle a bit as a roast in the toasty world of the future as I think of all those climate change deniers who would be feeling like complete tools...
Why are anti environmentalists trying to kill us all. Even if there was no global warming, shouldn't skyrocketing cancer and asthma numbers raise concern about air
Give up. The science is all in and the debate is over. Global warming was an intentional scam, based on, not just bad science but deliberate fraud. But then you knew that already didn't you. After all your whole career depends on hyping up the scam.
Your graphs charts, and maps are all tainted.
And NASA is as involved in the scam as the UN IPCC.
Give up. The science is all in the debate is over. Global warming was an intentional scam, based on, not just bad science but deliberate fraud. But then you knew that already didn't you. After all your whole career depends on hyping up the scam.
Your graphs charts, and maps are all tainted.
And NASA is as involved in the scam as the UN IPCC.
Give up. The science is all in the debate is over. Global warming was an intentional scam, based on, not just bad science but deliberate fraud. But then you knew that already didn't you. After all your whole career depends on hyping up the scam.
A better use of our energies is getting back to talking about the population bomb, of which there is no doubt whatsoever. FACT : Population always rises to the limit of the available food supply. ALWAYS! Somehow this gets overlooked. As humans we have to ability to limit population by choice. If we don't nature will do it for us, and I can assure you we won't like it if that happens.
When the ice cap at the south pole melts all those people who live in most of the most populated cities will have to move to higher ground. The willful ignorance of climate change deniers is fine as long as they don't vote, or share their wrong ideas.
Ah, but sadly they do. However the die has been cast and the ball is rolling over the edge of the cliff. There is no going back, we need to adjust to a warmer planet.
Guilty as charged, and I don't know if the antarctic ice will all melt. It is however one to two miles thick and covers a entire continent. I did the math because i didn't believe something I had come across. It checked out, sea level rise of something like sixty meters if all the ice melted. And it doesn't even have to melt, it just has to fall into the oecan. Like ice cubes in a drink, it raises the level. Check it out and tell me what you think. :)
So, we were in an ice age , 25 000 to 11000+ years ago. Humans were like now, bacteria in scale. And you say we are affectings global warming? If the world were a spher of 12m in dia, then the area we could make a living in is about a 3mm skin over the earth. In the mind of "intelligent "bacteria"', that is absurb. A globe in a total +_ 273 degrees vavuum cannot dominate the internal Energy plus the Solar addition., Humanscontribute noting because we are nothing
for the US Geological survey page on volcanoes and climate. quote:
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, .., release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes
I especially like the fact that they demonstrate that this specific mass extinction was caused by a massive volcanic event, NOT by CO2 itself.
At around 6:00, he says they attribute the warming to CO2 because "we can't figure out how else to get it" WOW, ignorance isn't a reason to link anything. & what "other things"?
Making cute jokes using Jurassic Park clips won't win you any points either.
If the world's best scientists can't find any possible reason for the planet to heat up other than the well known radiative properties of green house gases, that's pretty telling.
Of course, it could have been fairy dust, or flying saucers, but that's simply not as likely. My bias is to go with the experts. You obviously have another idea.
As they say, there is no weather data, no climate data that does not confirm the convictions of the global warming hoaxes.
Same deal with creationists. It is religion based on faith. Talk about science with global warming hoaxers or creationists, and it is just ammo in fight for them. They have no real standards of science.
We just discover that there was a big deciduous forest, witch are trees with leaves, not even cold enough for conifers in Ellesmere Island, Canada only 2 millions year ago. This island is well beyond the artic circle, that latitude is about 1000 Km north of the northern part of Norway. Let's go back to this warm weather.
You may ask, what about the tropical forest at the equator, 2 millions years ago? Apparently it didn't feel a thing...
By experts, you're telling us these complete faceless strangers who's identities and credentials we can not research and confirm have told us something.
So with less than 100 years of scientifically collected data, you're dictating global warming as fact. It's literally a faith based belief system no different than believing in god or the tooth fairy.
There are no facts here, simply opinions based on the way an individual's mind understands the minuscule data.
@RomeoSOF2 Romeo listen man be reasonable why would a scientist study 10+ years in a degree just to make a lie. Like quantum mechanics people dond't agree . They can be refuted but thanks to them we managed to create computers and explain the space materiel of the universe.
@greenman3610 you need to take note of the reliability of this information and that much of the claims presented as facts, are based on notions and theories that are glazed over so they're unnoticed or forgotten.
Global warming is pure propaganda and if you don't like that I disagree with you, go move to a communist nation because people like you are merely endorsing the movement to destroy the freedom of our Republic. The environment has nothing to do with the motives behind this movement.
@TurboDally the evidence isn't factual, it's based on opinion and guesswork.
If you were half as informed as you believe, you would understand that the claimed facts are based on assumed factors meaning, X and Y are being given values that suits the theory so the theory can then be presented as fact.
That is absolutely faith, not scientific method.
It's assumed that magnetite polarizes and based on that assumption, the claim is the magnetosphere is decaying which is presented as fact.
@ZDWario what does it take for sheep like you to look over the fence and see the other side?
You are going by a one sided story which is all corporatism allows. It teaches these experts to produce a single sided story because it's the CORPORATE education system.
The Federal Government is that corporation, it's not even an actual government, did you know this?
It's a corporation created by the constitution and for it to survive, created a system of definitive authority which includes education
You are trying ANY ANGLE YOU CAN, to get me to adhere at least the slightest bit to this CLAIM being true. Never going to happen. There is no time frame and this proves you are a sheep. I do not believe it.
I do not believe in your god, I never will.
Your god is corporate imperialism.
You live in a fear they create and educate you in such a way that you believe it to be the absolute truth.
You never consider there is another story Chicken Little.
@JonDeth Lol you can believe whatever you want, thats not what I'm about. I was just curious because you are the one who said "less than 100 years of scientifically collected data." Putting a time frame is irrelevant if you won't believe it anyway.
@ZDWario the fact you aren't grasping is that when the data was not collected within the lifetime of modern scientists making these claims, it's not direct, reliable evidence. It's purely theoretical and deceptive to claim you knew the weather in March of 1754 because of some core samples.
Meanwhile we can reference centuries of farmer's almanacs showing a lot of highs and lows which contradict the claims and predictions of global warming. There's a lot of other evidence being disregarded.
@greenman3610 the bible doesn't have dozens and dozens of constituent authors to commemorate the weather on a daily basis. When you refer to a farmer's almanac, you can validate the existence of the people that wrote them and compare their observations.
It's not faith based, meanwhile these core samples are faith based. There's no relying on the variables of the eco system when no humans witnessed and recorded it for future generations
But when 200 farmers recorded the same thing, it's reliable
We know how far away the stars are, not because astronauts have visited them, but because the laws of physics are true throughout the universe.
Just so, we know that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, not because peasant farmers observed them, or rode on them, but because the laws of physics and chemistry help us follow the clues.
Just so, we can pick up the clues of paleo climate. To argue otherwise is to argue that we throw out the modern understanding of nature.
Read rather than listen to what you are told. The dating system is based on theory but the readings produced by the equipment is considered fact. You have an awful lot to learn about science as a whole and the sad truth that almost all of it is a faith based system but because that science produces technology that works, any findings associated with that technology therefore must be facts but you are wrong.
Carbon dating is very very deceptive & unreliable
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
Would there be something scientifically wrong about using artificial cooling methods to keep the ice from melting as fast and using the sun to power this?
@Angel503z There have been various artificial cooling methods proposed from cloud seeding to plankton farms and an entire host of others. Unfortunately a lot of them have drawbacks as well. Look up geoengineering.
