(Please read before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Environmental sustainability vital for South Sudan development
.
Climate change and environmental degradation are real issues of sustainable development for self-reliance that we in South Sudan cannot afford to ignore.
Check out youtube.com/user/ta7king for a simple but scientific explanation. Watch all the videos, and then make up your mind! The video course is for school children, so it should be easy enough for anyone to understand B - )
Please type into Google "The Cold Truth About CO2" and see my article. If it does not show up type "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2.
If you want to read an alternative view to AGW that is pragmatic, unbiased and easily testable, then Google Solarchords com, take some time to seriously study the info and I defy anyone to pick holes in it, it's a unique discovery.
"cherry pick a warming trend between 1970-1998" 'unelected so called "experts" ' - Experts aren't elected. DUH! Science isn't democratic, and it shouldn't be.
The warming trend is apparent if one cherrypicks the entire instrumental record.
sks.to slash hockey
sks.to slash temp
Ice cores go back 800,000 years, it's warmer now than any time since then
@pseudotruth omg, its warmer now than for 800,000 yrs?
really? are you sure about that?
it was much warmer during the time of the Greeks. 2-3000 yrs ago.
When scholars found Troy, they were puzzled that it was so far from the sea, but when they recalculated the oceans being 8 ft higher than today, Troy rests right next to a natural harbor
just like Homer said
how could the oceans been 8ft higher than today if this is the hottest ever
A very simple search reveals your claims appear false - evidence?
Furthermore, "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland"
The goal of the carbon trading scam is to pillage the US and transfer wealth to other nations. China's taking full advantage of the "greenhouse gas" hoax.
China Threatens Massive Venting of Super Greenhouse Gases in Attempt to Extort Billions as UNFCCC Meeting Approaches
The suns effect since 1975 has been decreasing whilst temps and CO2 increasing ..trend actually supports the other overwhelming evidence of global warming with significant input from man. Debate is not really need ed now but actions eg increasing use of renewable s..the risks are too great
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998 -WMO 2011
The video suggests the study disproves the correlation between carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature, but the 2001 monnin study itself says "The estimated time lag is small in comparison with the 6000-year duration of the closely tied temperature and CO2 concentration increases and does not cast doubt on the importance of CO2 as an amplification factor of the temperature increase."
DOES NOT CAST DOUBT on temperature increase and CO2.
If you disagree with my comment you could show me why I am wrong. However, since you couldn't, you descend to insults. That's why you are an idiot and an obnoxious one at that.
Yep. We just got a carbon tax and carbon trading scheme yesterday in Australia. A country that produces less than 1% of global carbon dioxide. At the same time what we reduced in carbon emissions, China had made up for it anyway. If your going to introduce a carbon tax at least have the common sense to have it introduced to the biggest polluters and the largest polluters on the planet, not the average joe.
I also read in Australian news that sydney is now a "carbon neutral" city due to "a switch to hybrid cars, solar panels and buying credits" We emitted 50 thousand tons of carbon in sydney in a year, 100 percent which was offset by buying carbon credits. I could be wrong but shouldn't carbon neutral mean 0 carbon being emmited? The word "neutral" being we neither emit nor use carbon? Notice how wonderful "carbon neutral" sounds? We are still emitting carbon ffs. Are people really that stupid?
And how the hell does "trading carbon" reduce emissions when you can simply buy more carbon credits? Or better still do what China does and not implement such a retarded tax. We already have the technology to build cars that don't rely on fuel, but instead we implement a carbon tax. In other words it's too costly to convert or build all cars to not run on fuel, it's much easier writing up a pile of shit. Which is what most politicians do, talk shit or write up shit.
1) Drastic global warming was the trend until about 5,000 years ago. Since then, with warming and cooling oscillations along the way, it has been cooling slowly towards the next Ice Age.
2) To claim that mankind is the cause and must therefore hand over the wealth to the folks making that claim is... a hoax.
If you have evidence of scientific fraud, report it to the ORI, otherwise your claims are bunkum.
The scientific evidence is stacked against you. We have the instrumental record, satellites, the solar record, the ice cores, speleotherms, the borehole temps, the tree rings, plus we have phenology, ocean temps, etc. Plus much more. It's warmer now than it's been for at least 15 million years.
Prove that Tyndall and Callendar were part of this hoax.
@pseudotruth We have ice cores, sedimentary deposits fossils, borehole temps, tree rings and direct solar observation proving to us that the world is colder now than it was 5,000 years ago - or even recently during the Medieval Warm Period.
This little warming blip was not enough to restore the warmth of the Medieval Climate Optimum.
Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
@pseudotruth I'll continue providing you with the science. If you're falling asleep in class here, you'll continue to not comprehend it.
The current trend is actually cooling since the warming peak around 5,000 years ago. Warming prior to that was so extreme that oceans rose at a rate of an inch per year for a thousand years straight. Ocean levels rose over 400 feet during that spike.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 If global warming is a hoax or fraud, how come 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropological global warming is occurring?...Oh wait, that's cos it isn't a fraud. OWNED. It's surprising how dumb people can be despite having the entire internet at their finger tips.....
@AmericaSpeakOut1 ok, thats an example of a non credible source....a tech blog. pfft please the guy who gave the figures was a medical researcher. Give me something by a reputable environmental agency or scientist so i can at least respond.
@theJoeshomshow Owned? what are you, 16yrs old? The 97% is BS, But some of you don't bother to understand, because at 16 you think you know it all. In fact, if you would even bother to do some research instead of pretending...you would know that not even half believe in the so-called consensus. Which means there is no consensus at all. And just because some of the agencies seem to support it, doesn't make it true. Keep in mind, their funding completely relies on it.
@MrOTLChamp no i'm not 16, I study at Melb uni and I had a look through the Library's databases and found that info. Hmm obviously that whole being wise and old hasn't come to you yet, maybe some will creep in just before you drown from the rising sea levels. Even if AGW is false, our methods of energy production are not infinite, neither is our obsession with constant growth in everything in our society. We need to change, and coal isn't the answer and neither is you'r retarded grasp on science
@theJoeshomshow "Even if it is false" Typical liberal BS. As long as the end justifies the means, right? You little punks are worthless. Let me guess, you spend time at he parks with the rest of the bums, err, OWS
@MrOTLChamp Hahahaha, oh you old man can't come up with anything constructive to say so u start having a go at me and mY generation. You don't have to worry about anything, gauging at how stressed u get you'll be dead before the sea rises, good riddance. Let me know when you're head surfaces for air from you're own arss so I can shut u down again. Notice you did't reply to anything I wrote in my last comment...... (btw, why would I be in a park with bums?)
@theJoeshomshow I'm sorry did you say anything important? Saying that energy production isn't infinite, or that we need change, must be big words for you and you needed some feedback. You're such a child in need of attention.
@MrOTLChamp hmmm wouldn't childish be refusing to believe facts and data collected over decades from scientific research about AGW? or not bringing up any facts to back up your argument? Or when u don't have any facts and start hurling abuse? or say random stuff about me being in parks?....
@theJoeshomshow You seem very insecure about you hypothesis of AGW, and you should be...Not many scientist agree with the AR4 report, or the bogus "hockey stick graph", and they are definitely concerned over the emails that have been exposed, as well as the bogus temps reported by the NOAA satellites. Yeah, things aren't going very well for you, or your religion. but, cheer up! We're not going to succumb to global warming.
@pseudotruth My statement was mocking and you know it - and you offend me by acting as if my regurgitation of denier claims. The new right acts a cult - "listen to us only! If it fits, then not an insult.
