Do you have any videos that deal with just temperature,one degree difference does not seem to be a big deal,if lets say the industrial time period raised the temperature the earth would be incinerated if you add all the one degree differences,obviously the earth is still here so as i stated one degree here and there I am not sure any cause for alarm.Keep in mind if you decide to answer i am not a scientist.
@philosophicalreason National Geographic has a very watchable playlist on how even very small degrees in global temperature can have massive impact. It's not about the earth becoming 200 degrees. Just 5 or 6 degrees could be disastrous. Ranges from 1 to 6 degrees. It doesn't really get interesting until about 3 or 4 degrees.
The quantity of information in that video alone is more than enough to reboot the brain of your typical denier.
You can show it to them, and sure enough, it'll take some time to reboot, but in no time you'll hear them say: "It's the sun, nitwit!.. ...volcanoes... it's cooling...".
They really have no interest in the issue, they're just collectors of contrarian statements. And quite happy to show their collection.
@nigelelsass I would be careful in assuming that the Keeling Curve is a result of raw measurements. The MLO measurements are highly processed. You just need to compare the interannual variability of the Diekirch Luxemburg with the MLO measurements. The Luxemburg data shows variability of up to 200ppmv/year. Also, the MLO measurements are smoothed-out. The un-smoothed data does show significantly more variability than the Keeling Curve. Google "Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade or Natural?".
@garith21 The density of atmospheric CO2 decreases exponentially with height in accordance with the Maxwell-Boltzmann factor (-height/height 0). Where ‘0’ is about 5km for CO2 I believe. Hence every 5km the density of CO2 decreases exponentially. When we get to the stratosphere the density would have decreased quite significantly and because of the gravitational adiabatic lapse rate the molecules in the stratosphere are going to be far and away the coldest and have considerably less emissivity.
As in your other Potboiler videos you shamelessly misrepresent your sources in order to make a political point. Callendar does *not* suggest that water vapour isn't an important greenhouse gas, merely that CO2 is more important than originally thought. Here's a direct quote from the paper which you mention:
"the greater part of this radiation comes from the large quantities of water vapour present in the air"
If I may ask a question, about how much does human activity affect global warming? I'm not arguing with the facts in the video, but the earth has warmed and cooled naturally before humans existed. I do agree that humans due add CO2 into the air...but about what percentage do you think humans affect warming? Is it a huge amount like 80%, or is it much lower?
@truthforchrist Much lower. the thing is, it doesn't matter. Since CO2 is a driving force in climate change, any amount we put into the air is bad. As he outlinehis first video, the slightest nudge to the balance beam of climate can cause a toppling effect that causes large effects.
geesh... I have a hard time with this one (series). Merriam-Webster[dot]com says it's a plural noun... but I don't know if the prenoun and verb should go accordingly!! could anyone help me? Is my first sentence properly spelled?
OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted from CRU
'the myths that the data has been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says the university's vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide... released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
so they wondered the effect of contrails and had a unique opportunity because of 9/11. so for 3 days prior and after... how did they know to start observations before hand?
@47represent =how did they know to start observations before hand?= Temperature measurements are taken daily at hundreds of sites across the United States as a matter of routine. When the aircraft were grounded they simply looked at the records 3 days prior and 3 days after. .
Yes, it couldn't possibly be the volcanic eruptions which produce carbon gasses many times greater than the output of man. If you're going to state that the cycle is due to carbon gasses increasing and decreasing you need to look at all the factors behind the emmission of carbon gasses. Mt. St. Helens produced more emmisions in one day than scientists estimate mankind has produced in one millenium! And it has erupted several times, and so have countless other volcanos.
@mynameismatt2010 : According to the US Geological Survey, worldwide volcanoes emitt around 200 Mt/year, compared to 30,000 Mt from man-made activities.
Look-up for the "Keeling curve", which tracks CO2 concentrations over time. There is no "peak" which can be attributed to a volcanic eruption. I believe, this settles the question.
@mynameismatt2010 =Mt. St. Helens produced more emmisions in one day than scientists estimate mankind has produced in one millenium!= Since this conflicts with known observations, could you state your source? Who are these "scientists"and where did they publish their results? My guess is your source is an anonymous website and you didn't bother checking before believing it.
@potholer54 My source was a science journal that my high school teacher had in the classroom a couple years ago. You're correct in assuming that i don't know which, i couldn't even tell you the year it was published. However it does seem logically consistent, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to say that something that caused darkness all the way on the other side of the world is worse for the enviroment than man made emmisions that only perceptibly cause smog.
@mynameismatt2010 =My source was a science journal= I don't think it was. You seem to be confusing particulates with CO2. So the journal was probably talking about the amount of ash and other particulates spewed out by Mt St. Helens, which may indeed have been more than human particulate pollution. The issue of long-term climate change concerns CO2, not particulates.
@potholer54 I'm sure you are better informed than i am on this issue so i'd really rather not try to defend my point while making a fool of myself by having certain facts wrong, so i'm not going to debate the science of this with you. But let me ask you this, which makes more sense, the earth has a distinct warming and cooling cycle that we are experiencing during the peak of the warming, or mankind has set the world into a tailspin of accelerated heating by industrialization alone?
@mynameismatt2010 =which makes more sense...= Sense, feelings, speculation and hunches have nothing to do with it. Science deals with facts. If there is a "distinct warming and cooling" cycle that explains recent global warming, then please cite the research paper that shows it.
(contd.) And if it makes you feel better, don't blame mankind for recent warming, blame carbon dioxide. CO2 and the sun have always been the twin long-term drivers of climate. Whether the CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels, as now, or from volcanic outgassing, as in the past, makes no difference to basic physics.
@potholer54 Potholer54: First, thanks for these videos and thanks for bringing a sorely needed rational argument to such a politically charged topic. Second, on this comments section, "Mynameismatt" comment is always listed first and my rebuttals get to him, but do not appear under the video. Is there a formatting issues going on? Thanks again for your efforts on these series and I subscribe.