We can get off most fossil fuels within 20-30 years if we put a concerted effort into solar, wind, fuel cells, electric cars, algae biofuels, and new nuclear technologies.
We also need a new national smart power grid to move electricity.
We can use a carbon tax on fossil fuels to pay for it, and it'll provide millions of JOBS that can't be exported.
Europe & China are ALREADY doing this and America will lose out in future green energy technologies, if we don't.
Some new fuel cells & wind are ALREADY competitive. Solar will be economically competitive within 5 years. However, we need to build a SMART power grid to get wind power from Midwest farms to the cities, and so we can put solar panels on our roofs and sell unused power back to the grid.
New algae biofuels can suck up CO2 coming out of fossil fuel plants & I just read about a new nanotechnology battery made from PAPER.
Stop oil subsidies. We must wrest Congress from the oil & gas lobbies!
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
-- NOAA, May, 2010
6/1/10, Arctic sea ice LOWEST May on satellite record –NSIDC
What do we need Arctic ice for anyway? Polar bears evolved from Canada and Russia, penguins feel the cold, huddle together for warmth and regularly die because they're too silly to migrate far enough South. The Arctic has been many degrees warmer in the past and the pesky polar bears still blow raspberries in greenie faces by not just surviving, but EVOLVING into their current form since the polar caps arrived in the late Jurassic.
It's simple. If we do something about it and there is no climat change. Big deal, the planet will just be better. But if we do something and there is climat change, the futur of your childrens, childrens, childrens will be saved.
The average Arctic sea ice volume for May 2010 was 19,000 cubic kilometers (4,600 cubic miles), the lowest May volume over the 1979 to 2010 period. May 2010 volume was 42% below the 1979 maximum, and 32% below the 1979 to 2009 May average.
@goog2k this is typical cherry picking of data to make an incredibly short historical record sound like the end of the world for the Arctic. Show me ice extents for a couple of ten thousand years and then you have you might have a point to make. 30 years of data does not make a historical record when you're talking about a planet that has had an arctic ice cap (on and off) for millions of years.
Anyone who is will to look at the facts May 2010 will understand that the opening gambit of this video is WRONG. Arctic Ice extent has increased and the thickness of the ice is greater than in 2008.
@greenman3610 I trust the U.S Navy since they have been monitoring arctic ice depth and extent because of their specific need to *know* the facts. You don't want nuclear subs running into thick ice that NOAA or NSIDC says isn't there (but is). So check out nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/ instead and do the heavy lifting there.
@mmimic34 - The point that was made in this video was that the ice was becoming thinner and there was less of it but the fact is that in 2009/2010 the ice recovered and exceeded previous low extents. This cycle repeats every year and the historical record for arctic ice extent is simply too short to prove that any kind of global warming (caused by man or not) is making the ice "shrink" or "thin". If the down trend was to continue for decades or hundreds of years then maybe you might have point.
@greenman3610 ok, but i have a good question for you: do you know why we are not taking action to prevent the catastrophic change in our planet? Do you know why we will let it happen and destroy us?
@greenman3610 you have got to be kidding me! "legislators"? You think politicians are going to take care of this?! They don`t give a fuck. They own the means of productions and they will keep things like this till the very end. you don`t seem to understand my question. We are right now on the verge of extinction. I asked you if you know why we will let extinction takes place.
Ok, then keep talking to your fellow trolls on the internet, and see how much good that does. I'm doing what I can. Why don't you look in the mirror and ask what you can do?
@greenman3610 Relax, i`m trying to raise a point here. I`m not being ironic. I know, just like you, that we are living our the last years. Things won`t change and we are right now crossing the point of no return. I have something to tell you, if you care to listen. There`s something holding us prisoner, something you are not aware of.
"OK, anyone that wants to can do what I do. Go to the National Snow and Ice Data center. google nsidc Daily image update"
It's pretty lame of greenman pushing a coarse chart of a few months moving INTO the Arctic summer to prove his hype-othesis of AGW. The Arctic is recovering and the Antarctic never melted at all:
ww w. appinsys. com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_PolarIceCaps. htm
The scare tactics never cease to amaze me. Naturally, this video is out of date and severely lacks truth.
The suns irradiance certainly isn't flat now - April 2010. And could that be since we're probably about to enter a new Dalton Minimum? If yes, then all this blather about human induced global warming is going to be disproven - not by us (us evil denialists) - but by nature itself. So pull up a chair and enjoy the view.
we are coming out of the lowest period of solar activity in a century, and
last year was the second warmest on the record, the early months of this year have been the warmest on record as well. so you're right, something is being
in 2008 the sun broke several records for low activity. 50 year low for solar wind pressure and a 12 year low for solar irradiance a 55 year low for solar radio emissions. Actually, solar activity has been high only since around the 1950's and onward - not a century as you state. Oh and by the way, temperatures were much cooler from 1920 through to 1940's when the sun also was much less active. Now, what do you say about the dramatic solar minimum that we're now experiencing or do you ignore it?
I did not state solar activity has been high for a century. I said we are in the lowest solar cycle in a century. Since we are in a historically low cycle, the current warming is inconsistent with the "sun is doing it" nonsense. 2009 was the second warmest year on the instrumental record, during a historically low cycle. 2010 will probably break records for warming, while we are still coming out of the solar low. There is no support for the solar warming idea.
But surely you can concede that the sun is now most likely entering a new Dalton Minimum and that most likely global temperatures will be dropping for the next few decades. Due to lag in the heat storing capacity of the earth, you should not be expecting it to drop immediately nor dramatically. But even NASA admits that four of the warmest years on record are from the 1930's. So where is the dramatic warming that you're trying to scare everybody with?
So many canards. The "1930s" canard, of course, relates only to contiguous US, not global temps. You seem to have more knowledge of what the sun is going to do than our best solar physicists. Nasa has noted that even if the sun were to go into a historic prolonged minimum, greenhouse forcing would more than overcome that in 7 years. the link is data[dot]giss[dot]nasa[dot]gov / gistemp/2008/ which for some reason is not responding right now.
The Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minimums all coincided with synchronization of the greater planets and their relation to the sun. Our current Solar Minimum is in sync with the same angular momentum. And even you can admit I'm sure that all of those minimums correlated with lower global temperatures. Let's see how this new long minimum works out for Earth temperatures. Maybe you're dedication to CO2 as the primary forcing is just plain flat wrong. NASA being wrong is no canard.
without any citations or rationale, your prognostication is astrology. The forcing due to CO2 is known, measurable, documented, and quantified. Maunder minimum or no, we will blow by any solar down turn in a few years. That's what the experts are telling us. I'm just reporting it. sorry, but fact, sourcing and citation are the currency here.
citation - every solar physicist is well aware that numerous studies have found correlations of 0.6 to 0.8 between solar activity and climate on every time scale, from the decadal to the millennial, going back 500 million years. For the longer time scales, see Shaviv and Veizer 2003: They said: We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations.
Since about 1950 we've been in a solar grand max., now ended. Which means that a large number of scientists have attributed the slight global temperature increase of this period as being caused by the solar maximum and now that we're most likely entering a new Dalton type solar cycle with particularly low sun spot count and very low iradiance etc, we will see global temps. steadily decline. CO2 got the blame. Why? because alarmists can't t make political hay (thus grants) out of the Sun.
Ok, so, since this is the lowest solar cycle in 100 years, and we are entering perhaps the warmest year on the instrumental record, you'll see your error, correct?
There is a lag between the solar cycles and the Earth's global temp. so don't expect this year to turn into a freezer overnight. But, surely you have looked at the direct correlation between solar cycles and the global temps? There is a mountain of evidence out there that correlates (does not prove causation) the solar cycles to the global temp. And we just ended a solar maximum. It could be that CO2 has little to nothing to do with global temps. Now let's give it a few years and watch the drop.