Whats this? Facts? shhh.. we're not supposed to tell the truth. Please stop using your own brains as this is causing the government headaches. Just chant in a low drone and follow everything they tell you.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
3rd World poverty - HAARP - Banking crises - PC - Arab rebellions - Souring fuel prices - soaring international food prices - Dumb down TV - Political correctness - 3rd world immigration - AIDS - family breakdown - community breakdown - The EU - The North American Alliance - 9/11 & 7/7 - War in Afghanistan - AGW - are all connected. Zionists ( which is not religious Judaism ) from banking cartels to political corruption including monarchism are all linked in to population reduction & control.
The planet is facing catastrophy. It's not anything to do with co2 emission's. Believers of AGW are not bad people they mean well. They for some reason are unable to or can't be bothered to study the political corruption behind it.
They can't see the way the worlds population are being controlled for the benefit of an evil cartel which with the exception of China dominates everything. We are not free & fed a cocktail of lies & live an illusion. People have to start thinking out of the box
Laugh, if you would had actually watched Gore's presentation he did not say such things and you would know that yes 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 were cooler than 2005 but 2010 was warmer. It is not up to Al-Gore or any scientist to prove that increased co2 levels will have a devestating affect on the environment its up to you to say what affect you think it will have and back it up by facts.
Where do all these debunked predictions come from? Were they published in peer reviewed papers? And exactly in same terms that they have been debunked? I mean, if a prediction was made for 2010, we cannot dismiss it just because it was not fulfilled in 2001. And what about the last – and most extraordinary – claim; that wind farms do nothing to reduce CO2? Why don't you support it with a reference to a paper as you do along the video?
@EuroUser1 It has been warming since the end of the last ice age.Interglacials are like that.You see things in black and white.Reality is not like that.There are many subtle shades.
This is a misleading video. I encourage anyone who is truly interested in getting a balanced view on global warming to go and do the hard work thats necessary and do your own research in academic journals rather than preaching to people about some video you saw on youtube.
All those lying climate scientists. All those lying politicians. All those lying Maldivians. All those lying oil company CEOs. All those lying biologists. All those lying people at NASA. All those lying ocean scientists. All telling us the exact same thing: that we need to cut CO2 emissions.
This is clearly the biggest conspiracy in history.
But what's even more sinister: How did they all start saying the same lie all at once? (shivers)
Yes. I haven't published any, but I know another about the subject to form an opinion on it. How do you figure that I don't? What do scientific papers have to do with an opinion?
"Global Warming" is a natural process of the weather cycle. Humans are not to blame for increases in tempature and the melting of the ice caps. It's all a natural occurance.
Mathematically, Co2 is abt.3% of the enhanced effect and abt.2.9% of that is anthropogenic which comes to abt.0.09% of the 0.6-0.8C which is 1.44F maximum which translates to 0.1296F and supposing that Co2 is the anthropogenic factor with the highest effect, I don't know what percent, lets double it and say 0.3F is our fault, assuming that anthropogenic gas reaches the troposphere..which it doesn't. Also ice core charts show temp precedes Co2, overlay them.
If you want to know about climate models, or any actual science, see the National Science Foundation website . Orinoco 7 is scientifically illiterate. Every article cited by this "documentary" has been completely twisted to suit the agenda of discrediting science for the benefit of oil-funded Republicans. If the author of this clip were to correct all factual errors, this video would be 3 seconds long and would just say "NO, NO,NO! Waa Waa Waa!!"
Christy, J. Journal of Climate. 2006. Volume 19. p 548. "Cayan (2001) examined hydrological data since 1950 and discovered a trend toward earlier spring snowmelt in the Sierra Nevadas." - Wouldn't an earlier melt mean it's warmer? The 5 degree celcius increase for the valley was explained by the massive conversion of desert to farmland, changing the color from light to dark green and increasing water vapor. Could the Sierras have experienced the reverse? Less water and less trees?
" Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13‐year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 " Get that? They acutally say that since the study began in 1991, there has been an average warming of the ocean."
."We observe a net loss of 3.2 (±1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005 " -That's 2003, not 2002.
Science Vol 308 24 June 2005. Let's get some terms straight. Ice sheet refers to the frozen ocean off the coast of Antarctica. The paper that is quoted acknowledges the melting of the ice sheet, thus confirming Gore's statement. However, this melting may be offset in terms of ocean levels because the interior of Antarctica (which is actually land) is receiving more snow. "The current thickening in East Antarctica is not sufficient to completely stop sea level rise." - That's an actual quote!!!
For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder....
"Pollution and smoke aerosols can increase or decrease the cloud cover. This duality in the effects of aerosols forms one of the largest uncertainties in climate research." Science. 2006 Aug 4;313(5787):623-4
@kubush Hence, the sierras are at a much higher altitude. Co2 has never been proven to raise temperatures. Computer models overstated the effects of co2 by 7x's. Also computer models can't distinguish a 1% cloud cover difference, which could make a difference in temperatures. All natural. No AGW.
there is no such thing as global warming in fact no one can prove that CO2 has any warming efect.... And if you want evidence... you shold know that this year's winter has been the coldest winter in years where I live, plus that the temperatures even now in spring are below normal. What other evidence do we need! All this is non sense!
One last thing, do you know that the volcano that just erupted in Iceland has released a lot of CO2. What was the efect of the last major erution? A cooling! Ha
Oh yeah, the last comment is gold.. "Wind farms do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions or global warming.. and nothing to enhance our environment"............ i guess it must be hard enough to remember your opinion without remembering your reasons for them?
I'll clarify that. Your statement that "in reality, it's roughly a draw of those whom believe climate change is/ or isn't caused by human activity" is fiction. Unless you have evidence?
You are right, science is not based on consensus, it is based on empirical evidence.
11/23/09, (AP) Mauna Loa, Global warming gases have built up to record levels in the atmosphere, from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
You know, Nightversionn, I'm still waiting upon your explanation of why this wouldn't happen without human induced carbon dioxide. Climate change cannot be stopped, regardless of which way you look at it. If by chance anthropogenic global warming was a major cause of warming, 10% [at most] is insignificant in comparison to the 90% nature driven production.
Even if the hypothesis turned out to be true, it could only be slowed down. Save the world crap is just a fantasy, and delusion.
Interesting point, but a little too doomsday for me. We can't 'save the world' because it is not in danger. Life on the world may be - possibly over the next few generations - we will probably find out the hard way.
When people claim they're saving the world by reducing carbon dioxide, or more less, referring to themselves. It's a delusion, and thus a fantasy. Even if the hypothetical theory of climate change was real, we could only slow it down a mere fraction.
Taking into consideration we're no more responsible for 10% of carbon dioxide levels. 90% of it is nature driven. Theoretically, this process is just being sped up.
And anyway, natural weather and human weather has yet to be distinguished.
You misunderstand the science behind the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and human contribution. Very small changes in the levels of green-house gasses can have a disproportionate effect on the climate. You are also wrong in your assertion that the distinction between 'natural' and 'human' weather has yet to be distinguished. For example the weather, especially precipitation has changed radically over the past twenty years, especially near the poles where warming is greatest.
No one is saying that the earth's climate is not complex, but it is not random either. One of the biggest mistakes that those who wish to ignore AGW make is to assume that cyclical variable have not been included in projections of future climate scenarios. Everything from the cyclical changes in earth's orbit to El Nino and the Arctic Oscillation have been included in the research - yet still temperature increases are forecast and are happening almost exactly as predicted.
Not particularly. There are cycles we're unaware of, and insufficient research about the ocean's role.
Small variations in solar radiance can also, have a substantial effect on climate.
And please, I'm not ignoring anything of the such. I'd just rather human and natural induced weather, be redefined. As the two are common misconceptions.
