No, Co2 pockets are a mining hazard, but since Coal is pulzerized into a fine powder no co2 would be in it when sent to the furnace
If you mean the more traditional claim that Carbon in coal "oxidizes into co2" then that is "Co2 creation" which is a impossibility cause when carbon gunk does oxidize when exposed to air it is when combustion has been snuffed out (Throwing water on hot coals) and the oxifdation is to Carbon Monoxide(
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesize, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to countries in need for emergency food, fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Arguments and opinions based on a movie, endorsed and promoted by Actors smells funny to me. And Arguments, evidence and plans put forward by scientists, funded and led by goverment bodys absolutely stinks of foul play!! How disgusting is it to hear politicians and actors say "The Debate on Global warming/Climate Change" is over. On another note, Teaching Children a one sided view and/or telling them to belive what some political actors say is "true"is very dangrous more so than Global warming
The science of climate change continues to evolve and regardless of the outcome of the climate debate, observational data suggests that we may be served well by basing our climate agenda, scientifically and economically, on a broader perspective than that in the IPCC outlined scenarios. Our pollution abatement and energy diversification goals could then be formulated, and likely implemented, with less pain.
Quotes are from authors who believe anthropogenic global warming is a problem and are refining the models. Those cited are not confused about the need to slow our contribution to global warming, they are exploring how much is human induced.
Looking closely, one sees that over the last century the sun has possibly created up to 50% of the warming. Refutation of the "hockey stick model" is based on refinements that produce similarly hockey stick shaped curves. Balls and gall, that's all.
**GW is not science - it is ficiton from nuclear power**
No, I think it's more of the Environuts wanting us to go back to swinging in trees and living in caves (I've done it, It's overratted) or complainers confusing the price of gas after all the taxes all levels of governments impose on the price of gas as something "Evil Big Oil" is doing while "raking in even more profits" when "Big oil" doesn't even make a cent off the price of gas...governments make the most money off gas.
hey, swinging in trees is fun! and you don't honestly believe that spewing smog and soot from our beloved cars' tailpipes is good for anything on earth, do you?
**you don't honestly believe that spewing smog and soot from our beloved cars' tailpipes is good for anything on earth, do you?**
Ah, but what is actually comming out of car tailpipes and factory stack filters since the EPA standards since the 70's are strict and local governments like california are even stricter still on emmision standards?
Does burning fossil fuels make CO2 (carbon dioxide) as the Environut claim or is it actually CO (Carbon Monoxide) like you learn in Science class?
And plenty of pro-AGW scientists are payed by Greenpeace.
Greenpeace has payed 32 BILLION dollars to AGW supporters. Exxon has only payed 16 million.
What credibility does your argument have if it is being payed by Greenpeace? Even worse, Greenpeace (on YOUR side) spends almost 200 times more money funding Global warming supporters then Exxon.
Life on Earth depends on CO2. Only the nuclear industry has a problem wit the 3.7 ppm of CO2 in the air. Adn Greenpeace push GW, and show no inteest in me tellngi them how to do nuclear fusion from water, like the dee psea, and green plants in the light do.
If you check the 2001 report - working group I you will see that Mr. Christy is the lead author regarding Tropospheric trends using satellite reconstructions. Indeed Mr. Christy is a most honorable and humble individual.
He approaches his science with the utmost rigor and competence. But of course you knew that he was an IPCC lead author already... I'm sure.
If you wish to call me - a science educator for 16 years with more than 8 years of science education a moron - this is of course your right. However, I would certainly say that your vocabulary is rather lackluster, but rather adequate to express your ideas.
My video "Global Warming - Sun" is now up in its permanent position at acutemania(dot)net for anyone who wants to embed it. Follow the link in the video description on "Global Warming - Sun" to get the correct URL. Don't use the main page as the videos there will change.
It is a smear tactic. If the science is sound, then what does it matter. If you can't dispute the science, attack the person. That's a very commonly used smear tactic in this field and in others.
**It is a smear tactic. If the science is sound, then what does it matter. If you can't dispute the science, attack the person. That's a very commonly used smear tactic in this field and in others.**
I know I've been called names for showing how it is Earth's orbit,earth's axis, and Solar minimus and maximus that causes the fluxes in wind,weather and climate by enviroinuts more interested in getting us "off oil"(more like bitching about $4 a gallon gas)
And no a bunch of "eperts" voting by consensus that Humans are the cause of Global warming via releasing CO2 from burning fossil fuesl is not Hard Science" because
1) read the IPCC report,there is a lot of speculationinn the form of "Highly likely" and "Probably"..hard Science would be more sure
2)they never used the Scientific Method to Isolate then Exclude CO2 as the culprit
3)They never did field tests to test whether burning oil/Coal makes co2
"Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changes occurring now? Climate models suggest the answer is yes, real data suggests otherwise."
If you wish to base your assessment on the climate on whether or not someone gets money from a particular group than I would suggest getting scientifically literate so that you can understand DATA. If you do not have this capacity... then try art, politics, Lit., Simply making accusations about a person's character does not change the climate.
Oh wait, you are one of those people that think that "Big Oil" actually sets the Price of Gas?
No. Gas is a totally different industry from Oil and "Big Oil" sells their oil to other industries like Carbon Fiber and Plastics manafactuers, Nylon makers, and so forth
Gas Refiners/Wholesalers are not owned by "Big Oil" and it is the Wholesalers that set the price of Gas after their costs and a shit load of taxes...not "Big Oil"
1) It is not "Big Oil"'s fault that Car Engined in the Car you buy are so fucken ineffecient and runs on gas
2)Ineffecient gas engines like the one in your car, that you are blaming "Big OIl" for buying the fucken thing as well as the tax increases that raised the price of gas, actually produce Carbon Monoxide not Carbon Dioxide so that it is Cars and "Big Oil" fault there is more CO2 in the air is utter Bullshit.
It's icreased water vapor letting more Co2 rise up
"All the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science."
"Izrael was chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology (Goskomgidromet) at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Following the accident he was widely criticized for SLOW and INACCURATE MONITORING. He was also criticized for ALLOWING AIR POLLUTION THROUGHOUT THE USSR TO REACH UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS."
ohhhh nice, yah like we should trust him, THOSE CRITICISMS SAYS IT ALL, imo!
Chapman, W.L. and J.E. Walsh. 2007. A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures. Journal of Climate, 20, 4096-4117.
Trends computed with starting dates from 1966 to 1982 producing net cooling rates over the region.
Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, (2008). A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.
Global - because your posts have been so stupid - from now on I'm not going to reply to you directly, but just keep posting relevant scientific evidence and arguments.
I can't answer your stupid question global - because my unformation comes from a very wide range of sources - not from a single website. Which bit of that information (that I have told you before) do you not understand?
For a baisc primer read Essex and McKitrick: "Taken By Storm" or Singer and Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years."
Büntgen, U. D.C. Frank, D. Nievergelt, and J. Esper, 2006, Summer Temperature Variations in the European Alps, A.D. 755--2004. Journal of Climate, 19, 5606-5624.
"Maximum temperature amplitude over the past 1250 yr is estimated to be 3.1°C between the warmest (1940s) and coldest (1810s) decades." Also, the team writes "Warm summers seem to coincide with periods of high solar activity, and cold summers vice versa."