Patrioticduo, if in several years the global temp continues to rise, will you then consider the possibility of anthropogenic global warming and perhaps join the fight against it?
@NoAntecessor - only if the science was able to clearly demonstrate and prove a causal relationship between CO2 and the increase in temperature. By the way, the global temperature has been flat for some years now. And there is increasing evidence that we're entering a new cooling period. So the next decade or two should be very interesting indeed.
@NoAntecessor Well, the flip side is that man may not have anything to do with the warming of last half of last century and you want to change the fundamentals of the entire human existence because it *might* be caused by CO2 - great!
@patrioticduo I've been debating that twat noantecessors on another video. Don't bother. He is the very definition of a know-it-all ignoramus. he doesn't even check his OWN damn sources before running his mouth. he posts sources which contradict his own claims! What all these concerned "environmentalists" don't seem to grasp is the CO2 isn't even a pollutant. It's necessary for life as we know it.
"Ok, so, since this is the lowest solar cycle in 100 years, and we are entering perhaps the warmest year on the instrumental record"
Greenman thinks he's right somehow, but we know that due to the last 10-12 years of low solar activity, and no warming at all, the oceans would be soaking up LESS heat and the PDO has moved to a cold shift:
ww w. drroyspencer. com/library/pics/PDO-index-since-1900. jpg
Hot, cold, hot.. uh-oh..
Instrumental record? The Earth is older than that..
Ice thickness & area means little without clear causation. So what, if global temperature increases or declines, either direction is a Natural phenomenon, that no human being should be forced to accommodate for!
Now naive indoctrinated girls are your pawns.
Overpeck focuses on only 30 years of info has having meaning His narrowness is mind-boggling. Over geological time, Earth is already in an Ice Age,
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
by Julienne Stroeve (National Snow and Ice Data Center) and 4 others
ABSTRACT:
"From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply. All models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report show declining Arctic ice cover over this period. However ..."
"... depending on the time window for analysis, none or very few individual model simulations show trends comparable to observations. If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhouse gas (GHG) loading, 33-38% of the observed September trend from 1953-2006 is externally forced, growing to 47-57% from 1979-2006. Given evidence that as a group, the models underestimate the GHG response, the externally forced component may be larger."
TO BE OR NOT TO BE, FOR THAT IS THE QUESTION DEAR ROMEO, even if we kill ourselves off, what's to say thats not the natural progression, of which came first - the egg or the being ? (MEANWHILE BUY SHARES IN EVERY Co THAT AL GORE INVESTS INTO !)
Here's fresh research about another ominous positive feedback for global warming.
dx. doi. org/10.1126/science.1186151
Science | 5 February 2010
Vol. 327 | no. 5966 | pp. 654-655
Iron and the Carbon Pump
by William G. Sunda (Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, NOAA)
"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by 38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is ..."
"... projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2."
Effect of Ocean Acidification on Iron Availability to Marine Phytoplankton
by Dalin Shi (Princeton University) and 3 others
ABSTRACT:
"The acidification caused by the dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ocean changes the chemistry and hence the bioavailability of iron (Fe), a limiting nutrient in large oceanic regions. Here, we show that the bioavailability of dissolved Fe ..."
"... may decline because of ocean acidification. Acidification of media containing various Fe compounds decreases the Fe uptake rate of diatoms and coccolithophores to an extent predicted by the changes in Fe chemistry. A slower Fe uptake ... is also seen in experiments with Atlantic surface water. The Fe requirement ... remains unchanged with increasing CO2. The ongoing acidification of seawater is likely to increase the Fe stress of phytoplankton populations in some areas of the ocean."
Very scientific fresh research, I must say. the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters MAY (or may not) decrease the biological availability of iron, which COULD (or could not) in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2." the bioavailability of dissolved Fe MAY (or may not)decline because of ocean acidification. The ongoing acidification of seawater is LIKELY (or not) to increase the Fe stress of phytoplankton populations" Whoever wrote that--->
Right ... scientists tend to be cautious about making sweeping conclusions. Applying some intelligence would then make us realize how profound it is that scientists have stated that probability of global warming being caused by humans is over 90 percent (or maybe it's up to 95 percent now). See the IPCC language for details.
Perhaps your brand of policy driven scientists do, which in itself is a reason you should listen to the other side who can rule out most if not all causes of alarmism.
Yours is a typical example old school soviet science policy, by amassing of evidence to show the correctness of the concept as a substitute for causal proof;
Now go on, accuse me of being the enemy of the truth, coz thats what they did before shipping people off to the gulags.
Chairman Pachauri has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed material to make its case. By now we know this isn't remotely true. Despite protests from expert reviewers, 42% of the documents cited in one chapter of the climate bible are grey literature rather than peer-reviewed. There is no guarantee that even research papers published in peer-reviewed journals are correct, as climatologist Phil Jones recently testified, no peer reviewers even asked to see his raw data.
CO2 in the Jurassic was some 10-15x higher than today, where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, proof of which are those same pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish from that era that keep popping up in our museums.
Ocean PH is 7.9-8.3, which is ALKALINE - and will remain so as it always brushes up against alkaline rocks.
Very high CO2 many times in the past and no runaway greenhouse or fabled "tipping point", ever!
Ocean acidification refers to the decreasing pH of the oceans. But of course you already knew that. You're just here to sow confusion and doubt on behalf of your allies in the oil industry.
.
You have no credible evidence to support any of your a-scientific views here. None. So I suggest you run back to the welcoming arms of Fox News and Glenn Beck.
"The first thing that I learned is that when you go from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water becomes less and less alkaline. So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska. You didn’t notice the change from the “acidification”? You didn’t have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity?"
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
I'm not a climate denier I'm a scam denier and I certainly consider Global Warming due to CO2 to be a total scam.
The most abundant and strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor.
These idiots have no right to speak for "scientists" in general.
This scam is political in nature. An attempt to impose upon society a paranoid doomsday mindset, heavy taxes and global government.
It will probably happen, and we can't prevent it.
But we don't have to believe the lies.
We can keep our minds free.
Txsray 7 months ago
@Txsray
water vapor nonsense treated here:
watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs
greenman3610 7 months ago
@Txsray it is a scam and a lie..panic for profit boondoggle of the highest order for monopoly and control of consumer goods and natural resourse ....
phantomscolts1 1 week ago
Calling man-made destruction of Earth 'global warming' or 'climate change' is as inflammatory 2day as saying the Earth was round & not the center of the universe back in the 'dark ages' of early Christian rule. Today, it's the moneyed polluters denying the scientific, obvious facts. So call it pollution & TAX EM LARGE~!
JamesKaify 8 months ago
Comment removed
JamesKaify 8 months ago
.......... while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
The usual crap that has been sprouted for the last 100 years.....seals finding the water too hot...lol. Its now the polar bears dont like warmer weather lol.
its all just too funny.
arsjth 9 months ago
an intriguing headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued,
arsjth 9 months ago
As usual the lies of the Alarmists ...."over whelming majority of working scientists"....lol.