98% of climate scientists agree that global temps have dramatically changed since humans started burning oil and that this will almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the well-being of our children. I'd say that you solution or redefining the definition of what is natural and what is human is tantamount to ignoring the problem.
Jehovahs Witnesses have the same ostrich-like quality. It'll be all right in the end because God'll sort it and we'll live in a paradise on Earth.
For humanity to think we have such importance to the point we're responsible for spikes in temperature, can be considered arrogant. Thus what I meant in the prior post.
Could I ask that you verify the 98% of the broad term "climate scientists"?
By centuries/decades, I was making a reference to cycles in which the earth encompasses. I was merely skeptical about your unreferenced claim of "98% of climate scientists agree that global temps have dramatically changed since humans started burning oil". Do not flatter yourself.
Not my figures. Don't flatter me. Try Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, Earth and Environmental Sciences Dept., University of Illinois.
But they are not alone. Here is a list of professional societies of scientists that are relevant to climate science, and who support the findings of the IPCC
@SeasonsOfBlue 2 * Academy of Science of South Africa * Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy * Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany * Académie des Sciences, France * Royal Society of Canada * Indian National Science Academy * Science Council of Japan * Australian Academy of Sciences * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts * Caribbean Academy of Sciences To be continued...
@SeasonsOfBlue 3 * Indonesian Academy of Sciences * Royal Irish Academy * Academy of Sciences Malaysia * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences * NASAs Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) * National Academy of Sciences (NAS) * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) * American Geophysical Union (AGU) To be continued...
@SeasonsOfBlue 4 * American Institute of Physics (AIP) * National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) * American Meteorological Society (AMS) * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) * American Association of State Climatologists * American Chemical Society - (world’s largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members * Geological Society of America * American Astronomical Society * American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) To be continued...
30,000 'scientists' ? You are referring to the Oregon Petition. Put together by Frederick Seitz who worked for the Heartland Institute to help fudge the facts about tobacco causing cancer. Signatories of the Oregon Petition were not required to have anything more than a degree and only 9,029 of them had PhDs. There were many repeated names and many odd ones including Michael J Fox and Ginger Spice.
The list of scientific organizations posted represents thousands more climate specific PhDs than the Oregon Petition, which you only needed a BSc in engineering to sign.
The bottom line is that 97.4% of those with specific expertise in climate believe in AGW and accept the findings of the IPCC report (site Doran & Zimmerman paper).
There is a spectrum of opinions on the IPCC report. All of the scientists that I communicate with think the IPCC report is far too conservative.
Lovely phrase that - "The percentage of climate scientist against the rest of the scientific community" as if the scientific community is opposed to climate science in its concern about AGW.
Just take the Royal Society from my list below. Current Fellows include Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. There are currently twenty five Nobel prize winners among the Fellows, only a small percentage of whom are climatologists, yet they all support the findings of the IPCC.
I'm sorry. But since when is a consensus considered science?
You've listed a small margin of scientific groups. Thus a small percentage.
Lovely phrase? No, you're misinterpreting. Although, most likely intentionally. I never stated that climate scientist were the only ones whom supported the theory. I'm merely referencing a comparison.
In most countries, the consensus is split in two. Of course, I'm referring to polls.
A small margin of scientific groups including the Royal Society, the NOAA, NASA??? Wow. The list I provided are the most eminent scientific groups with relevance to climate change on the planet. Check it.
Read my postings. I said "You are right, science is not based on consensus, it is based on empirical evidence".
Seeing as you claim that "In most countries, the consensus is split in two. Of course, I'm referring to polls", please site your evidence.
There are various polls via the web, that could satsify you for evidence.
I can't parcitularly reference a newspaper which is a few months old, let alone a news station. In case you misintrepeted, I'm referring to the general.
I'm not partciularly bias to any side, I'm merely pointing out that climate change isn't settled science. I'm sure, if not certain there'd be members of those groups whom are not of certainty.
I realise those whom support the consensus, would be of a larger margin. However, with the climategate scandal, and various other scenarios. scepticism is only natural.
And note, there are many scientific institutions. You only named a brief amount.
I'm not here to prove any side, however, I'm merely pointing out that it isn't settled science. Influential is irrelevant. it's pale margin in comparison to every single other. I have have a much larger preference for individual opinions, not that of an institution, anyhow.
I'm sorry if you think I'm misinterpreting you, but I think we have a bone of contention about whether the science is 'settled' or not. Science can't be 'settled', it is a process of consistency asking questions. Even the theory of gravity is not 'settled'. My point is that the most eminent scientifically trained organisations and individuals in the world agree that the empirical evidence is in favour of AGW. There is less consensus about what we should do about it.
Whether it was settled was a reference to those who believe with such certainty that it is. Everything derives on probability. There are still questions being raised over climate change, e.g what is the amplifying climate change.
Yes, many of those who argue for and against CC are dogmatic. I can see why. Those who don't believe it are frightened of having to live a more austere life without fossil fuels or of higher taxes. Those who do are frightened of weather and temperature changes that could threaten civilization.
@Herecomesthefatlady "Those who don't believe it are frightened of having to live a more austere life without fossil fuels[...]"
I sincerely and vehemenently question your opinion that one of the main reasons people oppose CC is because they don't want a car that runs cleaner and potentially saves them lots and lots of money...regardless of the hilarity that all of us switching to electric cars would magically alter the earth's climate lol...
Yes, I admit it is simplistic reasoning, there are many other reasons why people chose to oppose man made CC. Perhaps they have political reasons, financial reasons or have been indoctrinated in a dogmatic culture of anti-science. Or perhaps they have just not read the IPCC report correctly ;o)
I don't agree about electric cars though. Google 'Climate Change Without the Hot Air'.
They may be opposing CC because they are led to believe that it is a political tool for more government control. That is certainly what right-wing groups in the US are trying to promote. I urge you to genuinely consider what evidence you have for this. I'm constantly amazed at how right-wing voters are manipulated in the US - whether it is religious or political fundamentalism.
@Herecomesthefatlady I'm not a right wing voter nor am I a religious or political fundamentalist.
My evidence is the FACT that no governing body, in the entire history of humans on earth, has ever gotten "smaller" or given away power without a revolution of some kind. Every event that occurs stimulates extra government control. The same is true of CC.
You think Al Gore knows what he's talking about when he gets on a lift and rises up next to a 20 ft tall line graph? Do you think left wing voters are not manipulated at all?
Do you consider the left to be any more honest than the right? Do you think politicians are actually in opposition of each other, or that perhaps it's more like professional wrestling?
I think you need to stop being amazed at just the right wing...
It is being used as a political tool. Whether they are right wing or left wing makes no difference difference to whether the earth is warming as a result of human activity. My annoyance with the right wing in particular comes from the propensity of Free Market think-tanks to blur the science because they have vested interests. Heartland is the best US example but there are similar organisations in my own country.
@Herecomesthefatlady The people who ignore science for an agenda are the real problem, whether they are right or left. The ones on the left are much more visible for the time being and have most of the chips, thus they receive the majority of my attention on youtube posts lol.
@Herecomesthefatlady I think you are blind to any and all political gain that might be had by exaggerating the impact and responsibility of man on the environment, or scientific funding that might be gained by such.
Computer models are not 100% accurate. You are very knowledgeable on this subject, but accepting models tested on historical data that are used to project future statistics is not wise. I can't express to you the amount of tweaking involved in a computer model.
@Herecomesthefatlady I don't think every individual involved is doing it for personal gain, but I think personal gain is a strong motivation to agree to a consensus if it means your organization gets funding for the next 10 years.
And the opposite is true as well, if openly opposing it could potentially dry your funding up because of political pressure, why openly oppose it?