Here's another scientific study to assuage your raving hysterical alarmism global:
Chase, T. N., K. Wolter, R. A. Pielke Sr., and I. Rasool, 2006. Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L23709, doi:10.1029/2006GL027470.
"Regression analyses do not provide strong support for the idea that regional heat or cold waves are significantly increasing or decreasing with time during the period considered here (1979--2003)."
global here are two recent studies which should help assuage your hysteria about sea levels (which are not rising unusually fast).
Holgate, S. J., 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.
Wöppelmann, G., B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, and Z. Altamimi. 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change, 57, 396--406.
Khaliq, M.N., P. Gachon, A. St-Hilaire, T.B.M.J. Ouarda, and B. Bobeé, 2007. Southern Quebec (Canada) summer-season heat spells over the 1941--2000 period: an assessment of observed changes. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 88, 83--101.
"summer-season minimum temperatures are getting less cold and extreme hot days are getting less hot in southern Quebec based on the analysis of observations recorded over the last six decades of the 20th century."
pheiol58 - well posted (please keep up the good work). global obviously seems to have trouble understanding even the most basic of scientific concepts and methodologies. He seems to think that getting scientists full names is somehow relevant to the validity of research that they have published in peer-reviewed journals.
Bizarrely he also seems to think that scientific evidence comes from websites. Sigh. Just shows the widespread lack of public understanding of acience.
"He seems to think that getting scientists full names is somehow relevant to the validity of research that they have published in peer-reviewed journals."
yes IT IS RELEVANT MORON! i want to check out their CREDIBILITY, IDIOT!!! are they really peer-reviewed, i want to see if they are too!
global - just go and read the article, you're old enough (I imagine) to do your own research.
Here's another article presenting evidence that computer climate models are faulty.
Hansson, D. and A. Omstedt. 2007. Modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate on centennial time scale: temperature and sea ice. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0321-2.
The authors conclude that the output data from the state-of-the-art climate model "are not suitable for modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate"
"The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future -- and indeed have successfully done so."
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
"Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere... modelled and observed trends have opposite signs... future projections of temperature change.. in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high."
I keep hearing about computer modals...They can barely predict weather 7 to 10 days out...even then they will have 3 or 4 different models all disagreeing
global...did you just say that predicting climate is routine and reliable???? LOL !! ...world climate..is one of the most complex things your little pea brain can try to comprehend
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
global - mediamatters is not a scientific source - and so your quote has no relevance to a discussion of the evidence against the validity of the computer models.
the "scientist"(chylek) you told me that debunks me, actually DEBUNKS YOU!!!! hahahahah! thanks MORON!
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average...."
pheil58 - yes there is a big climate chage conference on at the moment, and typically, as an indication of the overwhelming media bias I haven't seen any reporting of it so far.
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and FOUND THAT THE WARMING RATE THERE WAS 2.2 TIMES FASTER THAN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE...."
"This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
global - you failed to address the point of the references - namely showing that the current mild global re-warming has happened many times before (and long before CO2 emissions), for instance in the 1930s, during the mediaeval warm period, the Roman warm period, the Minoan warm period, and the Holocene climate optimum. Something other than CO2 was driving all these warmings. QED. Case against CO2 dismissed.
"The RECORD HEAT of 2005 is part of a LONGER-TERM WARMING TREND exacerbated by the rise of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere that is due primarily to our burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. NINETEEN OF THE HOTTEST 20 YEARS ON RECORD HAVE OCCURED SINCE 1980."
minilemur--globalwarmingisreal has provided no articles that as far as I've seen, just ramblings about a "consensus" and charges of Exxon funding. I get can loads of environmentalist nuts accusing me, and anyone else who disagrees with AGW, of being funded by Exxon. Just like weirdo, they have no evidence.
it's not simply "exxon funding"! do you see the diff., MORON!
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
Chylek, P., et al., 2006. Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510.
"Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause."
"But Legates and Du Pont ignored a study published by Chylek a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillations (NAO). "
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
Grudd, H. 2008. Torneträsk tree-ring width and density AD 500--2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0358-2.
"The new Torneträsk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years."
global, here's some more evidence - notice how recent:
Zabenskie, S. and Konrad Gajewski. 2007. Post-Glacial climatic change on Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada. Quaternary Research, 68, 261--270.
estimate past climates from the fossil pollen assemblages."
Summers in Nunavut warmed from 7,000 BP to 4,000 BP to conditions warmer than present, then around 3,000 BP, a long cooling began culminating in near-present conditions being among the coolest of the past 7,000 years.
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
"ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years."
global - I don't care whether I have any credibility with you - since your whole system of credibility is a personal one based on nothing more substantial than your feelings and opinions. I am honoured that you find me incredible.
It doesn't much matter about Arctic sea ice because it comes and goes, both on an annual cycle and also, for example, when it was much warmer in Greenland and the Arctic in the 1930, and during the mediaeval warm period. We survived that without ill effects.
"It doesn't much matter about Arctic sea ice because it comes and goes, both on an annual cycle and also, for example, when it was much warmer in Greenland and the Arctic in the 1930, and during the mediaeval warm period. We survived that without ill effects"
show me your links, who said that? where's the evidence!
global - what an idiotic argument - of course in a period of mild global re-warming temperature records will continue to be met or slightly nudged for a while. But all your ineffective computer models predict accelerated temperature rise when the reality is that the observed trend has consistently undershot even the lowest of the IPCC GCMs. QED - they're rubbish.
global - how pathetic your bleated "which oil company do you work for" - answer: - I work for the ludicrous totally imaginary oil company in your head.
In any case how would the nature of my employment change the fact of scientific evidence that I cite?
simply put, EXXON HAS A CAMPAIGN TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC & MEDIA TO STALL ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING, JUS LIKE THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TRIED TO DO WITH SECOND-HAND SMOKE!
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
global - NASA has recently recalculated its data after an outside showed them their mistakes and in the USA record the warmest years of the 20th century were in the 1930s.
Additionally, there has been no warming trend since 1998.
"The record heat of 2005 is part of a longer-term warming trend exacerbated by the rise of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere that is due primarily to our burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980."
"Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide. For people living in the Northern Hemisphere — most of the world's population — 2005 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide."
global - are you stupid? Can't you read - in other words 2005 was cooler than 1998. And there has been no increase in temperatures - as predicted by the CO2 hypothesis - despite continuing rises in CO2. Which bit of that do you not understand you oaf?
"Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide. For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide."
THIS CONCLUSION has subsequently BEEN SUPPORTED by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 year..."
globalwarming - there is no evidence that a small amount of funding from an oil company invalidates the scientific research of those they fund. Equally there is no evidence that many times that much funding doesn't corrupt the special pleading of groups like greanpeace and WWF, and the computer model scientists who get more money the more they hysterically shriek alarmism.
And another thing - why do eco-alarmists believe that a small amount of funding from oil companies can totally corrupt skeptical scientists, whilst maintaining that 2,000 times as much funding for alarmist causes will not have a much more powerful effect in corrupting the alarmists. It's completely bonkers belief.
minilemur--"why do eco-alarmists believe that a small amount of funding from oil companies can totally corrupt skeptical scientists"
They don't, but they believe it is an effective weapon against dissent. That's what they cling to since they have no facts. Otherwise, they argue that you have to go along with them because the consequences are disasterous if AGW is true; it's argument by threat.