31487 have signed a petition refuting the beliefs of these people. an overwhelming majority must be at least 650,000 a ratio of 95/5
please supply the names of the 650,000 scientists in the USA?
failure to do so would mean you are talking rubbish and not fact.
not that this surprises me.
arsjth 9 months ago
@arsjth
for my vid on the "32000 scientists" - see
watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
greenman3610 8 months ago
@arsjth that petition is an amateurish attempt to say the least, lol do u even know what qualifications u need in order 2 sign that petition? NOT A LOT.
wangsta25 7 months ago
@wangsta25
doesn't take much to fool a denier.
in their world, a podiatrist, veterinarian, or chiropractor is a "climate scientist'.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 well technically the more "qualified" positions like physicists and biologists do add more to the false ethos. But still, do physicists and biologists even study global warming? Physicists r more likely to study sub-atomic molecules and astrodynamics. Biologists r more likely to study genetics and microorganisms. Do any of them study stuff that's even remotely related to climate change? No.
wangsta25 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Their simply taking a bunch of people with somewhat good credibility and relating their opinion 2 something that they've never have experience in. My dad has a P.H.D. in Nuclear Physics which means he can sign that petition. And with his P.H.D. he givs a lot of credibility 2 that petition because people automatically think "oh he has a P.H.D, he must really know wat he's talking about!" My dad does not know A THING about global warming because he DIDN'T STUDY IT.
wangsta25 7 months ago
@wangsta25
in other words, just cuz your Dad is a "Doctor", doesn't mean I'd want him doing brain surgery on my kid.
greenman3610 7 months ago
Geepers who knew that ice melted...or that it formed by itself?
surely it must be man doing it.
losers who cant contribute anything positive and productive to society become scientists who study ice.
They always need a good scare campaign to sucker money out of governments.
let me guess greensuperman you are a scientist with his snout in the trough of govt money????
arsjth 9 months ago
@arsjth
well, no.
Let me guess, are you a half educated Fox news troglodyte that gets his climate science from the voices in Glenn Beck's head?
greenman3610 8 months ago
@phantomscolts2 LOL!!!
What an idiotic imbecile.
Please go crawl back into your hole.
goog2k 9 months ago
all that melted ice and no sea levels swamping civilization...amazing!
perhaps you could go and get a job now and earn a wage in the real world?
arsjth 9 months ago
@arsjth
please review 4th grade science.
ice floating on water, when melted, does not raise the level.
It's the ice on land, which is melting, which is and will continue to raise the level.
greenman3610 9 months ago 2
@greenman3610
sure.....but no swamping of civilization...true?
where are the climate refugees?
Global cooling is so enjoyable its like debunking psychics and clairvoyants.....its just so dam easy...
oh oh its climate change not global warming....lol.
What is the null-hypothesis?
What is the conditions by which you would confirm that Global warming is not going to destroy the planet?
if you can give it then you have proven to yourself that you have moved away from science to faith.
arsjth 9 months ago
@greenman3610
major sea ice melting....warning to every one that they could be flooded soon. well that is not happening so what is the problem? nil. The fact that there is ice means there was once not ice...unless you think ice formed in the big bang?
SO no ice will be no problem and no ice is a condition that cant be linked to man or co2. clearly its a natural condition that has occured before in the history of the planet.
But you are welcome to pay more tax to try & prevent it. but i wont be
arsjth 9 months ago
@phantomscolts2 Nuclear power plants are extremely safe, when not maintained by idiots (as in Chernobyl), and unless people disregard protocol (as in Fukushima) (even so, they're safe unless a separate disaster strikes). As it stands, most nuclear power plants will survive the utter destruction of the land around them.
But when did this become a discussion about the safety of nuclear power generators?
philip1201 9 months ago
@phantomscolts2 Oh well, thank you for clearing that up for us. LOL!!!!
What a total idiot.
So, you said exactly NOTHING!!! What does your comment have to do with Climate change???
This isn't philosophy class, dude. It's science. Please get back to us when you actually have some factual EVIDENCE to report.
goog2k 9 months ago
@phantomscolts2 A scientific theory is better than fact. Global warming is a theory, string theory is not. Nuke theory (if that's what you want to call it) is about as likely as creationism.
The data is not precise enough to correlate to specific events - it's climate, not weather. To state the theory fits the timeline is as much verification as saying me going on vacation in Japan caused me to grow a beard.
philip1201 9 months ago
@phantomscolts2 Like I said, the sun emits four times as much electromagnetic radiation with the same effect as an EMP every second. EVERY TEN MINUTES, the sun has as much effect to the Earth's magnetic field as all the nuclear tests in the history of mankind.
To even request funding for research for this would get you laughed out of the scientific community.
To make it more clear: You are wrong. Science says so. Period.
philip1201 9 months ago
@phantomscolts2 The EMP of a nuclear detonation is completely ignorable on geological scales. The SUN sends out more electric radiation, and more erratically, per second, than a nuclear weapon. The 1859 solar storm sent out thousands of times more powerful EMP-like radiation than the entire nuclear arsenal of our planet.
Mankind is as close to affecting the Earth's magnetic field as it is to guiding the movement of tectonic plates because of all the cars.
philip1201 9 months ago
This ain't no hoax. It's a perfectly logical explanation.
TheYTPNetwork 9 months ago
We're all frogs sitting in a slowly warming pot of water. When we realize its much too hot to survive, it'l be too late. Live with it folks. Changes are coming. We're going to have to adapt. That is, less money, less luxuries. Deal with it. I'm going back to subsistance farming and the woods. See ya.
chuckbyf1 10 months ago
@chuckbyf1 Have you any idea how fast technological advancement is going? Before the 1950s, we couldn't feed 3 billion people, but now we can manage 7 million with barely any more land area. And that's before genetic modification and fusion power. Of course we need to actually invent those things (which requires action, which this video calls for), but I'm certain we'll live through it, with better technology and more luxuries than we have now. In short, screw you, I'm an optimist.
philip1201 9 months ago
@phantomscolts2 Thank you. You brilliantly confirmed all of our worst suspicions. What a troll.
Would you like to offer ANY documented scientific evidence, whatsoever, for your ridiculous assertions? Duhh???
I thought not.
LOL!!!!
goog2k 10 months ago
@phantomscolts2 LOL!!! Don't have a clue what you're talking about, or what it has to do with climate change.
If you can make a coherent statement, please get back to us.
goog2k 10 months ago
I am going to chuckle a bit as a roast in the toasty world of the future as I think of all those climate change deniers who would be feeling like complete tools...
piginasack 11 months ago
Why are anti environmentalists trying to kill us all. Even if there was no global warming, shouldn't skyrocketing cancer and asthma numbers raise concern about air
Bill1275w 11 months ago
Give up. The science is all in and the debate is over. Global warming was an intentional scam, based on, not just bad science but deliberate fraud. But then you knew that already didn't you. After all your whole career depends on hyping up the scam.
Your graphs charts, and maps are all tainted.
And NASA is as involved in the scam as the UN IPCC.
txsray1 11 months ago
@txsray1
If you're going to spam my threads, the least you could do is offer at least one fact, citation, or scrap of evidence for your diatribe.
Note: The voices in Glenn Beck's head are not peer reviewed.
greenman3610 11 months ago
Give up. The science is all in the debate is over. Global warming was an intentional scam, based on, not just bad science but deliberate fraud. But then you knew that already didn't you. After all your whole career depends on hyping up the scam.
Your graphs charts, and maps are all tainted.
And NASA is as involved in the scam as the UN IPCC.
txsray1 11 months ago
Give up. The science is all in the debate is over. Global warming was an intentional scam, based on, not just bad science but deliberate fraud. But then you knew that already didn't you. After all your whole career depends on hyping up the scam.
Your graphs charts, and maps are all tainted.
txsray1 11 months ago
Its no wonder the North poles melting. All the greens are burning methane there..... :|
STOPTHEEU 11 months ago
A better use of our energies is getting back to talking about the population bomb, of which there is no doubt whatsoever. FACT : Population always rises to the limit of the available food supply. ALWAYS! Somehow this gets overlooked. As humans we have to ability to limit population by choice. If we don't nature will do it for us, and I can assure you we won't like it if that happens.
wespeakforthetrees 1 year ago
@wespeakforthetrees
I agree with you on that point though... a 50% increase in the global human population in under only 100 years?