Nearly all of the research used in the IPCC report would have been carried out anyway, irrespective of CC. That is how global warming was discovered to be so universal and how it is measured. Hundreds of researchers (paid for in the main by universities and industry) in many different disciplines, came to similar conclusions. These may be contrary to their own specialisations - by reporting CC they are doing themselves out of a job.
@Herecomesthefatlady And yes, because of the science as well. Do not assume my argument for me. Theories opposing multiple parts of the IPCC reports exist and are backed by science as well.
You continue to give statistics on how many people agree with one side or another, instead of actually arguing the science.
It amazes me how left-wing voters trust information that supports their own ideas without objective thinking...
Do not assume that because I criticise the ultra-right that I am "a left-wing voter".
There is a lot of fake science around at the moment (the vid above is a perfect example), so if you've truly read and researched the IPCC report and come to the conclusion that it is undecided I'd love to see your evidence.
- Si en vez de llamarlo "calentamiento global", lo llamaras "cambio climatico" (como se llama hoy en dia) donde no solo implica con mayor temperatura, sino tambien las regiones en donde la temperatura baja... se podria seguir hechandole la culpa al sol?? Pues... NO.
@Herecomesthefatlady No, gravity is an accepted theory, with testable, reproduceable, empirical data. Man made climate change is most definitively NOT accepted theory, with no empirical reproduceable data. It's one hypothesis of hundreds.
Nope. There are over 2,000 research documents from a variety of world-wide scientific disciplines that have been considered as part of the IPCC 4th assessment. That is what 'empirical data' means. You may be thinking of computer modelling for the future, which is a common error. Models have been created based on the climate forcing of the past. These have been blind-tested on previous climate data where we know what happened and have been found to be 100% accurate.
@Herecomesthefatlady "How many can you name that do not support the IPCC report?"
The IPCC report that suggests man "may" be partly responsible for CC? I think most all support the report that says man "may" be part of the reason behind CC. Those who support the idea that it is proven scientific theory...I can't think if any...
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming news...
(Please read before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Environmental sustainability vital for South Sudan development
.
Climate change and environmental degradation are real issues of sustainable development for self-reliance that we in South Sudan cannot afford to ignore.
.
Juba Citizen, Republic of South Sudan
Opinion, 1 March 2012
Nightversionn 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out youtube.com/user/ta7king for a simple but scientific explanation. Watch all the videos, and then make up your mind! The video course is for school children, so it should be easy enough for anyone to understand B - )
ta7king 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please type into Google "The Cold Truth About CO2" and see my article. If it does not show up type "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2.
CHIPSTERO7 2 months ago
If global warming is happening but it's not man-made it just means that we can't stop it and that we are completely doomed.
If global warming is man-made that means we can do something about it.
Destroyer4700 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to read an alternative view to AGW that is pragmatic, unbiased and easily testable, then Google Solarchords com, take some time to seriously study the info and I defy anyone to pick holes in it, it's a unique discovery.
howardsway782 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence/impacts of climate change series.."Roof of the world" edition:
.
Tibet braces for another mild winter
.
The "roof of the world" is bracing for another mild winter this year, or the 11th such season since 2001, due to the impact of global warming.
.
Xinhua News Agency, China
3 December 2011
Nightversionn 3 months ago
By 2008, the cooling trend, driven by a slight reduction in solar forcing, was quite pronounced.
Is This The Beginning of Global Cooling? Satellite data shows previous warming spike has been erased by cooling trend
icecap*us/index.php/go/joes-blog/is_this_the_beginning_of_global_cooling/
However, now that solar output is once again increasing, fears of long-term global cooling might be alleviated.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@ezeeskank
@ezeeskank
"cherry pick a warming trend between 1970-1998" 'unelected so called "experts" ' - Experts aren't elected. DUH! Science isn't democratic, and it shouldn't be.
The warming trend is apparent if one cherrypicks the entire instrumental record.
sks.to slash hockey
sks.to slash temp
Ice cores go back 800,000 years, it's warmer now than any time since then
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@pseudotruth omg, its warmer now than for 800,000 yrs?
really? are you sure about that?
it was much warmer during the time of the Greeks. 2-3000 yrs ago.
When scholars found Troy, they were puzzled that it was so far from the sea, but when they recalculated the oceans being 8 ft higher than today, Troy rests right next to a natural harbor
just like Homer said
how could the oceans been 8ft higher than today if this is the hottest ever
come on
Nightverslonn 3 months ago
@Nightverslonn
A very simple search reveals your claims appear false - evidence?
Furthermore, "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland"
pseudotruth 3 months ago
The goal of the carbon trading scam is to pillage the US and transfer wealth to other nations. China's taking full advantage of the "greenhouse gas" hoax.
China Threatens Massive Venting of Super Greenhouse Gases in Attempt to Extort Billions as UNFCCC Meeting Approaches
marketwatch*com/story/china-threatens-massive-venting-of-super-greenhouse-gases-in-attempt-to-extort-billions-as-unfccc-meeting-approaches-2011-11-08
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Time to ask whether climate change contributing to extreme weather
.
Years of a disinformation campaign, funded by enormous amounts of money from energy industries, have had their effect.
.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Missouri
Editorial, 8 August 2011
Nightversionn 6 months ago
Why are 90% of the mouth foaming global warming fanatics under 25 yrs old?
jokers1966 7 months ago
@jokers1966 - Anyone not liberal under age 30 has no heart, anyone not conservative over age 30 has no brain - Winston Churchill
oracle2world 6 months ago
The suns effect since 1975 has been decreasing whilst temps and CO2 increasing ..trend actually supports the other overwhelming evidence of global warming with significant input from man. Debate is not really need ed now but actions eg increasing use of renewable s..the risks are too great
dmlt12 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998 -WMO 2011
checkyoursources 7 months ago
169 tree hugging fags disliked this
DLongmuir16 8 months ago
If this video were honest, it would include full details of the papers cited. The fact is, it doesn't.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
yeah man did make global warming
teamedward123ify 9 months ago
This video misquoted the 2001 Monnin report.
The video suggests the study disproves the correlation between carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature, but the 2001 monnin study itself says "The estimated time lag is small in comparison with the 6000-year duration of the closely tied temperature and CO2 concentration increases and does not cast doubt on the importance of CO2 as an amplification factor of the temperature increase."
DOES NOT CAST DOUBT on temperature increase and CO2.
punkyvid 10 months ago
sea ice ice most definately dissapearing.
Kwok et al. 2009
42% decrease of arctic ice between 1980 and 2005
measurements =]
haz020190 10 months ago
UN has no such power - the countries rarely agrre on anything.
PacificCircle1 10 months ago
I get it
1. global warming is a hoax
2. Global warming is caused by nature (i.e it exsists)
3. Burning 10 Billions TONS a year produces no output
PacificCircle1 10 months ago
@PacificCircle1
Nice self refuting comment!
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@pseudotruth Irony - (and it has notihing to with iron)
10 billion tons is a lot of stuff (billion comes after million, you look in a dictionary, u know one of those leafy things called books.
PacificCircle1 8 months ago
@PacificCircle1
I quote you:
"1. global warming is a hoax
2. Global warming is caused by nature (i.e it exsists)"
Both cannot be true. As I said, a self-refuting comment.
Your move.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@pseudotruth Prick. The whole global warming bollocks is a way governments can impose taxes on us.
Caveej 5 months ago
Comment removed
pseudotruth 5 months ago
@Caveej
If you disagree with my comment you could show me why I am wrong. However, since you couldn't, you descend to insults. That's why you are an idiot and an obnoxious one at that.
pseudotruth 5 months ago
Comment removed
Caveej 5 months ago
Yep. We just got a carbon tax and carbon trading scheme yesterday in Australia. A country that produces less than 1% of global carbon dioxide. At the same time what we reduced in carbon emissions, China had made up for it anyway. If your going to introduce a carbon tax at least have the common sense to have it introduced to the biggest polluters and the largest polluters on the planet, not the average joe.