@coolgreyoneabby =Is there a formatting issues going on? = Sorry you're having trouble with this. It is probably a YouTube thing. All I can say is that no one else has mentioned it, so perservere and it may right itself.
@potholer54 You were right, the formatting fixed itself somehow. Perhaps the great and powerful internet Gods intervened? Thanks for the reply but more importantly, thanks for the great series of videos.
@mynameismatt2010 According to The US Geological Survey, estimates are that volcanic emissions are at a much lower level than than the effects of current human activities, which generate 100-300 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes. "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects". U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006-01-10.
@coolgreyoneabby I've already read what you're refering to, and it only addresses carbon dioxide, which is not the only "greenhouse gas" produced by volcanoes nor the most effecient at producing the warming effect. Humans mostly produce carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, which is why it is the most studied, but it has minimal effects on the atmosphere when compared to other carbon gasses, most of which are emmitted by the tons during volcanic eruptions.
@mynameismatt2010 According to Wiki, The greenhouse gasses that effect temperatures in our atmosphere are listed in order of forcing effect. Water vapor is first, but that is not a carbon based, the second is CO2. Looks like you may have been misled by some politically motivated anti AGW misinformation.
@coolgreyoneabby I'm not one to trust Wiki over my ecology teacher. I at least know she has a masters, whoever wrote the Wiki could have been an idiot not knowing what he was taking about.
@mynameismatt2010 The skill of skeptical thinking is to withhold judgement until you find real corroborating evidence and accept what science says, even if counterintuitive. Every scientific body in the world that studies Climate Change supports AGW. There is a political campaign by conservatives against AGW just like "cigarets don't cause cancer" in earlier times, both pushed by Heritage Foundation. Potholer is telling you what science says. Others are misinformed. Look it up yourself.
@DNAz5646 Exactly, no wiki required, just common sense (and a bit of a reminder of physic's basis). Maybe by adding that WATER IN ITS GAS STATE is everywhere in our atmosphere (just look up the sky; does anyone see these white spots in front of that big blue background?)
@DNAz5646 I'm not denying that warming happens, i'm denying that mankind plays any significant part in that warming. It's a money making scam and thee is no REAL evidence supporting man affected climate change, while every ounce of logic in a fully reasonable adult human screams against the idea of humankind affecting the weather longterm. The only problem is that most of the people who support man affected warming are neither fully functioning nor adults.
@DNAz5646 Nothing yoy just said made any sense at all so more than likely you won't understand my reply. If there was any way lowering human emmisions saved lives, sure it'd be good, but in fact government forced regulation hurts people and is a major reason behind the current economic problems. We care about the present natural disasters even if there is an inevitable end for the same reason we try to continue living even though we know we'll eventually die.
"government forced regulation hurts people and is a major reason behind the current economic problems" Well thats politicians being politicians. Just because people make stupid ideas to stop climate change does not invalidate it.
@DNAz5646 When was the last time anyone died because the air in their city was too dirty? Yes, it's not good for you, but it won't kill you. It's total crap to say that human pollution kills.
Politicians being politicians?? That's just an excuse, how would you regulate pollution without killing the economy, which effects a hell of a lot more people than your imaginary pollution killer.
@DNAz5646 That asian dust stuff isn't pollution, i'm becoming more and more sure that you're very unintelligent. Enviromental regulation and forced green energy regulation are the root causes of the economic crisis, and you don't think it's killing the economy? Grece is bankrupt! Man made emmisions are not a big deal. The enviromental scare is a money making hoax, it doesn't help anyone.
1.Yellow dust is created by desertification MAN MADE infact its not Pollution but it is a type of environmental damage. And yellow dust is made worse by Chinese air pollution mixing with and getting carried by yellow dust.
2. Evidence that the economic troubles of today are cause by Regulation.
3. Who makes money when you go pro climate change? I do know that Countrys and Companys count on continued use of OIL for money and gain much for pushing anti CC agenda.
@DNAz5646 1. i didn't mention it because it's not relevant, i think you have been grievously misinformed..
2. Do you know anything about economics? It is a perfectly clear example and the effects have been known since it was first suggested. I'll spell it out for you, cap and trade lowers the efficiency of a company, making that company raise it's prices, which, depending on it's location on the processing train, could cause a domino effect of increased cost. Artificial cost is bad.
@mynameismatt2010 You made a claim that says that there are other carbon gasses besides CO2 that come from volcanoes that are stronger greenhouse gasses, You did not say what they were, nor cited any references. Can you please?
So it's okay for the warmists to 'filter' the numbers, but not skeptics. And what about the 3 million volcanoes under the sea (NASA estimate) Not taken into account. Why? Because it is a huge gap of knowledge. Anyway, globa;l warming is good. I doubt if the dinasaurs would disagree. It is global warming that has allowed humans to flourish.
@psysprouts So Russia's loss of it's entire wheat crop due to drought (climate change) induced fires is a good thing? Flooding this year in the North American Prairies (and the loss of THOSE crops) is also a good thing? Please.
@psysprouts : Did the volcanic activity INCREASE??? pre-industrial CO2 levels reflect the balance between natural sources and natural sinks of CO2
ALL measurements confirm pre-industrial CO2 levels stable for very long periods of time at 280ppm. To change this balance there would have been a strong increase in volcanic activity right during the industrial age - NOBODY has observed that.
avionicswirenut and garith21 lol you guys should meet up...anyway it's a big coincidence that when we start to use fossil fuel at an alming rate the planet heats up thats proof on its own that we have tipped the balance normally this balance wound have tipped by major volcanos eiter dumping co2 to warm or sulfure to cool
technically it on it's own wouldn't be, but there's an abundance of evidence that removes reasonable doubt, especially since there's the mechanism and predictions based on what you would expect from that mechanism not just correlation.
As a math professor, I realize how LITTLE people know about math (the difference between u and a 3rd grader is far less than my dif 2u) OTOH, I expect the same is true here. So I will shut up and listen to this expert's excellent presentation.