"That's what they cling to since they have no facts."
"Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.
"A LEAKED INDUSTRY MEMO dating back to 1998 also reveals that EXXON has been involved in a COORDINATED EFFORT TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC around global warming science"
"The company WOULD RECRUIT and TRAIN NEW SCIENTISTS who LACK a 'HISTORY OF VISIBILITY in the CLIMATE DEBATE' and develop materials depicting supporters of action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as 'out of touch with reality.' "
what i always questioned about global warming is that if carbon keeps the suns rays in the atmosphere then why wouldnt it keep them from getting in the first place ? and i've never gotten an answer. kinda makes me wonder about all this global warming stuff
luke33boschman - you're right to wonder about the global warmaholic hype.
Most importantly climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic, which means that each extra increment has less effect than the previous one. So scientists have calculated (on the basis of basic physics and observed temperature trends) that the extra temperature rise that could be caused by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere has already mainly been used up in the last century. So nothing to worry about in this century.
Global warming does not work by keeping solar rays in the atmosphere. Its a common misconception due to the inaccuracies of the name 'greenhouse effect'.
Global warming is caused by infrared radiation that is emitted from the Earth, this heat energy is then trapped by GHG's in the atmosphere. It should really be called the blanket effect, just as blankets work by retaining body heat.
Clouds, ice-packs, atmospheric aerosols have a cooling effect (albedo) because they reflect solar energy.
luke33boschman--Without getting into too much technical detail, it's safe to say that energy is taken in and radiated in different forms. I don't think that there is too much dispute about that. However, the climate system is extremely complex and the dispute lies in whether the greenhouse effect is significant to any degree and whether increases in CO2 concentration are due to man or a result of feedback.
luke33boschman--My background is in numerics, so my initial questions about AGW had to do with modelling and the feasibility of modelling a system that was so complex. In short, I knew that it couldn't be done. When I started to look at the other issues surrounding AGW, I found all of it to be suspect. However, the lie persists because many people stand to make a good deal of money off of our higher gas prices via taxation, carbon credits, etc.
sergejsh - YAWN! You keep coming up with the same boring and invalid posts - you keep telling us to google things. That's not a valid scientific methodology.
You can just as easily find responses to the most common alarmist or warmaholic arguments.
If you understand the arguments, state them. If you don't understand the arguments, show some humility.
minilemur: "You keep coming up with the same boring and invalid posts - you keep telling us to google things. That's not a valid scientific methodology."
I giving links to where are the answers to these already old, I think, arguments from this video. But you still using these old arguments as 'the best'.
sergejsh - the links you give are not to scientific sources, so are not valid contributions to an objective assessment of the scientific evidence showing that the mild global re-warming we have seen recently is well within the bounds of normal variation on the planet, and not driven by human fossil fuel emissions.
minilemur: "the links you give are not to scientific sources, so are not valid."
The linksI am providing here are 1) based on scientific sources and 2) providing links to scientific sources the are based on.
I am giving searches on Google because in Youtube comments there is no much space to tell everything NEED to tel on your and another such arguments. The best is to provide references to articles where ALL such 'arguments' are reviewed critically and explained scientifically.
globalwarmingisreal--IPCC is a money-grubbing fraud that is abusing science. That's why the top scientists like Richard Lindzen, Chris Landsea, John Christy, etc. don't participate in the IPCC anymore.
global - my opinion of Exxon is that they are an insignificant player in the global warming debate.
Your assumption is absurd: supposedly you claim everyone on the skeptical side of the debate is 100% corrupted by a small amount of oil company funding, whereas everyone on the alarmist side of the debate is 100% unaffected by 2,000 times as much funding. It's just not logical. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Kerry foundation for instance. Why is ketchup money better than oil money?
"Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Kerry foundation for instance. Why is ketchup money better than oil money?"
this has NOTHING to do with the dollar amount!
maybe this can explain it better for you, MORON!
"In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on global warming. The plan was outlined in an internal memo that promised, ' VICTORY WILL BE ACHIEVED WHEN UNCERTAINTIES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE BECOME PART OF the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM' for 'AVERAGE CITIZENS' and 'THE MEDIA.' "
globalwarming - thanks for calling me a moron - I take it as a compliment from someone of your limited understanding. Keep it up: it reveals to free-thinking readers of this thread how completley lacking you are in any scientific evidence or argument.
In the real world it is perfectly normal for special interest groups to support one side or other of a debate. Any oil money is dwarfed by about 2,000 times as much money available to the special pleaders on the other side of the debate.
global - also: the IPCC figure of 2.7% per decade is nothing particularly serious - well within the bounds of natural variation. What's the problem with losing 2.7% per decade?
Also - stop ignoring the IPCC conclusion that the Antarctic is not in any danger of melting. More than 90% of the world's ice is there.
"Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season PLUMMETED to the LOWEST LEVELS since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September ON RECORD, SHATTERING THE PREVIOUS RECORD for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent..."
LOL! now i know you're full of ! if you believe that, then you lost all credibility!! actually you lost your credibility when you cherry picked data, took things out-of-text to make it sound like fact etc...
Global - the IPCC just as clearly states "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall." It would take anyone with internet access no more than a few seconds to download the summary from the IPCC website, but once again, the facts are too inconvenient regarding what is reportedly happening in Antarctica according to the greenhouse warmaholics and eco-alarmists.
this is the WHOLE text....& this is just projections NOT FACT!
from IPCC...
"current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet...However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance. {WGI 10.7, SPM}
"Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season PLUMMETED to the LOWEST LEVELS since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September ON RECORD, SHATTERING THE PREVIOUS RECORD for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent..."
A spectacular example of how corrupt processes operate in the IPCC is provided in the backroom changes that Santer made (under political pressure from Clinton/Gore. Santer unilaterally deleted key statements that had been agreed by the scientists such as:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increase in greenhouse gases.
I can provide plenty of other examples of corrupt IPCC practices if you like.
"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
First note that most of the observed warming amounts to perhaps 50% of ~ 0.3 degrees since the last maximum in the 1930s. No cause for alarm there then.
Also, pay attention - you haven't been following what I said in some detail about the discrepancy between the IPCC scientific report which doesn't say this unequivocally (but with lots of equivocation about uncertainties) & the summary which was written by a tiny minority without input from most scientists on the IPCC.
"IPCC scientific report which doesn't say this unequivocally (but with lots of equivocation about uncertainties) & the summary which was written by a tiny minority without input from most scientists on the IPCC."
globalwarming - pay attention please. I just gave you an example of the discrepancy between the IPCC summary and the IPCC scientific report. I'm not going to waste my time digging up precise references for you until we have established whether or not you understand and agree that if I can show that this corrupt process has happened to your satisfaction then it is sufficiently serious for you to accept that there are severe problems with the IPCC process.
Global - in the mean time read this carefully - the actual words of the IPCC and see if it isn't consistent with my skepticism:
When discussing changes (or the lack thereof) in Antarctica, the IPCC summary report says: "Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region."
The sensational and high volume orchestra renders this video suspect to start with. Maybe this is for the dumning public to soak up, I dunno. Its all a mute topic anyway (read below, those folks are right). If you're going to just enjoy the moment try not to present so, well, ignorant.