AhzekAhriman1 4 months ago
I also read in Australian news that sydney is now a "carbon neutral" city due to "a switch to hybrid cars, solar panels and buying credits" We emitted 50 thousand tons of carbon in sydney in a year, 100 percent which was offset by buying carbon credits. I could be wrong but shouldn't carbon neutral mean 0 carbon being emmited? The word "neutral" being we neither emit nor use carbon? Notice how wonderful "carbon neutral" sounds? We are still emitting carbon ffs. Are people really that stupid?
AhzekAhriman1 4 months ago
And how the hell does "trading carbon" reduce emissions when you can simply buy more carbon credits? Or better still do what China does and not implement such a retarded tax. We already have the technology to build cars that don't rely on fuel, but instead we implement a carbon tax. In other words it's too costly to convert or build all cars to not run on fuel, it's much easier writing up a pile of shit. Which is what most politicians do, talk shit or write up shit.
AhzekAhriman1 4 months ago
So either world governments don't give a shit unless it's their own shit, or global warming isn't real. I think it's both right?
AhzekAhriman1 4 months ago
@pseudotruth
1) Drastic global warming was the trend until about 5,000 years ago. Since then, with warming and cooling oscillations along the way, it has been cooling slowly towards the next Ice Age.
2) To claim that mankind is the cause and must therefore hand over the wealth to the folks making that claim is... a hoax.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
If you have evidence of scientific fraud, report it to the ORI, otherwise your claims are bunkum.
The scientific evidence is stacked against you. We have the instrumental record, satellites, the solar record, the ice cores, speleotherms, the borehole temps, the tree rings, plus we have phenology, ocean temps, etc. Plus much more. It's warmer now than it's been for at least 15 million years.
Prove that Tyndall and Callendar were part of this hoax.
sks.to slash cooling
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@pseudotruth We have ice cores, sedimentary deposits fossils, borehole temps, tree rings and direct solar observation proving to us that the world is colder now than it was 5,000 years ago - or even recently during the Medieval Warm Period.
This little warming blip was not enough to restore the warmth of the Medieval Climate Optimum.
Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
longrangeweather*com/global_temperatures.htm * yawn *
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Yawn. Try looking at the science, not what vested interests say about the climate.
You are clearly a serious case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@pseudotruth I'll continue providing you with the science. If you're falling asleep in class here, you'll continue to not comprehend it.
The current trend is actually cooling since the warming peak around 5,000 years ago. Warming prior to that was so extreme that oceans rose at a rate of an inch per year for a thousand years straight. Ocean levels rose over 400 feet during that spike.
Since then... it's slowly cooling down again.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
You have not provided any science. I doubt you even know what science is.
I'm not arguing with idiots, go away.
pseudotruth 3 months ago
@pseudotruth Is that all you've got? I provide you links to hard scientific data and you just keep saying "you have not provided any science"?
LOL!
You are a compleat idiot.
Here, try to comprehend WHY we've had no "man-made global warming" since 2005... look at the science, if you dare...
SORCE satellite data plot - combined Total Solar Irradiance
lasp*colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/index.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 If global warming is a hoax or fraud, how come 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropological global warming is occurring?...Oh wait, that's cos it isn't a fraud. OWNED. It's surprising how dumb people can be despite having the entire internet at their finger tips.....
theJoeshomshow 3 months ago
@theJoeshomshow >> how come 97% of climate scientists agree
They don't.
Naomi Oreskes claims consensus on AGW. Review of published scientists shows less than half endorse it, greater number reject it. 97% claim is false.
dailytech*com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Scientists are resigning from politically controlled institutions over the false claims of AGW.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 ok, thats an example of a non credible source....a tech blog. pfft please the guy who gave the figures was a medical researcher. Give me something by a reputable environmental agency or scientist so i can at least respond.
theJoeshomshow 3 months ago
@theJoeshomshow "It's surprising how dumb people can be despite having the entire internet at their finger tips....."
You got that right. LMOA Now look up the breakdown of how they came up with that 97% figure, and who did the survey. Then you will know it is a hoax.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp I have...you got owned again. Why is it then that almost every country's environmental agencies and science agencies agree with me?
theJoeshomshow 3 months ago
@theJoeshomshow Owned? what are you, 16yrs old? The 97% is BS, But some of you don't bother to understand, because at 16 you think you know it all. In fact, if you would even bother to do some research instead of pretending...you would know that not even half believe in the so-called consensus. Which means there is no consensus at all. And just because some of the agencies seem to support it, doesn't make it true. Keep in mind, their funding completely relies on it.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp no i'm not 16, I study at Melb uni and I had a look through the Library's databases and found that info. Hmm obviously that whole being wise and old hasn't come to you yet, maybe some will creep in just before you drown from the rising sea levels. Even if AGW is false, our methods of energy production are not infinite, neither is our obsession with constant growth in everything in our society. We need to change, and coal isn't the answer and neither is you'r retarded grasp on science
theJoeshomshow 3 months ago
@theJoeshomshow "Even if it is false" Typical liberal BS. As long as the end justifies the means, right? You little punks are worthless. Let me guess, you spend time at he parks with the rest of the bums, err, OWS
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Hahahaha, oh you old man can't come up with anything constructive to say so u start having a go at me and mY generation. You don't have to worry about anything, gauging at how stressed u get you'll be dead before the sea rises, good riddance. Let me know when you're head surfaces for air from you're own arss so I can shut u down again. Notice you did't reply to anything I wrote in my last comment...... (btw, why would I be in a park with bums?)
theJoeshomshow 3 months ago
@theJoeshomshow I'm sorry did you say anything important? Saying that energy production isn't infinite, or that we need change, must be big words for you and you needed some feedback. You're such a child in need of attention.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp hmmm wouldn't childish be refusing to believe facts and data collected over decades from scientific research about AGW? or not bringing up any facts to back up your argument? Or when u don't have any facts and start hurling abuse? or say random stuff about me being in parks?....
theJoeshomshow 3 months ago
@theJoeshomshow You seem very insecure about you hypothesis of AGW, and you should be...Not many scientist agree with the AR4 report, or the bogus "hockey stick graph", and they are definitely concerned over the emails that have been exposed, as well as the bogus temps reported by the NOAA satellites. Yeah, things aren't going very well for you, or your religion. but, cheer up! We're not going to succumb to global warming.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@PacificCircle1
You talk about books, when you can't even read one of your own comments.
Irony indeed.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@PacificCircle1
Come-on loud-mouth. Illuminate me!
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@pseudotruth Can't discuss things with cult minded ideologs. what does trading barbs accomplish?
I got better things to do.
PacificCircle1 8 months ago
@PacificCircle1
I had made was a genuine observation and your response was an insult, one that has caused you some embarrassment.
As for 'cults', you are obviously a member of the cult of stupid.
pseudotruth 8 months ago
@pseudotruth My statement was mocking and you know it - and you offend me by acting as if my regurgitation of denier claims. The new right acts a cult - "listen to us only! If it fits, then not an insult.
PacificCircle1 8 months ago
Whats this? Facts? shhh.. we're not supposed to tell the truth. Please stop using your own brains as this is causing the government headaches. Just chant in a low drone and follow everything they tell you.
kaderoder 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
3rd World poverty - HAARP - Banking crises - PC - Arab rebellions - Souring fuel prices - soaring international food prices - Dumb down TV - Political correctness - 3rd world immigration - AIDS - family breakdown - community breakdown - The EU - The North American Alliance - 9/11 & 7/7 - War in Afghanistan - AGW - are all connected. Zionists ( which is not religious Judaism ) from banking cartels to political corruption including monarchism are all linked in to population reduction & control.