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 I do not understand your comment....The industrial revolution has only been around 100 to 150 years or so...What is the 800,000 year part ???? Humans have only been around in our, what you could call current form for 10 to 15 thousand years...I am probably wrong on that, but I am not going to chase the actual numbers...Last ice age ended roughly 15 thousand years ago...Ice core samples show Co2 increases before and during the first parts of ice ages...
"Ice core samples show Co2 increases before and during the first parts of ice ages"
Again your idiocy implies that AGW proponents state "CO2 is the only factor in any climate change" no one states this which makes your assertion a completely irrelevant point, we know what was the trigger in the past and that CO2 is a factor in continuing trends due to it's ability to absorb long wave radiation
The only difference is that now people are saying that instead of being a simple positive feedback it's the cause without asserting that CO2 has any different properties. We understand the physics of how the planet warmed/cooled as well as the properties of each to a reasonable degree of certainty and given the information we possess, the observations we have and knowledge we possess we can reasonably be certain that it's GHGS
Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, releasing fossil fuels from the ground into the atmosphere ended the 800,000+ year record of the earth having a balanced 300 PPM carbon outake that was absorbed by natural carbon sinks to now having carbon from the ground not absorbed by these natural carbon sinks but going into the atmosphere and catching heat. The PPM now is 390, which half of the 90 PPM are not being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, so they are going in the air and catching heat.
It takes one huge volcanic eruption to change the climate world wide...The climate has too many varibles to take into consideration before you can make a real conclusion..Co2 is just one varible.Using ice core data, the Co2 levels increase before an on coming ice age based on core samples covering thousands and thousands of years..A decade ago it was R12 killing the planet and now it is Co2.Blah blah blah, like I said, there are too many factors and Co2 is one part of it, but not the only one..
No, volcanoes do not change the climate in the manner you're describing. A weather change, due to ash, is not a climate shift. A single, or even a 3 dozen big volcanoes don't begin to pump out the CO2 of the USA, much less the industrial world.
What you're not grasping is that volcanoes change climate slowly, when they actually cause a true climate change. Think: 50M years of massive eruptions, during the 2nd Great Extinction, only got us to 600ppm of CO2.
@MasterPCTech The claim is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes GW..Ok, if a large vulcano goes off it can throw enough ash into the air to have an effect..It might be a cooling effect....After 911 when all flying was ceased, the atmosphere temperature went up by a few degrees..All that I am trying to say is that there is more to this other than Co2....Ice core samples show an increase of Co2 before and during the beginning of an ice age...
"Ice core samples show an increase of Co2 before and during the beginning of an ice age."
This statement assumes that no one considers other factors, this is a grave misunderstanding and such changes are understood relatively well. I advise you actually read some of the literature, or if you're lazy watch the first video where pot talks about the various factors that are available.
Also keep in mind that it's not "just" that the temperatures are changing which makes AGW convincing, even if we had zero long term paleoclimactic data and only the instrumental data, the finger print of when and where it is warming the quickest points to the basic physics of climate change from GHGs and more specifically carbon based ghgs is what makes it convincing.
@garith21 Not going to argue the fact that yes, some of the shit we are doing is bad...But, still too many factors involved....One thing that does bother me is the ice cors samples of the last 100 years show a rise in CFC's...Man made CFC's....On the other hand, Why should I be forced to give up my hobbies and driving while that asshole Al Gore lives in a huge house and flies his private jet everywhere..If the Co2 crap is real, the only answer is no cars, no planes, no more anything...
Um, like what, there's how much energy that's coming in, which we know directly from satellites, there's how much energy that's retained from ghgs, we can even measure which ones we contribute, there's albedo and natural cycles that we're relatively aware of. Between that and the basic physics tells us what's the most likely culprit in a rather non obscure way.
I could understand your argument if it was relatively vague, but it's not and it has the fingerprints we'd expect if it was ghgs to a high degree of accuracy. Are you telling me it's some unknown cause that just happens to have the same fingerprint as ghgs? Sorry if I'm skeptical of your claim, but it's just not convincing.
@garith21 So basically you believe in full that Co2 is the only source of G/W created by man???? No other factors could be the blame....All in all, this planet will die one of these days anyway and there is nothing we can do about it....So why not enjoy it now, within reason of not making things worse...Enviro nuts want everyone to go back to the stone age..Cap and trade supporters want to tax us to death..So what do you want ????
1) I believe it's the primary cause of the recent warming as that's what the evidence indicates.
2) So screw future generations as much as possible by doing as little as possible now is what you're saying?
3) Uh I accept global warming and I'm for more technology and investments in long term energy solutions, have you even looked at some of the most recent technology or even some of the old ones or did you just say "OHHH NO back to stone age if it's true so lets say it's not"
@garith21 Some solutions do some good, but for the most part like ethenal for fuel.It takes more energy to make ethenal and you lose fuel economy and power with ethenal, in return more energy used and more pollution.Wind power is fair, but very little gains.Hydro power, but the enviro nuts bitch about building dams..Nuclear power, very clean,but dangerous..Solar, sucks when cloudy and takes large areas for solar panels..Battery powered cars, toxic battery chemicals and terrible vehicle range.
1) I take it you haven't heard of cellulose based biofuels which essentially makes fuel out of grass eating bacteria? Not to mention it's carbon neutral unlike getting carbon deposits that have taken the earth millions of years to sequester.
2) Using large tracks of land that aren't being used don't really seem like a major loss, not to mention that wind farms can be used in the ocean, not to mention tidal power as well.
@garith21 I have heard of the many subjects you have brought up..I use CFL's now for the most part...Cheaper yes, they suck in the cold weather...They also cause RFI in some cases...I use wideband receivers and sometimes I can hear a CFL or fluorescent lights over the radio and they also flicker some..The new LED stuff is somewhat better, but the light is hard on the eyes.
Hydro power is good, but we've pretty much dammed up most of the usable rivers anyways
Nuclear is clean and relatively safe, not to mention there's many new generations of nuclear power plants that are in the works that can make use of current nuclear power plant waste as usable power.