Ouch! Now that isn't sustainable.
But its NOT by adopting "green technologies" that we will achieve proper population growth/stabilization.
Rather through the modernization and elevation of standards of living/quality of life.
It is an undeniable fact that the birth rate is significantly lower in developed countries and even more so with higher education.
toulouse666 11 months ago
When the ice cap at the south pole melts all those people who live in most of the most populated cities will have to move to higher ground. The willful ignorance of climate change deniers is fine as long as they don't vote, or share their wrong ideas.
Ah, but sadly they do. However the die has been cast and the ball is rolling over the edge of the cliff. There is no going back, we need to adjust to a warmer planet.
continued
wespeakforthetrees 1 year ago
@wespeakforthetrees
Fear mongering.
toulouse666 11 months ago
@toulouse666
Guilty as charged, and I don't know if the antarctic ice will all melt. It is however one to two miles thick and covers a entire continent. I did the math because i didn't believe something I had come across. It checked out, sea level rise of something like sixty meters if all the ice melted. And it doesn't even have to melt, it just has to fall into the oecan. Like ice cubes in a drink, it raises the level. Check it out and tell me what you think. :)
wespeakforthetrees 11 months ago
I'm wonder if a couple thousand nuke test could do this? seem to me maybe? if so the fire in Russia maybe finish it.
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 1 year ago
So, we were in an ice age , 25 000 to 11000+ years ago. Humans were like now, bacteria in scale. And you say we are affectings global warming? If the world were a spher of 12m in dia, then the area we could make a living in is about a 3mm skin over the earth. In the mind of "intelligent "bacteria"', that is absurb. A globe in a total +_ 273 degrees vavuum cannot dominate the internal Energy plus the Solar addition., Humanscontribute noting because we are nothing
wwturbine 1 year ago
@wwturbine
google
usgs volcanic gases climate
for the US Geological survey page on volcanoes and climate. quote:
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, .., release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 When did they get around to doing the survey of 'submarine' volcanoes?
Love that, 'submarine' volcanoes!
356pla 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Why would anyone want to "google" something that only seems to support one of your viewpoints?
This doesn't address any of the points/arguments wwturbine has put forth.
You have made this tired argument in more than few of your videos and repeating it here again won't convince anyone else.
You never even mention the fact that CO2 is utterly insignificant when compared with methane gas and even worse water vapor.
toulouse666 11 months ago
Liberals are alarmed by less ice?
WTF?
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
because it's a feedback effect that will lead to mass extinctions. that's all.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
More heat, more people.
Less heat, fewer people.
Polar bears did fine in years when there was no pack ice.
The thing really threatened with extinction is liberal careers based on global warming hoax.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@greenman3610
At times the earth had NO ice and lots more life.
What planet are you liberals on?
I am on earth, the one that does better when warmer.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
"things were fine in the good old days" crock
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
When you renounce liberalism, the global warming tenant of the collectivist cult will fade from your obsession list.
Get gov out of our lives.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Promoting your own videos as "arguments"?
Nice way to self-promote/increase your views.
I especially like the fact that they demonstrate that this specific mass extinction was caused by a massive volcanic event, NOT by CO2 itself.
At around 6:00, he says they attribute the warming to CO2 because "we can't figure out how else to get it" WOW, ignorance isn't a reason to link anything. & what "other things"?
Making cute jokes using Jurassic Park clips won't win you any points either.
toulouse666 11 months ago
@toulouse666
If the world's best scientists can't find any possible reason for the planet to heat up other than the well known radiative properties of green house gases, that's pretty telling.
Of course, it could have been fairy dust, or flying saucers, but that's simply not as likely. My bias is to go with the experts. You obviously have another idea.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@tnekkc Wow! Your kidding right?
pozzimystic 11 months ago
@greenman3610
As they say, there is no weather data, no climate data that does not confirm the convictions of the global warming hoaxes.
Same deal with creationists. It is religion based on faith. Talk about science with global warming hoaxers or creationists, and it is just ammo in fight for them. They have no real standards of science.
tnekkc 11 months ago
@greenman3610
Wow!
In once sentence you said:
A logical fallacy (correlation as causation)
AND
An outrageous alarmist over exaggeration unsubstantiated speculative/conjecture fear mongering emotional blackmail?
"Good" work!
toulouse666 11 months ago
@tnekkc The greens are alarmed by a change either way....
STOPTHEEU 11 months ago
Why do these people ignore the fact that the Anarctic ice has been expanding for years.
musicmike1967 1 year ago
@musicmike1967
they don't . It's just that it's a tiny and irrelevant issue, compared to what is happening in the arctic.
google
NSIDC sea ice faq
and
watch?v=-wbzK4v7GsM
greenman3610 1 year ago
Global warming is a good thing!
We just discover that there was a big deciduous forest, witch are trees with leaves, not even cold enough for conifers in Ellesmere Island, Canada only 2 millions year ago. This island is well beyond the artic circle, that latitude is about 1000 Km north of the northern part of Norway. Let's go back to this warm weather.
You may ask, what about the tropical forest at the equator, 2 millions years ago? Apparently it didn't feel a thing...
CP, Montreal, Canada.
brickandfanal 1 year ago
This isn't real information.
By experts, you're telling us these complete faceless strangers who's identities and credentials we can not research and confirm have told us something.
So with less than 100 years of scientifically collected data, you're dictating global warming as fact. It's literally a faith based belief system no different than believing in god or the tooth fairy.
There are no facts here, simply opinions based on the way an individual's mind understands the minuscule data.
JonDeth 1 year ago
@JonDeth
for a review of the last 55 million years, see the IPCC chapter 6, "Paleoclimate'.
For the most recent peer reviewed breakthrough in CO2 vs Temp reconstruction, 20 million years of data, google
ucla tripati co2
For a description of planetary history with regard to CO2, see Richard Alley's lecture to the American Geophysical Union - google
the biggest control knob
I'm here to help.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 THE IPCC IS A FAKE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!!!!
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
@RomeoSOF2
HOLY CRAP, ARE YOU, LIKE, SURE DUDE?
greenman3610 1 year ago 3
@greenman3610 Yes I am. They're swimming in money as we speak.
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
@RomeoSOF2 ok scientist tell me what's your degree?
Korianne75 1 year ago
@Korianne75 You don't need to be a scientist to see that this whole thing is a fucking hoax.
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
@RomeoSOF2 Romeo listen man be reasonable why would a scientist study 10+ years in a degree just to make a lie. Like quantum mechanics people dond't agree . They can be refuted but thanks to them we managed to create computers and explain the space materiel of the universe.
Korianne75 1 year ago
@Korianne75 MONEY. Money is why they're doing this hoax anyway. Just wait about 5 years and you'll see...
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago
@greenman3610 you need to take note of the reliability of this information and that much of the claims presented as facts, are based on notions and theories that are glazed over so they're unnoticed or forgotten.
Global warming is pure propaganda and if you don't like that I disagree with you, go move to a communist nation because people like you are merely endorsing the movement to destroy the freedom of our Republic. The environment has nothing to do with the motives behind this movement.
JonDeth 1 year ago
@JonDeth jon your a idiot
coyoteewater 1 year ago
@coyoteewater you sure showed me with your brilliant name calling!
How can I debate you, pure genius. Name calling like a 2nd grader.
Why didn't I think of that first!
JonDeth 1 year ago
@JonDeth why you ask cuz your a dumbass
coyoteewater 1 year ago
@JonDeth
"So with less than 100 years of scientifically collected data, you're dictating global warming as fact."
I don't need 100 years to gather records of climate which span thousands of years.