Yeah, ignore the cited papers and whine about the music. Of course, you didn't get the point of the music either, I guess. Perhaps, that because you don't know what piece it is. You sound pretty clueless all around.
Did I hurt your feelings? If you're the almighty source of truth on this, could you tell me how the immense money the oil industry has at its disposal (I've traveled to Russia and Kazakhstan on behalf of an oil drilling co.) would not dwarf any dollars being put forth by some "new industry" of global warming science. . . Those papers and scientists in your video are very likely pawns in the oil machine. You're an idiot.
The models are indeed faulty. In fact the northern ice cap is melting at more than double the rate those models have been forecasting. That means YOU will be affected by this BEFORE your children. Does that ring any alarm bells? Probably not, and to be honest your beliefs wont make a bit of difference. Our world will suffer terribly before any improvement is seen. You my as well bury your head in the sand and enjoy the boob tube while you can.
Hate to say this.. but ice is LESS dense than water. So when the less dense water converts to water it will take up less volume and seas will drop. Not rise. It's basic physics. That's why ice floats in water. Go look it up. Or would that ring too many alarm bells?
YOu mean Co2 nbeing embedded in Coal?
No, Co2 pockets are a mining hazard, but since Coal is pulzerized into a fine powder no co2 would be in it when sent to the furnace
If you mean the more traditional claim that Carbon in coal "oxidizes into co2" then that is "Co2 creation" which is a impossibility cause when carbon gunk does oxidize when exposed to air it is when combustion has been snuffed out (Throwing water on hot coals) and the oxifdation is to Carbon Monoxide(
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesize, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to countries in need for emergency food, fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
STILL WARMING!
For an excellent new scientific YouTube investigating the COOLING claims on Global Temps. see:
Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling?
/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&feature=sub
HOTTEST JANUARY in UAH satellite record
(UAH/Dr. Christy, renown denier)
"This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 1 year ago
Arguments and opinions based on a movie, endorsed and promoted by Actors smells funny to me. And Arguments, evidence and plans put forward by scientists, funded and led by goverment bodys absolutely stinks of foul play!! How disgusting is it to hear politicians and actors say "The Debate on Global warming/Climate Change" is over. On another note, Teaching Children a one sided view and/or telling them to belive what some political actors say is "true"is very dangrous more so than Global warming
TheTempestSpark 2 years ago 2
Jan Viezer in The Australian, 4/24/2009:
The science of climate change continues to evolve and regardless of the outcome of the climate debate, observational data suggests that we may be served well by basing our climate agenda, scientifically and economically, on a broader perspective than that in the IPCC outlined scenarios. Our pollution abatement and energy diversification goals could then be formulated, and likely implemented, with less pain.
Granite46 2 years ago 3
Quotes are from authors who believe anthropogenic global warming is a problem and are refining the models. Those cited are not confused about the need to slow our contribution to global warming, they are exploring how much is human induced.
Looking closely, one sees that over the last century the sun has possibly created up to 50% of the warming. Refutation of the "hockey stick model" is based on refinements that produce similarly hockey stick shaped curves. Balls and gall, that's all.
geanark 3 years ago
The affect of CO2 on the air ends at 2%. It is at 0.00037% - a figure pinned by plants - whic htaker in CO2 to support all life on Earth.
JonThm 3 years ago
CO2 at 0.00037% has no affect on the weather - hence the next ice age si with us.
JonThm 3 years ago
saying the low percentage CO2 implies it can have any effect is nonsense : taking the same % of of a toxic material like botuline will kill you...
ZeDollyDots 3 years ago
GW is not science - it is ficiton from nuclear power.
JonThm 3 years ago
**GW is not science - it is ficiton from nuclear power**
No, I think it's more of the Environuts wanting us to go back to swinging in trees and living in caves (I've done it, It's overratted) or complainers confusing the price of gas after all the taxes all levels of governments impose on the price of gas as something "Evil Big Oil" is doing while "raking in even more profits" when "Big oil" doesn't even make a cent off the price of gas...governments make the most money off gas.
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago 3
hey, swinging in trees is fun! and you don't honestly believe that spewing smog and soot from our beloved cars' tailpipes is good for anything on earth, do you?
HopeFlies96 3 years ago
**you don't honestly believe that spewing smog and soot from our beloved cars' tailpipes is good for anything on earth, do you?**
Ah, but what is actually comming out of car tailpipes and factory stack filters since the EPA standards since the 70's are strict and local governments like california are even stricter still on emmision standards?
Does burning fossil fuels make CO2 (carbon dioxide) as the Environut claim or is it actually CO (Carbon Monoxide) like you learn in Science class?
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
Global Warming is PR from nuclear power, not science!
JonThm 3 years ago
And plenty of pro-AGW scientists are payed by Greenpeace.
Greenpeace has payed 32 BILLION dollars to AGW supporters. Exxon has only payed 16 million.
What credibility does your argument have if it is being payed by Greenpeace? Even worse, Greenpeace (on YOUR side) spends almost 200 times more money funding Global warming supporters then Exxon.
ComradeLibertarian 3 years ago
Life on Earth depends on CO2. Only the nuclear industry has a problem wit the 3.7 ppm of CO2 in the air. Adn Greenpeace push GW, and show no inteest in me tellngi them how to do nuclear fusion from water, like the dee psea, and green plants in the light do.
JonThm 3 years ago
If you check the 2001 report - working group I you will see that Mr. Christy is the lead author regarding Tropospheric trends using satellite reconstructions. Indeed Mr. Christy is a most honorable and humble individual.
He approaches his science with the utmost rigor and competence. But of course you knew that he was an IPCC lead author already... I'm sure.
roibasses 3 years ago
If you wish to call me - a science educator for 16 years with more than 8 years of science education a moron - this is of course your right. However, I would certainly say that your vocabulary is rather lackluster, but rather adequate to express your ideas.
roibasses 3 years ago
Big DEAL if you really are!
if you don't "GET IT", then you're worthless!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Well done chap!.. Cheers!
Let science do the talkin' and the cult of global warming do the walkin'
roibasses 3 years ago
roibasses--Thanks! If you like this one, be sure to check out "Sun" at acutemania(dot)net--my best yet.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My video "Global Warming - Sun" is now up in its permanent position at acutemania(dot)net for anyone who wants to embed it. Follow the link in the video description on "Global Warming - Sun" to get the correct URL. Don't use the main page as the videos there will change.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
"A common slur is also that all skeptics are in the pockets of the oil industry."
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclim atologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
you qouted:
"A common slur is also that all skeptics are in the pockets of the oil industry."