Uh, you do realize that batteries are recyclable right, and the driving range is improving with newer technologies, completely ignoring that they're more than adequate for the average consumer now
4) you do realize that there's a lot of technology that is out there right? From making carbon nanotubes from plastic bags to generating relatively low pollution energy from our trash, potential battery technology that might cost 1/3 of the technology we're using today, even the application of batteries on our current system could improve what we have by nearly 15% without making a single plant, I haven't even touched on renewables and improved techniques in those as well.
@garith21 The ban on standard bulbs..Flourecent bulbs have mercury in them..It takes 2 drops of mercury to contaminate 2000 gallons of water..Batteries for power are full of dangerous components...More hi-tech electronic shit is full of hazardous products..It is a give and take world....Everything has a plus and minus...From what I can tell most solutions are worse than the disease...It is late and I am tired, so go hug a tree....You will feel better..
You do realize that you get more mercury in the environment resulting from the generation of power over the life time of incandescent light bulbs since a good chunk of our energy comes from coal fire plants right? I guess the people you reference for data didn't tell you that little tid bit of info right?
"More hi-tech electronic shit is full of hazardous products"
You do realize that we're progressing to doing more with less even with electronic circuitry right?
go read something else other than your climate "skeptic" blogs and you might learn something, judging by how much you're resorting to classic blog arguments I won't hold my breath on the matter.
@garith21 Another subject..People like you hate people like me..I like off-road sports...I raced off-road motorcycles for many years..Enviro nuts want my hobby banned ..Why...Off roaders want to keep the land as it is..We want the trees..We want the hills....We want the nature....It is developers and big companies who come in and destroy the land..They destroy acres of land for malls and large houses for the rich..Wind farms are ugly..Regardless of your view, I am not the enemy of this land..
if you're too lazy to read on CFL's vs incandescents and energy usage to mercury in the environment CDK007 has a video on just this very topic assuming the worst case scenario for CFLs, they result in less CO2, less money out of your pocket over it's life time and less mercury in the environment
"More hi-tech electronic shit is full of hazardous products"
Uh wait, didn't you just rag on the stone age, why are you ragging on modern technology, besides, if you haven't noticed modern technology is doing more with less with higher tech goods. Sort of like how you can get a dual or quad core on the same silicon wafer that would occupy a single chip just a few years ago.
@garith21 I have been around electronics all my life..Four years of electronics school, 21 years aircraft avionics and I hold an FCC GROL liscense.. Yes electronics is getting more compact, but there is way more of it now...That stuff is full of toxic materials...They now use a leadless solder...That stuff is junk, but it is supposed to be safe...Batteries are recyclable yes, but most places do not offer this..It seems like everything uses batteries and lots of them...
@garith21 These new batteries, lithium ion...They are real safe..Accidently poke a hole in one or short one out...They go off like a phosphorous bomb....It seems most enviro safe solutions have a draw back and in some cases are worse than what they are replacing...Electric cars, clean burning, but still take almost the same energy to build as an SUV..Bio diesel, good solution, but why can we not get clean diesel here in the USA..
So basically you think laptops are "phosphorus bombs" nice, all the same they're not the only new battery technology, although they do have a higher energy density than lead/acid batteries.
"Electric cars, clean burning, but still take almost the same energy to build as an SUV"
Um, you do realize that around 90% of the energy for the foot print of a car is in their runtime right? There's that blog info bit going again.
@garith21 All in all..Yes we need to cut pollution...Yes I would like my truck to get 30 plus miles per gallon...On the dark side, most advances cost more...Like the cap and trade..The only result will be higher energy cost for cleaner energy..If you really follow the money behind most of this, it has nothing to do with saving the planet..Certain groups or companies will make huge profits while you and me flip the bill...
All I hear is excuses, wah wah wah, I don't like some of the solutions so I don't want to do anything, wah wah wah, who gives a shit about nature because it might cost money, wah wah wah, if you don't give a shit about the topic and just want to keep living the way you want to live without concern for nature then just say so, but don't pretend we don't know anything about global warming so you can justify not caring about what will happen due to inaction.
@garith21 They started a recycle program here..It lasted a year or two, but it became too costly..I try to keep my energy use as low as possible...I try to minimize driving...I have to use a truck for my biz though...I have a small house and yard....The only thing left for me to stop waste is to give up living....So it is what enviro nuts want, give up large houses, get rid of cars, everyone live in apartments...While the rich can do as they please, like Al Gore..
man you're just hopeless, why do you give a crap about al gore or think that "enviro nuts" even though I'm not one of "them" would give concessions to politicians if they wanted universal changes. It's cute that you'll complain about some of the solutions and say you care but not really provide any solutions that meet your criteria for good solutions or even address retorts to your "it's bad" complaints.
@garith21 It has been nice arguing with you..It is time to continue my trolling along...Science is flawed on both sides..Who do you trust...Follow the money, because that is what most of this is about...Solutions will cause problems, problems will cause solutions...Right now we are going into some real deep shit...I see that we just bombed Libya..Oh shit..Another lie from the prez that the wars would end..So cheers my friend..G/W is man made..G/W is man made up...Follow the money..End is near..
Ahh, conspiracy theories, unmitigated, uncited, unverifiable pieces of crap. If your only argument against anyone that disagrees with you is "it's a conspiracy" then there's no point in conversation because you're just going to say "it's part of the conspiracy". Cheers, don't pretend you care about the truth though.
I trust the evidence, I don't trust paid goons like monckton which pretend to be scientific while misrepresenting scientific work hoping you won't read it, if what you care about is truth you should care about what the evidence indicates not "oh no I don't like potential outcomes so I'll just deny it rather than seeing what's true and call it a conspiracy when it disagrees with what I want". Wishful thinking doesn't change reality.
@garith21 The paid goons are on both sides of the fence..Follow the money on both sides....Each side has much money to make or lose either way..You still did not answer me..Do you think Co2 is the only cause of G/W....If so, no other factor can be part of the equation..You remember when R-12 was the only thing destroying the planet atmosphere..Ban R-12 and out comes 134A..Which company made a killing profit wise...Just follow the money..