"It's literally a faith based belief system no different than believing in god or the tooth fairy."
Not really, because there's something called EVIDENCE. When the preponderance of evidence shows X, then it's really "faith" based.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally the evidence isn't factual, it's based on opinion and guesswork.
If you were half as informed as you believe, you would understand that the claimed facts are based on assumed factors meaning, X and Y are being given values that suits the theory so the theory can then be presented as fact.
That is absolutely faith, not scientific method.
It's assumed that magnetite polarizes and based on that assumption, the claim is the magnetosphere is decaying which is presented as fact.
B.S.
JonDeth 1 year ago
@JonDeth I was just wondering how old the research has to be for you to believe it?
ZDWario 11 months ago
@ZDWario what does it take for sheep like you to look over the fence and see the other side?
You are going by a one sided story which is all corporatism allows. It teaches these experts to produce a single sided story because it's the CORPORATE education system.
The Federal Government is that corporation, it's not even an actual government, did you know this?
It's a corporation created by the constitution and for it to survive, created a system of definitive authority which includes education
JonDeth 11 months ago
@JonDeth Don't get mad and call me a sheep. I just asked for a time frame, which you didn't answer. I didn't take a side one way or the other.
ZDWario 11 months ago
@ZDWario of course I'm going to get mad.
You are trying ANY ANGLE YOU CAN, to get me to adhere at least the slightest bit to this CLAIM being true. Never going to happen. There is no time frame and this proves you are a sheep. I do not believe it.
I do not believe in your god, I never will.
Your god is corporate imperialism.
You live in a fear they create and educate you in such a way that you believe it to be the absolute truth.
You never consider there is another story Chicken Little.
JonDeth 11 months ago
@JonDeth Lol you can believe whatever you want, thats not what I'm about. I was just curious because you are the one who said "less than 100 years of scientifically collected data." Putting a time frame is irrelevant if you won't believe it anyway.
ZDWario 11 months ago
@ZDWario the fact you aren't grasping is that when the data was not collected within the lifetime of modern scientists making these claims, it's not direct, reliable evidence. It's purely theoretical and deceptive to claim you knew the weather in March of 1754 because of some core samples.
Meanwhile we can reference centuries of farmer's almanacs showing a lot of highs and lows which contradict the claims and predictions of global warming. There's a lot of other evidence being disregarded.
JonDeth 11 months ago
@JonDeth
and then, there's the Bible, too.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 the bible doesn't have dozens and dozens of constituent authors to commemorate the weather on a daily basis. When you refer to a farmer's almanac, you can validate the existence of the people that wrote them and compare their observations.
It's not faith based, meanwhile these core samples are faith based. There's no relying on the variables of the eco system when no humans witnessed and recorded it for future generations
But when 200 farmers recorded the same thing, it's reliable
JonDeth 11 months ago
@JonDeth
We know how far away the stars are, not because astronauts have visited them, but because the laws of physics are true throughout the universe.
Just so, we know that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, not because peasant farmers observed them, or rode on them, but because the laws of physics and chemistry help us follow the clues.
Just so, we can pick up the clues of paleo climate. To argue otherwise is to argue that we throw out the modern understanding of nature.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 again, all theoretical.
Read rather than listen to what you are told. The dating system is based on theory but the readings produced by the equipment is considered fact. You have an awful lot to learn about science as a whole and the sad truth that almost all of it is a faith based system but because that science produces technology that works, any findings associated with that technology therefore must be facts but you are wrong.
Carbon dating is very very deceptive & unreliable
JonDeth 11 months ago
@JonDeth
Got it.
Carbon dating unreliable.
Farmer's Almanac best resource.
Will inform National Academy.
greenman3610 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Going green is gay!
TheJcp1234 1 year ago
@TheJcp1234
Being a denier is racist, and apparently, homophobic as well.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Would there be something scientifically wrong about using artificial cooling methods to keep the ice from melting as fast and using the sun to power this?
Angel503z 1 year ago
@Angel503z
nobel prize for anyone that figures that out, as well as unlimited financial gain.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@Angel503z There have been various artificial cooling methods proposed from cloud seeding to plankton farms and an entire host of others. Unfortunately a lot of them have drawbacks as well. Look up geoengineering.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
thumbs up if ur the 12,938 veiwer
pokefan12171996 1 year ago
We can get off most fossil fuels within 20-30 years if we put a concerted effort into solar, wind, fuel cells, electric cars, algae biofuels, and new nuclear technologies.
We also need a new national smart power grid to move electricity.
We can use a carbon tax on fossil fuels to pay for it, and it'll provide millions of JOBS that can't be exported.
Europe & China are ALREADY doing this and America will lose out in future green energy technologies, if we don't.
We owe it to our grandchildren.
goog2k 1 year ago 2
Some new fuel cells & wind are ALREADY competitive. Solar will be economically competitive within 5 years. However, we need to build a SMART power grid to get wind power from Midwest farms to the cities, and so we can put solar panels on our roofs and sell unused power back to the grid.
New algae biofuels can suck up CO2 coming out of fossil fuel plants & I just read about a new nanotechnology battery made from PAPER.
Stop oil subsidies. We must wrest Congress from the oil & gas lobbies!
goog2k 1 year ago
WHAT COOLING?
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
-- NOAA, May, 2010
6/1/10, Arctic sea ice LOWEST May on satellite record –NSIDC
goog2k 1 year ago
What do we need Arctic ice for anyway? Polar bears evolved from Canada and Russia, penguins feel the cold, huddle together for warmth and regularly die because they're too silly to migrate far enough South. The Arctic has been many degrees warmer in the past and the pesky polar bears still blow raspberries in greenie faces by not just surviving, but EVOLVING into their current form since the polar caps arrived in the late Jurassic.
We could do with an ice free Arctic ocean.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
It's simple. If we do something about it and there is no climat change. Big deal, the planet will just be better. But if we do something and there is climat change, the futur of your childrens, childrens, childrens will be saved.
WAKE UP !
MINGO4445 1 year ago
June, 2010 - ARCTIC SEA ICE LOWEST ever recorded - NSIDC
The average Arctic sea ice volume for May 2010 was 19,000 cubic kilometers (4,600 cubic miles), the lowest May volume over the 1979 to 2010 period. May 2010 volume was 42% below the 1979 maximum, and 32% below the 1979 to 2009 May average.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k this is typical cherry picking of data to make an incredibly short historical record sound like the end of the world for the Arctic. Show me ice extents for a couple of ten thousand years and then you have you might have a point to make. 30 years of data does not make a historical record when you're talking about a planet that has had an arctic ice cap (on and off) for millions of years.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
Anyone who is will to look at the facts May 2010 will understand that the opening gambit of this video is WRONG. Arctic Ice extent has increased and the thickness of the ice is greater than in 2008.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@patrioticduo
OK, anyone that wants to can do what I do. Go to the National Snow and Ice Data center.
google
nsidc Daily image update
check the daily graph at the top of the page.
We are below the record low year of 2007 in area. We have been
at record low volumes now for several years.
See who is telling the truth.
greenman3610 1 year ago 3
@greenman3610 I trust the U.S Navy since they have been monitoring arctic ice depth and extent because of their specific need to *know* the facts. You don't want nuclear subs running into thick ice that NOAA or NSIDC says isn't there (but is). So check out nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/ instead and do the heavy lifting there.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@greenman3610 oops! here's the link - www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@greenman3610 - agreed. we dipped below the avg trend line in june. any comment to that patriotcduo?
mmimic34 1 year ago
@mmimic34 - The point that was made in this video was that the ice was becoming thinner and there was less of it but the fact is that in 2009/2010 the ice recovered and exceeded previous low extents. This cycle repeats every year and the historical record for arctic ice extent is simply too short to prove that any kind of global warming (caused by man or not) is making the ice "shrink" or "thin". If the down trend was to continue for decades or hundreds of years then maybe you might have point.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@greenman3610 ok, but i have a good question for you: do you know why we are not taking action to prevent the catastrophic change in our planet? Do you know why we will let it happen and destroy us?
viagemixtlan 10 months ago
@viagemixtlan
I'm taking action. I know others are too.