LOL! it aint a slur! nice spin!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
It is a smear tactic. If the science is sound, then what does it matter. If you can't dispute the science, attack the person. That's a very commonly used smear tactic in this field and in others.
packrat76 3 years ago 2
**It is a smear tactic. If the science is sound, then what does it matter. If you can't dispute the science, attack the person. That's a very commonly used smear tactic in this field and in others.**
I know I've been called names for showing how it is Earth's orbit,earth's axis, and Solar minimus and maximus that causes the fluxes in wind,weather and climate by enviroinuts more interested in getting us "off oil"(more like bitching about $4 a gallon gas)
No Hard Science proves Co2's guilt in GW
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago 4
**No Hard Science proves Co2's guilt in GW**
And no a bunch of "eperts" voting by consensus that Humans are the cause of Global warming via releasing CO2 from burning fossil fuesl is not Hard Science" because
1) read the IPCC report,there is a lot of speculationinn the form of "Highly likely" and "Probably"..hard Science would be more sure
2)they never used the Scientific Method to Isolate then Exclude CO2 as the culprit
3)They never did field tests to test whether burning oil/Coal makes co2
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago 3
"Will increases in CO2 affect the climate significantly? Are significant changes occurring now? Climate models suggest the answer is yes, real data suggests otherwise."
John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
is JOHN CHRISTY connected to EXXON in any way?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
If you wish to base your assessment on the climate on whether or not someone gets money from a particular group than I would suggest getting scientifically literate so that you can understand DATA. If you do not have this capacity... then try art, politics, Lit., Simply making accusations about a person's character does not change the climate.
roibasses 3 years ago
LOL
What does Exxon have to do with Global Warming?
Oh wait, you are one of those people that think that "Big Oil" actually sets the Price of Gas?
No. Gas is a totally different industry from Oil and "Big Oil" sells their oil to other industries like Carbon Fiber and Plastics manafactuers, Nylon makers, and so forth
Gas Refiners/Wholesalers are not owned by "Big Oil" and it is the Wholesalers that set the price of Gas after their costs and a shit load of taxes...not "Big Oil"
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
It also should be noted that
1) It is not "Big Oil"'s fault that Car Engined in the Car you buy are so fucken ineffecient and runs on gas
2)Ineffecient gas engines like the one in your car, that you are blaming "Big OIl" for buying the fucken thing as well as the tax increases that raised the price of gas, actually produce Carbon Monoxide not Carbon Dioxide so that it is Cars and "Big Oil" fault there is more CO2 in the air is utter Bullshit.
It's icreased water vapor letting more Co2 rise up
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
it is NOT "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" if you can't prove the SCIENTIST'S CREDIBILITY & if it aint "PEER-REVIEWED"....
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"All the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science."
Yuri A. Izrael, Vice-Chair of the IPCC
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
(post from your other JOKE vid)
LOL! & we should trust him!
this is what i got(there's more):
"Izrael was chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology (Goskomgidromet) at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Following the accident he was widely criticized for SLOW and INACCURATE MONITORING. He was also criticized for ALLOWING AIR POLLUTION THROUGHOUT THE USSR TO REACH UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS."
ohhhh nice, yah like we should trust him, THOSE CRITICISMS SAYS IT ALL, imo!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
SAY
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Chapman, W.L. and J.E. Walsh. 2007. A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures. Journal of Climate, 20, 4096-4117.
Trends computed with starting dates from 1966 to 1982 producing net cooling rates over the region.
Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, (2008). A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.
minilemur 3 years ago
this video is VERY MISLEADING & BOGUS!! it would NEVER get SCIENTIFIC APPROVAL! NEVER!
1) they use the IPCC report from 1990! hahahah! to fit their/his/her position! ("Cherry Picking" data)
2) they show NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of the sun being the cause.
3) the conclusion of the Hockey Stick IS SUPPORTED by the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES!
CLIMATE SCIENCE SUPPORTS the conclusion of the mann et al!
4) what did the IPCC's MOST RECENT summary say? why don't he/she/they answer?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
excellent presentation of the science. Well done and keep up the good work. The tide has turned on the alarmists and they have nowhere to hide.
In this last winter alone the world has cooled as much as all of the 20th century warming.
minilemur 3 years ago
Global - because your posts have been so stupid - from now on I'm not going to reply to you directly, but just keep posting relevant scientific evidence and arguments.
minilemur 3 years ago
hahahah yah right!
cuz you can't answer my simple question!
& you know it!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
im STILL WAITING minilemur:
answer my simple question:
which website do you get your info from? why cant you? you hiding sumthing?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
I can't answer your stupid question global - because my unformation comes from a very wide range of sources - not from a single website. Which bit of that information (that I have told you before) do you not understand?
For a baisc primer read Essex and McKitrick: "Taken By Storm" or Singer and Avery: "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years."
minilemur 3 years ago
yah right!
thought so!
NO CREDIBILTY!
if you're gonna try to prove sumthin, you have to PROVE THE SCIENTIST'S CREDIBILITY & it has to BE PEER-REVIEWED!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
this JOKE video is VERY MISLEADING & JUS NOT TRUE!
the conclusion of Hockey Stick has been SUPPORTED by the National Academy of Science!
the video says "CLIMATE SCIENCE saw the ..."
CLIMATE SCIENCE supports the Hockey Stick's conclusion!
where's the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the sun??
& using the IPCC 1990 report? LOL! try using their latest REPORT! IDIOTS!
this JOKE video is VERY MISLEADING & BOGUS!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global here is another reassuring article:
Büntgen, U. D.C. Frank, D. Nievergelt, and J. Esper, 2006, Summer Temperature Variations in the European Alps, A.D. 755--2004. Journal of Climate, 19, 5606-5624.
"Maximum temperature amplitude over the past 1250 yr is estimated to be 3.1°C between the warmest (1940s) and coldest (1810s) decades." Also, the team writes "Warm summers seem to coincide with periods of high solar activity, and cold summers vice versa."
minilemur 3 years ago
NO IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING, UNTIL you can prove the scientists' CREDIBILITY & if its been PEER-REVIEWED, MORON!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
why does this JOKE video have the IPCC 1990 report, a little dated, dont you think?
what is the IPCC's summary NOW???
c'mon, tell me!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Here's another scientific study to assuage your raving hysterical alarmism global:
Chase, T. N., K. Wolter, R. A. Pielke Sr., and I. Rasool, 2006. Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L23709, doi:10.1029/2006GL027470.
"Regression analyses do not provide strong support for the idea that regional heat or cold waves are significantly increasing or decreasing with time during the period considered here (1979--2003)."
minilemur 3 years ago
global here are two recent studies which should help assuage your hysteria about sea levels (which are not rising unusually fast).
Holgate, S. J., 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.
Wöppelmann, G., B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, and Z. Altamimi. 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change, 57, 396--406.
minilemur 3 years ago
look stop using BIAS words like (dogma, hysteria, hype, etc) its VERY MISLEADING & DECEPTIVE ok MORON!
answer my simple question:
which website do you get your info from? why cant you? you hiding sumthing?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Another study contradicting eco-alarmism:
Khaliq, M.N., P. Gachon, A. St-Hilaire, T.B.M.J. Ouarda, and B. Bobeé, 2007. Southern Quebec (Canada) summer-season heat spells over the 1941--2000 period: an assessment of observed changes. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 88, 83--101.
"summer-season minimum temperatures are getting less cold and extreme hot days are getting less hot in southern Quebec based on the analysis of observations recorded over the last six decades of the 20th century."
minilemur 3 years ago
show me the website you are getting your info?
can you read???????
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
pheiol58 - well posted (please keep up the good work). global obviously seems to have trouble understanding even the most basic of scientific concepts and methodologies. He seems to think that getting scientists full names is somehow relevant to the validity of research that they have published in peer-reviewed journals.