I did answer it, I believe CO2 is the primary cause of the recent warming over the last few decades because it's what the evidence indicates, hell it's basic physics of how GHGs work and the understanding of positive feedback is also really easy to understand, money or not.
Again conspiracy theories aren't convincing, evidence is.
If the only thing you have to present is "omg it's all a conspiracy" it's not convincing, provide evidence or just be labeled as a paranoid delusional with a tinfoil hat
@garith21 Give me a tinfoil hat before I get hit from the falling sky...G/W, the sky is falling, the sky is falling....How do you feel about all the concrete city's..What about removing grass and trees for fields of crops...How about the cutting down of the rain forest in South America...I do know when the harvest the wheat and plow the fields the temp around here will jump from 90 to 95 up to 100 plus and the air dries out...You need vegitation to cool the ground and hold moisture...
wake me up when you have something tangible to say, basically all you've been doing so far is presenting problems with modern society if it's true that need to be addressed and insisting that it involves destroying everything we hold dear despite the vast amount of environmentally friendly solutions we already have. You don't even care if it's true because you're afraid of any change that might occur if we do accept that it is which is irrelevant to it being true. =P
@garith21 Problems with modern society, your the one blaming G/W on man ..Is that not modern society ??? If Co2 is the only man made G/W factor, then why has the planet been warming from the last ice age around 13 to 15 thousand years ago..You cannot blame man made Co2 for that...Ice at one time covered a good part of North America...I am sick and tired of hearing G/W is recent or climate change or whatever it is called today..The climate has been changing for millions of fucking years....
1) Where's your evidence for this claim, even during the instrumental record there are rather significant plateaus barring significant geological events.
2) AGW has always been about the most recent warming since we understand previous warming and the physics behind it, we also have the mechanisms for the most recent warming and discounted other factors along with having predictions that have been met for the trigger being ghgs.
@garith21 Are you some sort of school teacher or professor or something like that ???? You remind me of talking to aircraft engineers about aircraft problems.. They just feed me a load of engineering bullshit and big words that mean nothing when a solution to a defect is so obvious that explained to an engineer they do not get it...Like talking to a bick wall...Common and sense do not go together type of deal..How do you explain ice age retreat without planet warming ??
"How do you explain ice age retreat without planet warming ?"
That depends on the ice age, some are due to the trigger of an axial tilt or orbital forcing amplified by positive feedbacks, at least one was due to a large amount of ghgs in the atmosphere accumulating due to a lack of ability for the earth to sequester.
@garith21 So now your saying GHG's are not new and have been around for a while....I thought this whole aguement was that Co2 and or GHG's are something that is man made and only has occured in the last 100 to 200 years or so....Maybe I cannot grasp your comments, but to me you back peddel more than our government....
1) GHGs have always been a factor in climate, no one's ever said otherwise, even amongst the community of qualified skeptics.
2) You think very wrong as there are many sources of CO2 and other ghgs, however we're the only factor that has been adding over multiple decades that hasn't also had a natural sequestration to balance it.
3) No, you just don't understand the stance and you keep attacking one that no one holds.
@garith21 Lets talk about the last 40 years..Here in Oklahoma the 70's into the 80's we use to get snow every winter and from what I remember lots of it...Mt St Helens went off in the early 80's, not saying this is a factor,but late 80's, 90's and 00's we had very little snow until the last 8 years or so we got some record snow falls.Many of our high records for temp during the winter was more in the early 1900's and not recent..Rainfall varies, about every 10 years we have a dry 10 and wet 10.
1) large volcanic eruptions result in a short term cooling not warming due to the aerosols
2) Local temperature differences are not global temperature differences
3) Sunspot activity ceased being correlated with recent temperatures a few decades ago, that's why people that assert it's a cause now stop charts around the 80's
4) I have no idea where you got the earth magnetic shift idea, would you mind giving a source?
@garith21 If you look north as a true north, the magnetic field is to the right approxamatly 7 degrees here in Oklahoma, magnetic north...The magnetic field is shifting to the right...Do some research....To swing an aircraft, the compass rose has to be re-varified so many years due to the magnetic shift...The north pole is part of the shift...When I started in the arcraft biz magnetic north was 5 degrees and it is now 7 degrees or more to the right if you are facing north...It is shifting..
Right, I'm quite aware of how magnetic north deviates claiming that it affects climate is another topic entirely, what I want is your evidence for the claim that it does.
@garith21 My comment was more that the magnetic north is shifting slightly...The compass rose that we used were recertified every couple of years for aircraft compass swings....I was just saying the shift could be something to investigate further not necessarily a cause..The items that I mentioned before were just ideas or other areas that could affect climate...I do not have time to dig into this to find any good references..If I come across some info I will shoot it to you...
"I do not have time to dig into this to find any good references."
well magic climate pixies can influence climate to, what I'm asking you is what are your references to indicate that they're responsible for the most recent warming, this is assuming we completely ignore the climate models that have recreated recent climate events and ones that don't include ghg concentration fail to do this. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and you have no references?
@garith21 Type in ' magnetic pole shift effects and climate change ' on the net...Some stuff popped up but it looks like theory...I feel you need hard evidence to my accusations on G/W causes..Most of this is theory...The human race has not been here long enough to witness an ice age much less a magnetic shift...You have put up a very good arguement with your evidence on the most recent climate changes...It is obvious you have way more time than I have to research the so called G/W..
I did, I tracked it to one source for those that provided it and it didn't make claims regarding to the warming over the last few decades on a global basis, at most it stated minor local redistributions of heat which don't affect global average temperatures since it's a simple redistribution. Heck the paper people link doesn't even say how or which direction it affects climate change.
It's reasonable extrapolations based upon physical evidence and physical laws. It's about as much theory as estimating the density of a planet based upon our current understanding of gravity and estimated diameter. It's not like we excavate every bit of the planet to determine the density we do it based upon our existing understanding of physical laws. It's a theory in the sense that it's based upon those laws and observations and it connects them.