The best action is to let others know, in particular, legislators.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 you have got to be kidding me! "legislators"? You think politicians are going to take care of this?! They don`t give a fuck. They own the means of productions and they will keep things like this till the very end. you don`t seem to understand my question. We are right now on the verge of extinction. I asked you if you know why we will let extinction takes place.
viagemixtlan 10 months ago
@viagemixtlan
Ok, then keep talking to your fellow trolls on the internet, and see how much good that does. I'm doing what I can. Why don't you look in the mirror and ask what you can do?
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 Relax, i`m trying to raise a point here. I`m not being ironic. I know, just like you, that we are living our the last years. Things won`t change and we are right now crossing the point of no return. I have something to tell you, if you care to listen. There`s something holding us prisoner, something you are not aware of.
viagemixtlan 10 months ago
@patrioticduo
"OK, anyone that wants to can do what I do. Go to the National Snow and Ice Data center. google nsidc Daily image update"
It's pretty lame of greenman pushing a coarse chart of a few months moving INTO the Arctic summer to prove his hype-othesis of AGW. The Arctic is recovering and the Antarctic never melted at all:
ww w. appinsys. com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_PolarIceCaps. htm
The scare tactics never cease to amaze me. Naturally, this video is out of date and severely lacks truth.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
Thanks for what you do and introducing me to the word "canard".
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
Any chance there will be a runaway cooling cycle to neutralize the runaway warming cycle?
82abhilash 1 year ago
@82abhilash
not likely.
barring a long series of Krakatoa sized eruptions, or a nuclear winter.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Nuclear winter? That can be arranged. Have some Pakistani militants attack the Indian Parliament again.
82abhilash 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Yeah not likely as there was a ice age with co2 at 4000ppm and we are at 360 ppm.
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
Lol 6:10
FoxBatinaHat 1 year ago
The suns irradiance certainly isn't flat now - April 2010. And could that be since we're probably about to enter a new Dalton Minimum? If yes, then all this blather about human induced global warming is going to be disproven - not by us (us evil denialists) - but by nature itself. So pull up a chair and enjoy the view.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@patrioticduo
we are coming out of the lowest period of solar activity in a century, and
last year was the second warmest on the record, the early months of this year have been the warmest on record as well. so you're right, something is being
proven.
greenman3610 1 year ago
in 2008 the sun broke several records for low activity. 50 year low for solar wind pressure and a 12 year low for solar irradiance a 55 year low for solar radio emissions. Actually, solar activity has been high only since around the 1950's and onward - not a century as you state. Oh and by the way, temperatures were much cooler from 1920 through to 1940's when the sun also was much less active. Now, what do you say about the dramatic solar minimum that we're now experiencing or do you ignore it?
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@patrioticduo
I did not state solar activity has been high for a century. I said we are in the lowest solar cycle in a century. Since we are in a historically low cycle, the current warming is inconsistent with the "sun is doing it" nonsense. 2009 was the second warmest year on the instrumental record, during a historically low cycle. 2010 will probably break records for warming, while we are still coming out of the solar low. There is no support for the solar warming idea.
greenman3610 1 year ago
But surely you can concede that the sun is now most likely entering a new Dalton Minimum and that most likely global temperatures will be dropping for the next few decades. Due to lag in the heat storing capacity of the earth, you should not be expecting it to drop immediately nor dramatically. But even NASA admits that four of the warmest years on record are from the 1930's. So where is the dramatic warming that you're trying to scare everybody with?
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@patrioticduo
So many canards. The "1930s" canard, of course, relates only to contiguous US, not global temps. You seem to have more knowledge of what the sun is going to do than our best solar physicists. Nasa has noted that even if the sun were to go into a historic prolonged minimum, greenhouse forcing would more than overcome that in 7 years. the link is data[dot]giss[dot]nasa[dot]gov / gistemp/2008/ which for some reason is not responding right now.
greenman3610 1 year ago
The Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minimums all coincided with synchronization of the greater planets and their relation to the sun. Our current Solar Minimum is in sync with the same angular momentum. And even you can admit I'm sure that all of those minimums correlated with lower global temperatures. Let's see how this new long minimum works out for Earth temperatures. Maybe you're dedication to CO2 as the primary forcing is just plain flat wrong. NASA being wrong is no canard.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@patrioticduo
without any citations or rationale, your prognostication is astrology. The forcing due to CO2 is known, measurable, documented, and quantified. Maunder minimum or no, we will blow by any solar down turn in a few years. That's what the experts are telling us. I'm just reporting it. sorry, but fact, sourcing and citation are the currency here.
greenman3610 1 year ago
google dr-theodor-landscheidt - inform yourself.
korgpolyex800 1 year ago
@korgpolyex800
On his website he is billed by one of his acolytes as a "scientific astrologer".
No disrespect, but I'm not sure this discipline qualifies him as a climate expert.
greenman3610 1 year ago
citation - every solar physicist is well aware that numerous studies have found correlations of 0.6 to 0.8 between solar activity and climate on every time scale, from the decadal to the millennial, going back 500 million years. For the longer time scales, see Shaviv and Veizer 2003: They said: We find that at least 66% of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@patrioticduo
solar activity is one of the most important determinants of global temp.
What's controversial about that?
We also know it's been flat since 1950, while temps have risen.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Since about 1950 we've been in a solar grand max., now ended. Which means that a large number of scientists have attributed the slight global temperature increase of this period as being caused by the solar maximum and now that we're most likely entering a new Dalton type solar cycle with particularly low sun spot count and very low iradiance etc, we will see global temps. steadily decline. CO2 got the blame. Why? because alarmists can't t make political hay (thus grants) out of the Sun.
korgpolyex800 1 year ago
@korgpolyex800
Ok, so, since this is the lowest solar cycle in 100 years, and we are entering perhaps the warmest year on the instrumental record, you'll see your error, correct?
greenman3610 1 year ago
There is a lag between the solar cycles and the Earth's global temp. so don't expect this year to turn into a freezer overnight. But, surely you have looked at the direct correlation between solar cycles and the global temps? There is a mountain of evidence out there that correlates (does not prove causation) the solar cycles to the global temp. And we just ended a solar maximum. It could be that CO2 has little to nothing to do with global temps. Now let's give it a few years and watch the drop.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
Patrioticduo, if in several years the global temp continues to rise, will you then consider the possibility of anthropogenic global warming and perhaps join the fight against it?
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor - only if the science was able to clearly demonstrate and prove a causal relationship between CO2 and the increase in temperature. By the way, the global temperature has been flat for some years now. And there is increasing evidence that we're entering a new cooling period. So the next decade or two should be very interesting indeed.
patrioticduo 1 year ago
So, in essence, even when the ice caps melt and the coastlines flood, you'll still be arguing that man has nothing to do with it. Great.