ALBIONTYKE 1 year ago
The planet is facing catastrophy. It's not anything to do with co2 emission's. Believers of AGW are not bad people they mean well. They for some reason are unable to or can't be bothered to study the political corruption behind it.
They can't see the way the worlds population are being controlled for the benefit of an evil cartel which with the exception of China dominates everything. We are not free & fed a cocktail of lies & live an illusion. People have to start thinking out of the box
ALBIONTYKE 1 year ago
Laugh, if you would had actually watched Gore's presentation he did not say such things and you would know that yes 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 were cooler than 2005 but 2010 was warmer. It is not up to Al-Gore or any scientist to prove that increased co2 levels will have a devestating affect on the environment its up to you to say what affect you think it will have and back it up by facts.
millertas 1 year ago
well done
skwid12 1 year ago
Denier: Your global climate model didn't accurately predict the temperature on top of a mountain in California.
Climatologist: That's true, it didn't.
Denier: So your whole global climate model is rubbish and global warming is a myth!
terrymorse 1 year ago
@ezeeskank 2010 did however, go down on record as the warmest year in the history of recorded climate.
SexSteakSoda 1 year ago
Comment removed
ALBIONTYKE 1 year ago
@ezeeskank Thank you for your comment, well said.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Where do all these debunked predictions come from? Were they published in peer reviewed papers? And exactly in same terms that they have been debunked? I mean, if a prediction was made for 2010, we cannot dismiss it just because it was not fulfilled in 2001. And what about the last – and most extraordinary – claim; that wind farms do nothing to reduce CO2? Why don't you support it with a reference to a paper as you do along the video?
EuroUser1 1 year ago
@ezeeskank The warming trend is not cherry picked. It has happened since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
You can google this: nasa earth observatory global warming map 47628
And no one is asking you to hand over any hard won freedom; except the freedom to pollute the environment.
EuroUser1 1 year ago
@EuroUser1 It has been warming since the end of the last ice age.Interglacials are like that.You see things in black and white.Reality is not like that.There are many subtle shades.
ezeeskank 1 year ago
This is a misleading video. I encourage anyone who is truly interested in getting a balanced view on global warming to go and do the hard work thats necessary and do your own research in academic journals rather than preaching to people about some video you saw on youtube.
ali81286 1 year ago
All those lying climate scientists. All those lying politicians. All those lying Maldivians. All those lying oil company CEOs. All those lying biologists. All those lying people at NASA. All those lying ocean scientists. All telling us the exact same thing: that we need to cut CO2 emissions.
This is clearly the biggest conspiracy in history.
But what's even more sinister: How did they all start saying the same lie all at once? (shivers)
hagenar 1 year ago
My film 'climate change conspiracy' sheds some light on this.
EvolvingCaveman 1 year ago
@crashishlaroche
Yes. I haven't published any, but I know another about the subject to form an opinion on it. How do you figure that I don't? What do scientific papers have to do with an opinion?
papertrailTIP 1 year ago
"Global Warming" is a natural process of the weather cycle. Humans are not to blame for increases in tempature and the melting of the ice caps. It's all a natural occurance.
papertrailTIP 1 year ago
@papertrailTIP
Hear, Hear. Spot on.
Mathematically, Co2 is abt.3% of the enhanced effect and abt.2.9% of that is anthropogenic which comes to abt.0.09% of the 0.6-0.8C which is 1.44F maximum which translates to 0.1296F and supposing that Co2 is the anthropogenic factor with the highest effect, I don't know what percent, lets double it and say 0.3F is our fault, assuming that anthropogenic gas reaches the troposphere..which it doesn't. Also ice core charts show temp precedes Co2, overlay them.
philonetic 1 year ago
Can someone tell me again why the ice caps on mars are melting because of the V8 in my car?
bigbad1000do7a 1 year ago
If you want to know about climate models, or any actual science, see the National Science Foundation website . Orinoco 7 is scientifically illiterate. Every article cited by this "documentary" has been completely twisted to suit the agenda of discrediting science for the benefit of oil-funded Republicans. If the author of this clip were to correct all factual errors, this video would be 3 seconds long and would just say "NO, NO,NO! Waa Waa Waa!!"
tgmichaels 1 year ago
Christy, J. Journal of Climate. 2006. Volume 19. p 548. "Cayan (2001) examined hydrological data since 1950 and discovered a trend toward earlier spring snowmelt in the Sierra Nevadas." - Wouldn't an earlier melt mean it's warmer? The 5 degree celcius increase for the valley was explained by the massive conversion of desert to farmland, changing the color from light to dark green and increasing water vapor. Could the Sierras have experienced the reverse? Less water and less trees?
tgmichaels 1 year ago
Lyman, 2006. Geophysical Research Letters
" Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13‐year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 " Get that? They acutally say that since the study began in 1991, there has been an average warming of the ocean."
."We observe a net loss of 3.2 (±1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005 " -That's 2003, not 2002.
tgmichaels 1 year ago
Science Vol 308 24 June 2005. Let's get some terms straight. Ice sheet refers to the frozen ocean off the coast of Antarctica. The paper that is quoted acknowledges the melting of the ice sheet, thus confirming Gore's statement. However, this melting may be offset in terms of ocean levels because the interior of Antarctica (which is actually land) is receiving more snow. "The current thickening in East Antarctica is not sufficient to completely stop sea level rise." - That's an actual quote!!!
tgmichaels 1 year ago
For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder....
Dayversion 1 year ago
you should watch the HOME video you fuckin MORONS.
due to global warming the oild companies are in danger of losing their ......oil based economy. this kind of movies are bullshit
vrcraft 1 year ago
"Pollution and smoke aerosols can increase or decrease the cloud cover. This duality in the effects of aerosols forms one of the largest uncertainties in climate research." Science. 2006 Aug 4;313(5787):623-4
kubush 1 year ago
2:27 Wow, you are retarded. Intensive agriculture causes an increase in CO2. Hence, the warming in the valley and not the sierras.
kubush 1 year ago
@kubush Hence, the sierras are at a much higher altitude. Co2 has never been proven to raise temperatures. Computer models overstated the effects of co2 by 7x's. Also computer models can't distinguish a 1% cloud cover difference, which could make a difference in temperatures. All natural. No AGW.
MrOTLChamp 1 year ago
there is no such thing as global warming in fact no one can prove that CO2 has any warming efect.... And if you want evidence... you shold know that this year's winter has been the coldest winter in years where I live, plus that the temperatures even now in spring are below normal. What other evidence do we need! All this is non sense!
One last thing, do you know that the volcano that just erupted in Iceland has released a lot of CO2. What was the efect of the last major erution? A cooling! Ha
utududas 1 year ago
Oh yeah, the last comment is gold.. "Wind farms do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions or global warming.. and nothing to enhance our environment"............ i guess it must be hard enough to remember your opinion without remembering your reasons for them?
AdamWarren1991 1 year ago
BS and cheery picked quotes
verstwo2 1 year ago
BS and cheery picked quotes
verstwo2 1 year ago
google Doe's Account
elantriv 1 year ago
I trust better sources
Kharis89 1 year ago
In reality, it's roughly a draw of those whom believe climate change is/ or isn't caused by human activity.
Noneoftheless, science is not based on consensus.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
Nonsense. Site your evidence.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@SeasonsOf
I'll clarify that. Your statement that "in reality, it's roughly a draw of those whom believe climate change is/ or isn't caused by human activity" is fiction. Unless you have evidence?