@garith21 There was some articles on the NASA site some time ago that was talking about the polar caps on Mars were disappearing..I would have to dig them up again, but if this was true then the ice melt here would be caused by the sun or other outside influence. When the sun spot activity increases or decreases, evidence shows the sun poles may swap..There is so much we do not know about this world and universe, all of us might be overlooking the obvious....
Actually read the papers on the matter, the reasons why mars is warming up in certain regions is because it's axis is funky, it's essentially going through it's version of summer so that region of mars is getting more direct sunlight on it's area. The primary reason for recent warming on mars is because sand storms revealed dark patches on it's surface meaning it absorbs more solar energy, no requirement for an outside influence.
@garith21 Science on both sides, to me is like bying a car..They just move numbers around to make it feel like you got a good deal..I am done chatting with you for now..Too many problems in the works..Our RV biz is having some issues and last night April 2nd, the neighbor across the street pulled a gun on his neighbor to the east..No shots fired, just a lot of yelling and cops..I gotta move..I will try to check into more of what you have said about several topics..Cheers...
The issue is that you can easily verify it yourself, in most cases skeptics only tell you half truths, while proponents will not only show you the paper and what it says but encourage you to read the whole thing, I can't count the number of times I've read skeptics pages to be linked to a paper that says the exact opposite of what they say it does. Doesn't sound the most honest thing.
"When the sun spot activity increases or decreases, evidence shows the sun poles may swap"
Which is irrelevant to the point of affecting climate and the evidence for it affecting the climate over the last few decades.
"all of us might be overlooking the obvious"
Right and just like the existence of a giant squid extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and constantly saying "I'm not sure even with all the evidence" gets you nowhere even when people are reasonably so.
@garith21 Irrelevant to climate change? You should look into astrophysics and read up a little more about the sun. The earth is like a tiny dot compared to the sun, and tiny changes can have huge repercussions for our planet - a pole shift would most likely be highly significant to the earth, as a pole shift will most likely affect the sun's temperature due to the friction in the gas arising from the turbulence of the moving poles - the change will be small for the sun but significant for earth
1) Read the full statement, he made a claim that "x will happen soon" and I pointed out that it's pointless to state it's the cause of the warming trend over the last few decades if it's something that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps you should learn to read before commenting.
2) The sun doesn't explain the most recent warming over the last few decades and it's not even warming in the right places even if you assumed it was the sun.
"the change will be small for the sun but significant for earth"
Again even if I assume it's true, you can't attribute warming in the past to an event that may happen in the future unless you're completely insane. Even then I'd require evidence to support such a claim. My understanding is current estimates state that it's likely the sun will actually be relatively even more quiet in the coming decade, though it will be insufficient to overcome AGW nor would it solve it.
"There was some articles on the NASA site some time ago that was talking about the polar caps on Mars were disappearing."
Why don't you read the articles, or do you just read "Mars is melting" and people linking you to it while asserting that "AGW proponents must think humans are using suvs there too, herp derp"
"Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," from the NASA article.
well, the fact that the observations fit what you'd expect from the cause of CO2 don't seem convincing to you, like it's warming at night the same amount as the day, it's warming earlier in the seasons and shorter winters, it's warming in areas with low water vapor concentration such as higher latitudes, it's warming in the troposphere and higher atmospheric layers it's cooling. Like I said...it's basic physics.
I have found exactly one reference that says it can, but it doesn't say to what degree or even in what direction. I've found other sources claiming that it challenges AGW, but when I read the actual paper it doesn't say anything of the sort when you actually read it. If you have another source other than Lyakhov 2006, I'd like to see it, since this is the only paper I've seen that's referred to for this claim.
6) My stance is pretty simple, while the climate is a complicated system, there has been much study in the matter of previous and current climate as well as the factors that influence it, we understand the mechanisms really well and the only significant factor over the last few decades that seems to take into account all the observations and data is GHG concentration.
@garith21 People use the arctic ice as evidence of warming...Some shipping records from back in the early days of shipping show that there was an ice free passage in the arctic..I fail to see this as evidence in G/W..like I said many records of temps were way warmer a 100 years ago than now...Some man made GHG's are the more current cause, but I will still argue on Co2..A 100 year record keeping cannot argue with a 650,000 years of ice core samples..
@garith21 In conclusion you feel I have no ground to stand on for the recent years of climate warming, maybe, maybe not...Human activity is a partial cause, but not the only..The planet climate has changed from the beginning of the planet till now...If the Earth was to shift closer to the sun or away from the current orbit, would we even survive...It does not take much to really screw things up...This planet will die one of these days anyway..
@garith21 Humans have only been on this planet a very short time, considered against how old the planet is and records have only been kept over the most recent several hundred years..So we can only speculate the past with science..In some cases flawed..Current science evidence can be drawn to a conclusion, but can also be flawed..The more we learn, the less we know..Every time I see a science show, how it was then, that was not right, this is what we know now...Who knows...Cheers amigo...
1) Your line of argumentation of "humans have only been on the planet for a short time" is as intelligent as the fire comparison.
2) we "speculate" in the same way that we assume that gravity or basic physical laws and observations work, can it be flawed? Sure, is there a good reason to think it is? I'd like some evidence, it's the only way to improve our understanding.
3) asserting non causes or non active causes for something isn't logical either.
Again your point is moronic because we already know why with basic physics, you're literally looking at something and going "hey it got warmer/colder in the past without humans, I don't need to know how or why, therefore humans can't have an effect now" it really is as stupid as saying, fires happen in nature all the time, therefore humans can't cause fires.
3) Also haven't people like you been ragging on temperature reconstructions such as those done by the CRU?
"The climate has been changing for millions of fucking years"
well technically it would be billions, but what's important isn't simply that it changed, but that we understand the mechanisms and make predictions based upon those mechanisms which we've done. Your argument is as pointless as saying man can't cause fires because fires can naturally happen.
@garith21 So basically other things can cause climate change other than man made stuff and it has done so for billions of years ??? That is what I have been trying to say for the last week that there are other causes other than Co2 and man made polution... I have always agreed polution is a problem and ice core samples of the last 100 years show an increase of man made CFC's...I am just saying Co2 is not the only factor..That was my original point !!!!!