Bizarrely he also seems to think that scientific evidence comes from websites. Sigh. Just shows the widespread lack of public understanding of acience.
minilemur 3 years ago
so show me the website you get your info from?
why can't you, i mean are u hiding something?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
you said:
"He seems to think that getting scientists full names is somehow relevant to the validity of research that they have published in peer-reviewed journals."
yes IT IS RELEVANT MORON! i want to check out their CREDIBILITY, IDIOT!!! are they really peer-reviewed, i want to see if they are too!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
you said:
"Bizarrely he also seems to think that scientific evidence comes from websites."
a website can have scientific evidence(quotes etc)...IDIOT!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - just go and read the article, you're old enough (I imagine) to do your own research.
Here's another article presenting evidence that computer climate models are faulty.
Hansson, D. and A. Omstedt. 2007. Modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate on centennial time scale: temperature and sea ice. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0321-2.
The authors conclude that the output data from the state-of-the-art climate model "are not suitable for modelling the Baltic Sea ocean climate"
minilemur 3 years ago
oh the old "computer models are faulty" BS!
"The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future -- and indeed have successfully done so."
grist
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Yeah. They sure predicted last year's hurricane season almost perfectly!
packrat76 3 years ago
LOL Well, you can thank William Gray for that... a global warming skeptic.
Anititroll 3 years ago
Yeah, right, he's the only one that made that prediction. Al Gore did really invent the internet.
packrat76 3 years ago
why can't you answer my questions:
1) jus give me the scientists' full names
2) which website do you use for your info?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.
"Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere... modelled and observed trends have opposite signs... future projections of temperature change.. in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high."
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007."
1) can you type their full names?
2) which site did you get this?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
I keep hearing about computer modals...They can barely predict weather 7 to 10 days out...even then they will have 3 or 4 different models all disagreeing
pheil58 3 years ago
nice try MORON!
"Climate and weather are very different things...(predicting) the CLIMATE is routine and reliable."
grist
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global...did you just say that predicting climate is routine and reliable???? LOL !! ...world climate..is one of the most complex things your little pea brain can try to comprehend
pheil58 3 years ago
did i say it was easy? MORON!
but it has been done! IDIOT!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
LOL! READ!!
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
mediamatters
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarmingisreal--Mediamaters isn't a scientific source. It's a Clinton organization. Try again.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
CHYLEK is!
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
mediamatters
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
what links/sources do you have?
i wanna see it!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - mediamatters is not a scientific source - and so your quote has no relevance to a discussion of the evidence against the validity of the computer models.
minilemur 3 years ago
the "scientist"(chylek) you told me that debunks me, actually DEBUNKS YOU!!!! hahahahah! thanks MORON!
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average...."
(continued)
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarming - no mediamatters is not a scientific or reliable source of information on scientific evidence.
Calling me a moron when I post intelligently and reasonably just shows that it is you who are in fact the moron.
minilemur 3 years ago
minilenur isnt there a 4 day conference gong in New York as speak...of scienists that questiion the science..nothing in the media about that
pheil58 3 years ago
nice try again, MORON, yah let us know about it!
LOL! i would like to see who the "scientists" are!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
pheil58 - yes there is a big climate chage conference on at the moment, and typically, as an indication of the overwhelming media bias I haven't seen any reporting of it so far.
minilemur 3 years ago
you mean FOX NEWS? LOL!
IDIOT!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
so are you saying this is not true?
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO-and FOUND THAT THE WARMING RATE THERE WAS 2.2 TIMES FASTER THAN THE GLOBAL AVERAGE...."
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
(cont'd)
"This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
mediamatters
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - you failed to address the point of the references - namely showing that the current mild global re-warming has happened many times before (and long before CO2 emissions), for instance in the 1930s, during the mediaeval warm period, the Roman warm period, the Minoan warm period, and the Holocene climate optimum. Something other than CO2 was driving all these warmings. QED. Case against CO2 dismissed.
minilemur 3 years ago
it aint "MILD" & it aint "re-warming" IDIOT!
READ, IDIOT!
"The RECORD HEAT of 2005 is part of a LONGER-TERM WARMING TREND exacerbated by the rise of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere that is due primarily to our burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. NINETEEN OF THE HOTTEST 20 YEARS ON RECORD HAVE OCCURED SINCE 1980."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - you're raving.
The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies with increasing evidence rebutting the CO2 dogma.
minilemur 3 years ago
if that's true, show me the evidence, from which scientists...
why do you use words like "dogma" etc, you seem very BIAS, dishing out BS!
like i said before, your CREDIBILITY is a JOKE!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
minilemur--globalwarmingisreal has provided no articles that as far as I've seen, just ramblings about a "consensus" and charges of Exxon funding. I get can loads of environmentalist nuts accusing me, and anyone else who disagrees with AGW, of being funded by Exxon. Just like weirdo, they have no evidence.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
if i find evidence, will you take this JOKE video down?
thought so!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
it's not simply "exxon funding"! do you see the diff., MORON!
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
UCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - yet more evidence:
Chylek, P., et al., 2006. Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L11707, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510.
"Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause."
minilemur 3 years ago
has this been "peer-reviewed"???
sounds very biased! & BS! to me!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
LOL!!! i knew it was a JOKE!
"But Legates and Du Pont ignored a study published by Chylek a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillations (NAO). "
mediamatters
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
(cont'd)
"Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the warming rate there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years."
mediamatters
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global, here's some of the evidence:
Grudd, H. 2008. Torneträsk tree-ring width and density AD 500--2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0358-2.
"The new Torneträsk summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years."
minilemur 3 years ago
global, here's some more evidence - notice how recent:
Zabenskie, S. and Konrad Gajewski. 2007. Post-Glacial climatic change on Boothia Peninsula, Nunavut, Canada. Quaternary Research, 68, 261--270.
estimate past climates from the fossil pollen assemblages."
Summers in Nunavut warmed from 7,000 BP to 4,000 BP to conditions warmer than present, then around 3,000 BP, a long cooling began culminating in near-present conditions being among the coolest of the past 7,000 years.
minilemur 3 years ago
LOL!
has this been "peer-reviewed"
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
LOL!!!!!
has this been "peer-reviwed"??
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
when minilemur said this, he LOST ALL CREDIBILITY with me!
minilemur said:
"it doesn't much matter about Arctic sea ice"
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - I don't care whether I have any credibility with you - since your whole system of credibility is a personal one based on nothing more substantial than your feelings and opinions. I am honoured that you find me incredible.
It doesn't much matter about Arctic sea ice because it comes and goes, both on an annual cycle and also, for example, when it was much warmer in Greenland and the Arctic in the 1930, and during the mediaeval warm period. We survived that without ill effects.
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"It doesn't much matter about Arctic sea ice because it comes and goes, both on an annual cycle and also, for example, when it was much warmer in Greenland and the Arctic in the 1930, and during the mediaeval warm period. We survived that without ill effects"
show me your links, who said that? where's the evidence!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - what an idiotic argument - of course in a period of mild global re-warming temperature records will continue to be met or slightly nudged for a while. But all your ineffective computer models predict accelerated temperature rise when the reality is that the observed trend has consistently undershot even the lowest of the IPCC GCMs. QED - they're rubbish.
minilemur 3 years ago
which oil company you work for!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - how pathetic your bleated "which oil company do you work for" - answer: - I work for the ludicrous totally imaginary oil company in your head.