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor Well, the flip side is that man may not have anything to do with the warming of last half of last century and you want to change the fundamentals of the entire human existence because it *might* be caused by CO2 - great!
patrioticduo 1 year ago
@patrioticduo I've been debating that twat noantecessors on another video. Don't bother. He is the very definition of a know-it-all ignoramus. he doesn't even check his OWN damn sources before running his mouth. he posts sources which contradict his own claims! What all these concerned "environmentalists" don't seem to grasp is the CO2 isn't even a pollutant. It's necessary for life as we know it.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@korgpolyex800
"Ok, so, since this is the lowest solar cycle in 100 years, and we are entering perhaps the warmest year on the instrumental record"
Greenman thinks he's right somehow, but we know that due to the last 10-12 years of low solar activity, and no warming at all, the oceans would be soaking up LESS heat and the PDO has moved to a cold shift:
ww w. drroyspencer. com/library/pics/PDO-index-since-1900. jpg
Hot, cold, hot.. uh-oh..
Instrumental record? The Earth is older than that..
MrOllyK 1 year ago
Oh wait, so you are trying to prove that "climate changes"?
Couldn't agree more, there are historically warmer and colder periods on this planet.
As far as us "evil human beings and capitalistic evil companies" being the sole culprit, you could not be further from the truth...
V.
vertigoBE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course the new ice was thin, IT WAS NEW !
Serreze, is no academic, he is a fraud.
Ice thickness & area means little without clear causation. So what, if global temperature increases or declines, either direction is a Natural phenomenon, that no human being should be forced to accommodate for!
Now naive indoctrinated girls are your pawns.
Overpeck focuses on only 30 years of info has having meaning His narrowness is mind-boggling. Over geological time, Earth is already in an Ice Age,
RnBramwell 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
dx. doi. org/10.1029/2007GL029703
Geophysical Research Letters
1 May 2007
Vol. 34 | L09501
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster Than Forecast
by Julienne Stroeve (National Snow and Ice Data Center) and 4 others
ABSTRACT:
"From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply. All models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report show declining Arctic ice cover over this period. However ..."
substanti8 1 year ago 2
"... depending on the time window for analysis, none or very few individual model simulations show trends comparable to observations. If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhouse gas (GHG) loading, 33-38% of the observed September trend from 1953-2006 is externally forced, growing to 47-57% from 1979-2006. Given evidence that as a group, the models underestimate the GHG response, the externally forced component may be larger."
substanti8 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
TO BE OR NOT TO BE, FOR THAT IS THE QUESTION DEAR ROMEO, even if we kill ourselves off, what's to say thats not the natural progression, of which came first - the egg or the being ? (MEANWHILE BUY SHARES IN EVERY Co THAT AL GORE INVESTS INTO !)
Radzere 1 year ago
Ice Shelves Disappearing on Antarctic Peninsula
tiny (dot) cc/USGS2409
substanti8 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So it MAY do something, nice research, you proved nothing, good job.
Oh and CO2 is rising, this of course proves what?
That burning fossil fuels creates CO2! Thanks for that intriguing copy paste session.
MinDBlanK1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The more discerning of viewers understand what MAY and COULD means when it comes to english, obviously others dont.
MinDBlanK1 1 year ago
Comment removed
substanti8 1 year ago
Here's fresh research about another ominous positive feedback for global warming.
dx. doi. org/10.1126/science.1186151
Science | 5 February 2010
Vol. 327 | no. 5966 | pp. 654-655
Iron and the Carbon Pump
by William G. Sunda (Beaufort Laboratory, National Ocean Service, NOAA)
"The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has risen by 38% since the start of the industrial era as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes; if current trends continue, it is ..."
substanti8 1 year ago 3
"... projected to increase further by at least a factor of 2 by 2100. About a quarter of the CO2 emitted through human activities has been absorbed by the ocean. On page 676 of this issue, Shi et al. show that the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters may decrease the biological availability of iron, which could in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2."
substanti8 1 year ago 8
dx. doi. org/10.1126/science.1183517
Science | 5 February 2010
Vol. 327 | no. 5966 | pp. 676-679
Effect of Ocean Acidification on Iron Availability to Marine Phytoplankton
by Dalin Shi (Princeton University) and 3 others
ABSTRACT:
"The acidification caused by the dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ocean changes the chemistry and hence the bioavailability of iron (Fe), a limiting nutrient in large oceanic regions. Here, we show that the bioavailability of dissolved Fe ..."
substanti8 1 year ago 3
"... may decline because of ocean acidification. Acidification of media containing various Fe compounds decreases the Fe uptake rate of diatoms and coccolithophores to an extent predicted by the changes in Fe chemistry. A slower Fe uptake ... is also seen in experiments with Atlantic surface water. The Fe requirement ... remains unchanged with increasing CO2. The ongoing acidification of seawater is likely to increase the Fe stress of phytoplankton populations in some areas of the ocean."
substanti8 1 year ago 3
Very scientific fresh research, I must say. the resulting acidification of ocean surface waters MAY (or may not) decrease the biological availability of iron, which COULD (or could not) in turn reduce the ability of the ocean to take up CO2." the bioavailability of dissolved Fe MAY (or may not)decline because of ocean acidification. The ongoing acidification of seawater is LIKELY (or not) to increase the Fe stress of phytoplankton populations" Whoever wrote that--->
globalnomad62 1 year ago
.....is very uncommitted in quantifying the findings. At least that person is intelligent enough not to stick their neck out at all.
Talk about -- no evidence, no logic, no intelligence!
globalnomad62 1 year ago
Right ... scientists tend to be cautious about making sweeping conclusions. Applying some intelligence would then make us realize how profound it is that scientists have stated that probability of global warming being caused by humans is over 90 percent (or maybe it's up to 95 percent now). See the IPCC language for details.
substanti8 1 year ago
Perhaps your brand of policy driven scientists do, which in itself is a reason you should listen to the other side who can rule out most if not all causes of alarmism.
Yours is a typical example old school soviet science policy, by amassing of evidence to show the correctness of the concept as a substitute for causal proof;
Now go on, accuse me of being the enemy of the truth, coz thats what they did before shipping people off to the gulags.
globalnomad62 1 year ago
Yes, that's right ... scientists who are cautious are "alarmists". Mmm hmm ...
"old school soviet science policy"
Yes comrade, it's all a Bolshevik plot. Bwaaa ha ha haaaa ...
tiny (dot) cc/t1i73
substanti8 1 year ago 11
clearly you dont understand the difference between cautious and uncommitted.
now do yourself a favour. do a search of
wikipedia Lysenkoism
go ahead, educate yourself. not for me, for YOU!
globalnomad62 1 year ago
The IPCC reports are "uncommitted"??
Spin ... spin ... spin ...
That's all you have.
substanti8 1 year ago 2
Chairman Pachauri has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed material to make its case. By now we know this isn't remotely true. Despite protests from expert reviewers, 42% of the documents cited in one chapter of the climate bible are grey literature rather than peer-reviewed. There is no guarantee that even research papers published in peer-reviewed journals are correct, as climatologist Phil Jones recently testified, no peer reviewers even asked to see his raw data.
globalnomad62 1 year ago
@substanti8
CO2 in the Jurassic was some 10-15x higher than today, where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, proof of which are those same pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish from that era that keep popping up in our museums.
Ocean PH is 7.9-8.3, which is ALKALINE - and will remain so as it always brushes up against alkaline rocks.
Very high CO2 many times in the past and no runaway greenhouse or fabled "tipping point", ever!
Explain?
MrOllyK 1 year ago
Mr Oil,
.
Ocean acidification refers to the decreasing pH of the oceans. But of course you already knew that. You're just here to sow confusion and doubt on behalf of your allies in the oil industry.
.
You have no credible evidence to support any of your a-scientific views here. None. So I suggest you run back to the welcoming arms of Fox News and Glenn Beck.
substanti8 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@substanti8
"The first thing that I learned is that when you go from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water becomes less and less alkaline. So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska. You didn’t notice the change from the “acidification”? You didn’t have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity?"
wattsupwiththat. com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test
There's your evidence, fool.
MrOllyK 1 year ago