1) No one ever said that previous climate change was due to man made causes
2) As stated before the evidence supports the fact that man is the major cause of the warming over the last few decades.
3) We know to a high degree of certainty what mechanisms caused previous warming and cooling and we also know to a high degree of certainty they aren't at play now
@garith21 Some other factors I have mentioned as current and past causes of climate change...Planet tilt, planet distance from sun, planet rotation rate or changes, planet magnetic field changes, sun activity, sun spots, sun magnetic field changes, solar storms, vulcanos, large metorite impacts, plant life, removing of large tree areas, changing of mountain heights and continent shifts. I guess large earthquakes can change the orbit tilt and rotaition rate of the planet from new data..
4) You still avoided the question, what mechanism(s) do you think is causing the most recent warming over the last few decades other than GHG concentration or do you object to labeling which mechanisms are at play right now to avoid critical analysis.
@garith21 Rain and snow here has a lot to do with la ninia and el ninia years..Over the last 40 I mentioned Mt St Helens and most recent was Ireland vulcanoes.There have been some others over the last 40 .Which we both agree have some, but temporary affect..The 70's and 80's were full of dirty autos, but the oil embargo of the 70's took care of most of the big engines..Now days we have far better burning cars, but more of them...Also now days the larger cities are getting bigger..
5) it seems you're just throwing stuff out that you heard can effect the climate, some of this such as solar cycles of various types, volcanoes and the like are short term variations which wouldn't explain a multi decade trend, and others such as axial tilt, mountain heights and continental shifts would take thousands of years to see the difference that we're seeing over the last few decades.
@garith21 So with the bigger cities, more people and more autos.Flying has increased big time over the last 40..We fly higher and further, but are using more efficient engines, just more of them..So at this point my comments would side with human activity being the majority of the GHG's....The only other activity that has been a cycle over the last 40 would be the sun spot activity and the earth magnetic shift which is still increasing..The removal of trees in greater numbers might be a factor.
6) GLOBAL temperature change over many decades is what's seen, cyclical variations of local phenomenon can easily affect specific areas and large cyclical changes can have a global effect, but only over the course of the cycle, that's why we observe it over multiple cycles.
The funny part is you won't ever say what the other factors are, we're aware of other positive feed backs caused by an initial warming and those wouldn't occur without an initial warming and the only mechanism that seems to be at play is increased CO2 concentrations. We're also aware that natural causes of previous climate changes aren't at play now.
If you're going to assert that it's not the factor that's causing the warming then please do enlighten me as to what the other mechanisms are, you don't seriously think the earth just warms up magically do you?
no one has, you should examine the mechanisms that we're reasonably sure caused previous global climate change, of course you could just keep pounding your head against the mindless blogs you claim to hate.
It really bothers me when people like you finally admit that agw might be true then resort to this sort of "must find any excuse not to do anything" or "blame this on 'environuts' so you have to address it" or "blame the results of capitalism on scientific advancements", because your intent in doing so is to make the conversation go nowhere so you can feel good about not wanting to take any action what so ever to put this problem on the next generation, just like the last did.
Why the hell do you people keep talking about cap and trade, I don't want cap and trade to be the solution, I want consumers to be really informed so they care about more than the price tag and start doing it because it's the right thing to do, because if we don't do it on our own the government will take action to impose it because it's obvious we aren't going to do it on our own =P
"Bio diesel, good solution, but why can we not get clean diesel here in the USA.."
resorting to sources that are renewable as opposed to those that have been sequestered are cases where we're moving towards being carbon neutral, ie emitting as much as we sequester, as opposed to drilling and emitting Carbon deposits that have been out of the atmosphere for millions of years.
@garith21 There is a technology that can take plastics and turn them back into diesel..I heard this from a respectable source...It made some news on the net a while back, but has since been hushed..Have not heard any more about it....Back on the recycle thing, most products were made of metal, but almost everything is plastic junk..Nothing last like it use too, so you have to replace stuff more often..Most low use energy products do not work as good as the old stuff. Dish washers for example.
I find it hilarious that you're only looking as negative as possible on any given solution, is it perfect? No, is it better than the alternative is the only general question and you seem to look at very shortsighted "this is bad" without acknowledging anything good about it. Not to mention you try and focus on specific cases as if there are no other alternatives in the currently ava
some sweet info here
grisgrisy 1 week ago
good work here
chrispikeyp 1 week ago
Do you have any videos that deal with just temperature,one degree difference does not seem to be a big deal,if lets say the industrial time period raised the temperature the earth would be incinerated if you add all the one degree differences,obviously the earth is still here so as i stated one degree here and there I am not sure any cause for alarm.Keep in mind if you decide to answer i am not a scientist.
philosophicalreason 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@philosophicalreason National Geographic has a very watchable playlist on how even very small degrees in global temperature can have massive impact. It's not about the earth becoming 200 degrees. Just 5 or 6 degrees could be disastrous. Ranges from 1 to 6 degrees. It doesn't really get interesting until about 3 or 4 degrees.
bailewen 1 day ago
You forget that none of the scientific papers provided here ware ever audited by an independent professional.
Researchrules 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
The quantity of information in that video alone is more than enough to reboot the brain of your typical denier.
You can show it to them, and sure enough, it'll take some time to reboot, but in no time you'll hear them say: "It's the sun, nitwit!.. ...volcanoes... it's cooling...".
They really have no interest in the issue, they're just collectors of contrarian statements. And quite happy to show their collection.
Meurglys33 4 months ago
@nigelelsass I would be careful in assuming that the Keeling Curve is a result of raw measurements. The MLO measurements are highly processed. You just need to compare the interannual variability of the Diekirch Luxemburg with the MLO measurements. The Luxemburg data shows variability of up to 200ppmv/year. Also, the MLO measurements are smoothed-out. The un-smoothed data does show significantly more variability than the Keeling Curve. Google "Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade or Natural?".