In any case how would the nature of my employment change the fact of scientific evidence that I cite?
minilemur 3 years ago
simply put, EXXON HAS A CAMPAIGN TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC & MEDIA TO STALL ACTION ON GLOBAL WARMING, JUS LIKE THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY TRIED TO DO WITH SECOND-HAND SMOKE!
KAPEESH?!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
sorry, more than second-hand smoke...
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
here, take it word for word, ok! i know you can do it!
"Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980."
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - NASA has recently recalculated its data after an outside showed them their mistakes and in the USA record the warmest years of the 20th century were in the 1930s.
Additionally, there has been no warming trend since 1998.
minilemur 3 years ago
where's the links?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"The record heat of 2005 is part of a longer-term warming trend exacerbated by the rise of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere that is due primarily to our burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarmingisreal--There has been no warming since 1998, despite greatly increased use of fossil fuels. Face it, your scam is over.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
can you read!
"Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide. For people living in the Northern Hemisphere — most of the world's population — 2005 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - are you stupid? Can't you read - in other words 2005 was cooler than 1998. And there has been no increase in temperatures - as predicted by the CO2 hypothesis - despite continuing rises in CO2. Which bit of that do you not understand you oaf?
minilemur 3 years ago
hey MORON,
let me make this simpler for you, ok!
"2005 WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD since 1880"
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
you said:
"There has been no warming since 1998
answer:
"The record heat of 2005 is part of a longer-term warming trend..."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide. For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide."
UOCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
(cont'd) regarding the hockey stick...
THIS CONCLUSION has subsequently BEEN SUPPORTED by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
US National Academy of Science 2006 report
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
and regarding the hockey stick(mann et al):
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 year..."
(continued)
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
this video is a JOKE!
"cherry picking" data !
where's the scientific evidence for the sun
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
minilemur said:
"In the real world it is perfectly normal for special interest groups to support one side or other of a debate."
there is a huggge difference between an "interest group" & an EXXON-funded FRONT GROUP!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarming - there is no evidence that a small amount of funding from an oil company invalidates the scientific research of those they fund. Equally there is no evidence that many times that much funding doesn't corrupt the special pleading of groups like greanpeace and WWF, and the computer model scientists who get more money the more they hysterically shriek alarmism.
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"...invalidates the scientific research of those they fund."
first of all, where's the "validation" of any of those who some ppl call "psuedo" scientists???
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
And another thing - why do eco-alarmists believe that a small amount of funding from oil companies can totally corrupt skeptical scientists, whilst maintaining that 2,000 times as much funding for alarmist causes will not have a much more powerful effect in corrupting the alarmists. It's completely bonkers belief.
minilemur 3 years ago
minilemur--"why do eco-alarmists believe that a small amount of funding from oil companies can totally corrupt skeptical scientists"
They don't, but they believe it is an effective weapon against dissent. That's what they cling to since they have no facts. Otherwise, they argue that you have to go along with them because the consequences are disasterous if AGW is true; it's argument by threat.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
you said:
"That's what they cling to since they have no facts."
"Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"A LEAKED INDUSTRY MEMO dating back to 1998 also reveals that EXXON has been involved in a COORDINATED EFFORT TO CONFUSE THE PUBLIC around global warming science"
"The company WOULD RECRUIT and TRAIN NEW SCIENTISTS who LACK a 'HISTORY OF VISIBILITY in the CLIMATE DEBATE' and develop materials depicting supporters of action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as 'out of touch with reality.' "
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
what i always questioned about global warming is that if carbon keeps the suns rays in the atmosphere then why wouldnt it keep them from getting in the first place ? and i've never gotten an answer. kinda makes me wonder about all this global warming stuff
luke33boschman 3 years ago
luke33boschman - you're right to wonder about the global warmaholic hype.
Most importantly climate sensitivity to CO2 is logarithmic, which means that each extra increment has less effect than the previous one. So scientists have calculated (on the basis of basic physics and observed temperature trends) that the extra temperature rise that could be caused by a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere has already mainly been used up in the last century. So nothing to worry about in this century.
minilemur 3 years ago
Global warming does not work by keeping solar rays in the atmosphere. Its a common misconception due to the inaccuracies of the name 'greenhouse effect'.
Global warming is caused by infrared radiation that is emitted from the Earth, this heat energy is then trapped by GHG's in the atmosphere. It should really be called the blanket effect, just as blankets work by retaining body heat.
Clouds, ice-packs, atmospheric aerosols have a cooling effect (albedo) because they reflect solar energy.
OgallalaKnowhow 3 years ago
luke33boschman--Without getting into too much technical detail, it's safe to say that energy is taken in and radiated in different forms. I don't think that there is too much dispute about that. However, the climate system is extremely complex and the dispute lies in whether the greenhouse effect is significant to any degree and whether increases in CO2 concentration are due to man or a result of feedback.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
luke33boschman--My background is in numerics, so my initial questions about AGW had to do with modelling and the feasibility of modelling a system that was so complex. In short, I knew that it couldn't be done. When I started to look at the other issues surrounding AGW, I found all of it to be suspect. However, the lie persists because many people stand to make a good deal of money off of our higher gas prices via taxation, carbon credits, etc.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
In this video there are all old arguments, which are good if you know about Global Warming only from the media.
About all these arguments and what Science is saying - search in Google this sentence:
"responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming"
sergejsh 3 years ago
sergejsh - YAWN! You keep coming up with the same boring and invalid posts - you keep telling us to google things. That's not a valid scientific methodology.
You can just as easily find responses to the most common alarmist or warmaholic arguments.
If you understand the arguments, state them. If you don't understand the arguments, show some humility.
minilemur 3 years ago
minilemur: "You keep coming up with the same boring and invalid posts - you keep telling us to google things. That's not a valid scientific methodology."
I giving links to where are the answers to these already old, I think, arguments from this video. But you still using these old arguments as 'the best'.
sergejsh 3 years ago
sergejsh - the links you give are not to scientific sources, so are not valid contributions to an objective assessment of the scientific evidence showing that the mild global re-warming we have seen recently is well within the bounds of normal variation on the planet, and not driven by human fossil fuel emissions.
minilemur 3 years ago
minilemur: "the links you give are not to scientific sources, so are not valid."
The linksI am providing here are 1) based on scientific sources and 2) providing links to scientific sources the are based on.
I am giving searches on Google because in Youtube comments there is no much space to tell everything NEED to tel on your and another such arguments. The best is to provide references to articles where ALL such 'arguments' are reviewed critically and explained scientifically.
sergejsh 3 years ago
in fact, great idea! I DARE ANYONE TO GO TO THE IPCC SITE & CHECK OUT THE SUMMARY...
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarmingisreal--IPCC is a money-grubbing fraud that is abusing science. That's why the top scientists like Richard Lindzen, Chris Landsea, John Christy, etc. don't participate in the IPCC anymore.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
you said:
"IPCC is a money-grubbing fraud that is abusing science."
thanks for your OPINION...what is your opinion of EXXON?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - my opinion of Exxon is that they are an insignificant player in the global warming debate.