You are right, science is not based on consensus, it is based on empirical evidence.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Record high CO2??? Oh dear. Don't know your CO2 history, do you?
CO2 levels were above 400 in 1940 and 1870 and during the Late Ordovician era were 12 times higher than that. The LO was an ice age. Explain please.
The man-made warming liars now realise that scare is busted, so they make up another; ocean acidification.
As a renowned physicist, you will know that warmer water holds less CO2. How can warmer oceans absorb more?
Next scare please.
Tafia2006 1 year ago
@Tafia2006
You just made that up, didn't you?
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
11/23/09, (AP) Mauna Loa, Global warming gases have built up to record levels in the atmosphere, from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
goog2k 1 year ago
@ SeasonsofBlue, We make 90 million tons CO2 each DAY. That's 3.4% of natural production.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising 2ppm per year (0.5%), TWICE that of 50 years ago.
CO2 levels are 35% above the highest levels for 650,000 years.
50% of CO2 is dissolved in oceans.
In 30 years CO2 will reach 450ppm which most oceanographers warn will interfere with growth of calcium carbonate forming planktons and corals.
They make the base of the ocean's food chain.
Search:
NOAA, Trends in Carbon Dioxide
goog2k 1 year ago
Dissolved CO2 makes acid.
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
Oops!!!
For info. on CO2 ocean acidification check:
Dr. Richard Feely, NOAA
Ocean Acidification Part 1 of 3
/watch?v=0KgRpJxWQDw&NR=1
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
You know, Nightversionn, I'm still waiting upon your explanation of why this wouldn't happen without human induced carbon dioxide. Climate change cannot be stopped, regardless of which way you look at it. If by chance anthropogenic global warming was a major cause of warming, 10% [at most] is insignificant in comparison to the 90% nature driven production.
Even if the hypothesis turned out to be true, it could only be slowed down. Save the world crap is just a fantasy, and delusion.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
Interesting point, but a little too doomsday for me. We can't 'save the world' because it is not in danger. Life on the world may be - possibly over the next few generations - we will probably find out the hard way.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
"Save the world" was a generalization. I simply mean it's a fantasy.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
I'm not clear on what you are saying is a fantasy.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady.
When people claim they're saving the world by reducing carbon dioxide, or more less, referring to themselves. It's a delusion, and thus a fantasy. Even if the hypothetical theory of climate change was real, we could only slow it down a mere fraction.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
What is your evidence for this?
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
Taking into consideration we're no more responsible for 10% of carbon dioxide levels. 90% of it is nature driven. Theoretically, this process is just being sped up.
And anyway, natural weather and human weather has yet to be distinguished.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
You misunderstand the science behind the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and human contribution. Very small changes in the levels of green-house gasses can have a disproportionate effect on the climate. You are also wrong in your assertion that the distinction between 'natural' and 'human' weather has yet to be distinguished. For example the weather, especially precipitation has changed radically over the past twenty years, especially near the poles where warming is greatest.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady.
100 year cycles, 200 cycles.. We've not yet understood it thoroughly as temperature has only been recorded for a relative short time.
Or for example, how much of an effect, and how long term is earth associated with solar radiation.
Then there's the theory of wind direction, or if you will, el nino.
Until natural, and human induced weather are distinguished, only then can the cause be verified.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
No one is saying that the earth's climate is not complex, but it is not random either. One of the biggest mistakes that those who wish to ignore AGW make is to assume that cyclical variable have not been included in projections of future climate scenarios. Everything from the cyclical changes in earth's orbit to El Nino and the Arctic Oscillation have been included in the research - yet still temperature increases are forecast and are happening almost exactly as predicted.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady.
Not particularly. There are cycles we're unaware of, and insufficient research about the ocean's role.
Small variations in solar radiance can also, have a substantial effect on climate.
And please, I'm not ignoring anything of the such. I'd just rather human and natural induced weather, be redefined. As the two are common misconceptions.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
98% of climate scientists agree that global temps have dramatically changed since humans started burning oil and that this will almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the well-being of our children. I'd say that you solution or redefining the definition of what is natural and what is human is tantamount to ignoring the problem.
Jehovahs Witnesses have the same ostrich-like quality. It'll be all right in the end because God'll sort it and we'll live in a paradise on Earth.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
For humanity to think we have such importance to the point we're responsible for spikes in temperature, can be considered arrogant. Thus what I meant in the prior post.
Could I ask that you verify the 98% of the broad term "climate scientists"?
Distinguishing the differences is vital.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
Your perspective appears to be that the past hundred years is a 'spike'.
My definition of climate scientist is a climatologist - a branch of science as established as geologist or oceanographer.
Definitions seems to be pet theme of yours. Discussing semantics is another way of avoiding the real issues.
Or is it? How do you define 'semantics?'
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
By centuries/decades, I was making a reference to cycles in which the earth encompasses. I was merely skeptical about your unreferenced claim of "98% of climate scientists agree that global temps have dramatically changed since humans started burning oil". Do not flatter yourself.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
Not my figures. Don't flatter me. Try Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, Earth and Environmental Sciences Dept., University of Illinois.
But they are not alone. Here is a list of professional societies of scientists that are relevant to climate science, and who support the findings of the IPCC
* National Academy of Science (US)
* Royal Society (UK)
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
To be continued...
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue 5
* Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The worlds oldest and the United Kingdoms largest geoscience organization)
* The Institution of Engineers Australia
* National Research Council
* International Council on Science
But what about the scientific bodies that do not support the findings of the IPCC?
To be continued...
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue 6
And here is the list of professional scientific societies that do not agree with the IPCC
*
*
* American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
Over to you.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
And I should assume that every individual scientist of these organizations aren't advocating?
It is documented that 30,000+ scientist signed a petition claiming that it's not settled.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
30,000 'scientists' ? You are referring to the Oregon Petition. Put together by Frederick Seitz who worked for the Heartland Institute to help fudge the facts about tobacco causing cancer. Signatories of the Oregon Petition were not required to have anything more than a degree and only 9,029 of them had PhDs. There were many repeated names and many odd ones including Michael J Fox and Ginger Spice.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady,
Regardless, what percentage of scientists are advocates?
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
The list of scientific organizations posted represents thousands more climate specific PhDs than the Oregon Petition, which you only needed a BSc in engineering to sign.
The bottom line is that 97.4% of those with specific expertise in climate believe in AGW and accept the findings of the IPCC report (site Doran & Zimmerman paper).
There is a spectrum of opinions on the IPCC report. All of the scientists that I communicate with think the IPCC report is far too conservative.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
The percentage of climate scientist against the rest of the scientific community. The percentage of those advocating.
Distinguishing that would be an accomplishment within itself.
You missed my point, or more specifically, ignored it.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
Lovely phrase that - "The percentage of climate scientist against the rest of the scientific community" as if the scientific community is opposed to climate science in its concern about AGW.
Just take the Royal Society from my list below. Current Fellows include Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. There are currently twenty five Nobel prize winners among the Fellows, only a small percentage of whom are climatologists, yet they all support the findings of the IPCC.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady
I'm sorry. But since when is a consensus considered science?
You've listed a small margin of scientific groups. Thus a small percentage.
Lovely phrase? No, you're misinterpreting. Although, most likely intentionally. I never stated that climate scientist were the only ones whom supported the theory. I'm merely referencing a comparison.
In most countries, the consensus is split in two. Of course, I'm referring to polls.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
A small margin of scientific groups including the Royal Society, the NOAA, NASA??? Wow. The list I provided are the most eminent scientific groups with relevance to climate change on the planet. Check it.
Read my postings. I said "You are right, science is not based on consensus, it is based on empirical evidence".
Seeing as you claim that "In most countries, the consensus is split in two. Of course, I'm referring to polls", please site your evidence.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady.
There are various polls via the web, that could satsify you for evidence.
I can't parcitularly reference a newspaper which is a few months old, let alone a news station. In case you misintrepeted, I'm referring to the general.
I'm not partciularly bias to any side, I'm merely pointing out that climate change isn't settled science. I'm sure, if not certain there'd be members of those groups whom are not of certainty.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady.
I realise those whom support the consensus, would be of a larger margin. However, with the climategate scandal, and various other scenarios. scepticism is only natural.
And note, there are many scientific institutions. You only named a brief amount.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
You can't provide any links to substantiated evidence. I have. So why should I, or anyone reading this believe you?
"And note, there are many scientific institutions. You only named a brief amount."
I named the 39 most influential scientific organisations on the planet. How many can you name that do not support the IPCC report?
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady.
You're once again, misinterpreting me.
I'm not here to prove any side, however, I'm merely pointing out that it isn't settled science. Influential is irrelevant. it's pale margin in comparison to every single other. I have have a much larger preference for individual opinions, not that of an institution, anyhow.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
I'm sorry if you think I'm misinterpreting you, but I think we have a bone of contention about whether the science is 'settled' or not. Science can't be 'settled', it is a process of consistency asking questions. Even the theory of gravity is not 'settled'. My point is that the most eminent scientifically trained organisations and individuals in the world agree that the empirical evidence is in favour of AGW. There is less consensus about what we should do about it.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady.
Whether it was settled was a reference to those who believe with such certainty that it is. Everything derives on probability. There are still questions being raised over climate change, e.g what is the amplifying climate change.
However, the issue is quite dogmatic.
SeasonsOfBlue 1 year ago
@SeasonsOfBlue
Yes, many of those who argue for and against CC are dogmatic. I can see why. Those who don't believe it are frightened of having to live a more austere life without fossil fuels or of higher taxes. Those who do are frightened of weather and temperature changes that could threaten civilization.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady "Those who don't believe it are frightened of having to live a more austere life without fossil fuels[...]"
I sincerely and vehemenently question your opinion that one of the main reasons people oppose CC is because they don't want a car that runs cleaner and potentially saves them lots and lots of money...regardless of the hilarity that all of us switching to electric cars would magically alter the earth's climate lol...
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
Yes, I admit it is simplistic reasoning, there are many other reasons why people chose to oppose man made CC. Perhaps they have political reasons, financial reasons or have been indoctrinated in a dogmatic culture of anti-science. Or perhaps they have just not read the IPCC report correctly ;o)
I don't agree about electric cars though. Google 'Climate Change Without the Hot Air'.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Erratum. Google Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air. A must-read free to download and wholly independent book.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
People oppose man made CC because it's turning into a political tool and a tool for more government control.
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
Not because of the science then?
They may be opposing CC because they are led to believe that it is a political tool for more government control. That is certainly what right-wing groups in the US are trying to promote. I urge you to genuinely consider what evidence you have for this. I'm constantly amazed at how right-wing voters are manipulated in the US - whether it is religious or political fundamentalism.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady I'm not a right wing voter nor am I a religious or political fundamentalist.
My evidence is the FACT that no governing body, in the entire history of humans on earth, has ever gotten "smaller" or given away power without a revolution of some kind. Every event that occurs stimulates extra government control. The same is true of CC.
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
Nonsense.
Is your 'FACT' a personal opinion or supported by a peer-reviewed document? :o))
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
But I apologise unreservedly for grouping you with the crackpot political or religious sector.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady You don't think it's a political tool?
You think Al Gore knows what he's talking about when he gets on a lift and rises up next to a 20 ft tall line graph? Do you think left wing voters are not manipulated at all?
Do you consider the left to be any more honest than the right? Do you think politicians are actually in opposition of each other, or that perhaps it's more like professional wrestling?
I think you need to stop being amazed at just the right wing...
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
"You don't think it's a political tool?"
It is being used as a political tool. Whether they are right wing or left wing makes no difference difference to whether the earth is warming as a result of human activity. My annoyance with the right wing in particular comes from the propensity of Free Market think-tanks to blur the science because they have vested interests. Heartland is the best US example but there are similar organisations in my own country.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady The people who ignore science for an agenda are the real problem, whether they are right or left. The ones on the left are much more visible for the time being and have most of the chips, thus they receive the majority of my attention on youtube posts lol.
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady I think you are blind to any and all political gain that might be had by exaggerating the impact and responsibility of man on the environment, or scientific funding that might be gained by such.
Computer models are not 100% accurate. You are very knowledgeable on this subject, but accepting models tested on historical data that are used to project future statistics is not wise. I can't express to you the amount of tweaking involved in a computer model.
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
I do not accept that everyone involved in researching climate change is exaggerating it for personal gain.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady I don't think every individual involved is doing it for personal gain, but I think personal gain is a strong motivation to agree to a consensus if it means your organization gets funding for the next 10 years.
And the opposite is true as well, if openly opposing it could potentially dry your funding up because of political pressure, why openly oppose it?
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
This is quite an easy one to argue with.
Nearly all of the research used in the IPCC report would have been carried out anyway, irrespective of CC. That is how global warming was discovered to be so universal and how it is measured. Hundreds of researchers (paid for in the main by universities and industry) in many different disciplines, came to similar conclusions. These may be contrary to their own specialisations - by reporting CC they are doing themselves out of a job.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady And yes, because of the science as well. Do not assume my argument for me. Theories opposing multiple parts of the IPCC reports exist and are backed by science as well.
You continue to give statistics on how many people agree with one side or another, instead of actually arguing the science.
It amazes me how left-wing voters trust information that supports their own ideas without objective thinking...
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
Do not assume that because I criticise the ultra-right that I am "a left-wing voter".
There is a lot of fake science around at the moment (the vid above is a perfect example), so if you've truly read and researched the IPCC report and come to the conclusion that it is undecided I'd love to see your evidence.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
- ¿Si el cambio climatico es una Herramienta politica?
Si, lo es... Pero que tiene de malo?
- Consideras que el ambiente esta desligado de la politica? No, no lo esta.
- Pensas que el cambio necesario en la poblacion mundial no tiene que ir ligado a un cambio politico? Pues estas loco.
- Sabias que empresas petroleras invierten millones de u$s en campañas para tratar de negar la teoria del calentamiento global?
RodriguezResiste2 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
- Si en vez de llamarlo "calentamiento global", lo llamaras "cambio climatico" (como se llama hoy en dia) donde no solo implica con mayor temperatura, sino tambien las regiones en donde la temperatura baja... se podria seguir hechandole la culpa al sol?? Pues... NO.
RodriguezResiste2 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady No, gravity is an accepted theory, with testable, reproduceable, empirical data. Man made climate change is most definitively NOT accepted theory, with no empirical reproduceable data. It's one hypothesis of hundreds.
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
Nope. There are over 2,000 research documents from a variety of world-wide scientific disciplines that have been considered as part of the IPCC 4th assessment. That is what 'empirical data' means. You may be thinking of computer modelling for the future, which is a common error. Models have been created based on the climate forcing of the past. These have been blind-tested on previous climate data where we know what happened and have been found to be 100% accurate.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady Did you just say climate models are 100% accurate when tested on historical data?
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago
@fatsomamacheese
Indeed. And their prediction for global temperature rise continues to be pretty-much spot-on too.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady "How many can you name that do not support the IPCC report?"
The IPCC report that suggests man "may" be partly responsible for CC? I think most all support the report that says man "may" be part of the reason behind CC. Those who support the idea that it is proven scientific theory...I can't think if any...
fatsomamacheese 1 year ago