Your assumption is absurd: supposedly you claim everyone on the skeptical side of the debate is 100% corrupted by a small amount of oil company funding, whereas everyone on the alarmist side of the debate is 100% unaffected by 2,000 times as much funding. It's just not logical. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Kerry foundation for instance. Why is ketchup money better than oil money?
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Kerry foundation for instance. Why is ketchup money better than oil money?"
this has NOTHING to do with the dollar amount!
maybe this can explain it better for you, MORON!
"In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to stall action on global warming. The plan was outlined in an internal memo that promised, ' VICTORY WILL BE ACHIEVED WHEN UNCERTAINTIES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE BECOME PART OF the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM' for 'AVERAGE CITIZENS' and 'THE MEDIA.' "
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarming - thanks for calling me a moron - I take it as a compliment from someone of your limited understanding. Keep it up: it reveals to free-thinking readers of this thread how completley lacking you are in any scientific evidence or argument.
In the real world it is perfectly normal for special interest groups to support one side or other of a debate. Any oil money is dwarfed by about 2,000 times as much money available to the special pleaders on the other side of the debate.
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"In the real world it is perfectly normal for special interest groups to support one side or other of a debate."
first of all, THERE IS NO DEBATE among the LEADING SCIENTISTS & ALL major scientific institutions dealing with climate science.
EXXON SHILLS are trying to create the impression that there is! THERE IS NONE!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - also: the IPCC figure of 2.7% per decade is nothing particularly serious - well within the bounds of natural variation. What's the problem with losing 2.7% per decade?
Also - stop ignoring the IPCC conclusion that the Antarctic is not in any danger of melting. More than 90% of the world's ice is there.
minilemur 3 years ago
can you read? (from a previous post)...
here's the truth(not "cherry picking" data or taken out-of-text)...from IPCC
"1. Observed changes in climate and their effects...
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, WIDESPREAD MELTING of SNOW and ICE, and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
here's the truth: from NSIDC...
"Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season PLUMMETED to the LOWEST LEVELS since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September ON RECORD, SHATTERING THE PREVIOUS RECORD for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent..."
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
global - it doesn't much matter about Arctic sea ice - it has been shown to come and go many times over the history of the planet - so what?
You haven't deigned to reply to my post showing that even the IPCC conceded that the Antarctic is not melting.
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"it doesn't much matter about Arctic sea ice"
LOL! now i know you're full of ! if you believe that, then you lost all credibility!! actually you lost your credibility when you cherry picked data, took things out-of-text to make it sound like fact etc...
you're a JOKE dude!
keep spinning your BS!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
here's the truth: from IPCC...
"Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average
arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]%
per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0
to 9.8]% per decade. These values are consistent with
those reported in the TAR. {4.4}"
(continued)
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Global - the IPCC just as clearly states "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall." It would take anyone with internet access no more than a few seconds to download the summary from the IPCC website, but once again, the facts are too inconvenient regarding what is reportedly happening in Antarctica according to the greenhouse warmaholics and eco-alarmists.
minilemur 3 years ago
first, why don't you answer my questions, like this one:
you said:
"...the summary which was written by a tiny minority without input from most scientists on the IPCC."
show me evidence!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
here's the truth(not "cherry picking" data or taken out-of-text)...from IPCC
"1. Observed changes in climate and their effects
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}
(continued)
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
LOL!!!! MINILEMUR...you are total BS !!!
this is the WHOLE text....& this is just projections NOT FACT!
from IPCC...
"current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet...However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance. {WGI 10.7, SPM}
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
this is what actually happened...
from NSIDC:
"Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season PLUMMETED to the LOWEST LEVELS since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September ON RECORD, SHATTERING THE PREVIOUS RECORD for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent..."
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
A spectacular example of how corrupt processes operate in the IPCC is provided in the backroom changes that Santer made (under political pressure from Clinton/Gore. Santer unilaterally deleted key statements that had been agreed by the scientists such as:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increase in greenhouse gases.
I can provide plenty of other examples of corrupt IPCC practices if you like.
minilemur 3 years ago
here's the truth:
"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
J. J. McCarthy
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarming -
First note that most of the observed warming amounts to perhaps 50% of ~ 0.3 degrees since the last maximum in the 1930s. No cause for alarm there then.
Also, pay attention - you haven't been following what I said in some detail about the discrepancy between the IPCC scientific report which doesn't say this unequivocally (but with lots of equivocation about uncertainties) & the summary which was written by a tiny minority without input from most scientists on the IPCC.
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"IPCC scientific report which doesn't say this unequivocally (but with lots of equivocation about uncertainties) & the summary which was written by a tiny minority without input from most scientists on the IPCC."
maybe we should ask the IPCC about your statement
where is your eveidence for this?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarming - pay attention please. I just gave you an example of the discrepancy between the IPCC summary and the IPCC scientific report. I'm not going to waste my time digging up precise references for you until we have established whether or not you understand and agree that if I can show that this corrupt process has happened to your satisfaction then it is sufficiently serious for you to accept that there are severe problems with the IPCC process.
minilemur 3 years ago
you said:
"...the summary which was written by a tiny minority without input from most scientists on the IPCC."
show me evidence!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Global - in the mean time read this carefully - the actual words of the IPCC and see if it isn't consistent with my skepticism:
When discussing changes (or the lack thereof) in Antarctica, the IPCC summary report says: "Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region."
minilemur 3 years ago
iloveemo1984 - congratulations on a well presented and intelligent contribution to the debate.
minilemur 4 years ago
minilemur--Thanks much!
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
The sensational and high volume orchestra renders this video suspect to start with. Maybe this is for the dumning public to soak up, I dunno. Its all a mute topic anyway (read below, those folks are right). If you're going to just enjoy the moment try not to present so, well, ignorant.
qaswedfrazxs 4 years ago
Yeah, ignore the cited papers and whine about the music. Of course, you didn't get the point of the music either, I guess. Perhaps, that because you don't know what piece it is. You sound pretty clueless all around.
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
Did I hurt your feelings? If you're the almighty source of truth on this, could you tell me how the immense money the oil industry has at its disposal (I've traveled to Russia and Kazakhstan on behalf of an oil drilling co.) would not dwarf any dollars being put forth by some "new industry" of global warming science. . . Those papers and scientists in your video are very likely pawns in the oil machine. You're an idiot.
qaswedfrazxs 4 years ago
Which oil company? Where is Russia and Kazakhstan. Where did you leave from... what visas requirements did you have.
Sorry, does it sound like I don't believe you. Because I don't.
ascolti 4 years ago
"Gee slim, I doesn't trust 'em antelectual types--listenin' to that orchestral music. What 'bout them drownin' polar bears is Al's movie!"
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
The models are indeed faulty. In fact the northern ice cap is melting at more than double the rate those models have been forecasting. That means YOU will be affected by this BEFORE your children. Does that ring any alarm bells? Probably not, and to be honest your beliefs wont make a bit of difference. Our world will suffer terribly before any improvement is seen. You my as well bury your head in the sand and enjoy the boob tube while you can.
rivercanada 4 years ago
Hate to say this.. but ice is LESS dense than water. So when the less dense water converts to water it will take up less volume and seas will drop. Not rise. It's basic physics. That's why ice floats in water. Go look it up. Or would that ring too many alarm bells?
ascolti 4 years ago