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
@garith21 The density of atmospheric CO2 decreases exponentially with height in accordance with the Maxwell-Boltzmann factor (-height/height 0). Where ‘0’ is about 5km for CO2 I believe. Hence every 5km the density of CO2 decreases exponentially. When we get to the stratosphere the density would have decreased quite significantly and because of the gravitational adiabatic lapse rate the molecules in the stratosphere are going to be far and away the coldest and have considerably less emissivity.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
Great series - wish I'd discovered it sooner. Thanks!
bannor99 4 months ago
As in your other Potboiler videos you shamelessly misrepresent your sources in order to make a political point. Callendar does *not* suggest that water vapour isn't an important greenhouse gas, merely that CO2 is more important than originally thought. Here's a direct quote from the paper which you mention:
"the greater part of this radiation comes from the large quantities of water vapour present in the air"
sallyamis 5 months ago
According to Callendar's figures the contribution to global warming of man-made CO2 was 0.3 degrees *per century*.
sallyamis 5 months ago
If I may ask a question, about how much does human activity affect global warming? I'm not arguing with the facts in the video, but the earth has warmed and cooled naturally before humans existed. I do agree that humans due add CO2 into the air...but about what percentage do you think humans affect warming? Is it a huge amount like 80%, or is it much lower?
truthforchrist 5 months ago
@truthforchrist Much lower. the thing is, it doesn't matter. Since CO2 is a driving force in climate change, any amount we put into the air is bad. As he outlinehis first video, the slightest nudge to the balance beam of climate can cause a toppling effect that causes large effects.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi That's right.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 The weird thing is, I learned that in 8th grade general science. I'm not sure how this escaped everyone's grasps.
BigLundi 3 months ago
@BigLundi Perhaps the deeply religious were praying rather than paying attention in class. :P
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
In the wild, you can find water in liquid state, solid state and GAS state...
3rd grade physics...
philacoudre 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This series is pretty interesting!
geesh... I have a hard time with this one (series). Merriam-Webster[dot]com says it's a plural noun... but I don't know if the prenoun and verb should go accordingly!! could anyone help me? Is my first sentence properly spelled?
philacoudre 5 months ago
Comment removed
philacoudre 5 months ago
Comment removed
philacoudre 5 months ago
Comment removed
philacoudre 5 months ago
Comment removed
philacoudre 5 months ago
Why do you say "The original shouldn't have been in quotation marks either"?
is it because it's your own deduction of the results of the study or that it's not an excerpt 'as is' from the paper?
philacoudre 5 months ago
Comment removed
philacoudre 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OK, climate sceptics: here's the raw data you wanted from CRU
'the myths that the data has been inappropriately manipulated, and that we are being secretive," says the university's vice-chancellor for research. "Some sceptics argue we must have something to hide... released the data to pull the rug out from those who say there isn't evidence that the global temperature is increasing'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html
blackadderthe4 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago in playlist Climate Change
so they wondered the effect of contrails and had a unique opportunity because of 9/11. so for 3 days prior and after... how did they know to start observations before hand?
47represent 6 months ago
@47represent =how did they know to start observations before hand?= Temperature measurements are taken daily at hundreds of sites across the United States as a matter of routine. When the aircraft were grounded they simply looked at the records 3 days prior and 3 days after. .
potholer54 6 months ago
@potholer54 thanks for clearing that up =]
47represent 5 months ago
Comment removed
MauroRincon 5 months ago
Awesome vid, this is the kind of information people need.
MauroRincon 5 months ago
Yes, it couldn't possibly be the volcanic eruptions which produce carbon gasses many times greater than the output of man. If you're going to state that the cycle is due to carbon gasses increasing and decreasing you need to look at all the factors behind the emmission of carbon gasses. Mt. St. Helens produced more emmisions in one day than scientists estimate mankind has produced in one millenium! And it has erupted several times, and so have countless other volcanos.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010
scientificamerican(dot)com/article(dot)cfm?id=earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans
BaboonJihad 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 : According to the US Geological Survey, worldwide volcanoes emitt around 200 Mt/year, compared to 30,000 Mt from man-made activities.
Look-up for the "Keeling curve", which tracks CO2 concentrations over time. There is no "peak" which can be attributed to a volcanic eruption. I believe, this settles the question.
nigelelsass 6 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@mynameismatt2010 =Mt. St. Helens produced more emmisions in one day than scientists estimate mankind has produced in one millenium!= Since this conflicts with known observations, could you state your source? Who are these "scientists"and where did they publish their results? My guess is your source is an anonymous website and you didn't bother checking before believing it.
potholer54 6 months ago
@potholer54 My source was a science journal that my high school teacher had in the classroom a couple years ago. You're correct in assuming that i don't know which, i couldn't even tell you the year it was published. However it does seem logically consistent, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to say that something that caused darkness all the way on the other side of the world is worse for the enviroment than man made emmisions that only perceptibly cause smog.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 =My source was a science journal= I don't think it was. You seem to be confusing particulates with CO2. So the journal was probably talking about the amount of ash and other particulates spewed out by Mt St. Helens, which may indeed have been more than human particulate pollution. The issue of long-term climate change concerns CO2, not particulates.
potholer54 6 months ago
@potholer54 I'm sure you are better informed than i am on this issue so i'd really rather not try to defend my point while making a fool of myself by having certain facts wrong, so i'm not going to debate the science of this with you. But let me ask you this, which makes more sense, the earth has a distinct warming and cooling cycle that we are experiencing during the peak of the warming, or mankind has set the world into a tailspin of accelerated heating by industrialization alone?
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 =which makes more sense...= Sense, feelings, speculation and hunches have nothing to do with it. Science deals with facts. If there is a "distinct warming and cooling" cycle that explains recent global warming, then please cite the research paper that shows it.
potholer54 6 months ago
(contd.) And if it makes you feel better, don't blame mankind for recent warming, blame carbon dioxide. CO2 and the sun have always been the twin long-term drivers of climate. Whether the CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels, as now, or from volcanic outgassing, as in the past, makes no difference to basic physics.
potholer54 6 months ago
@potholer54 Potholer54: First, thanks for these videos and thanks for bringing a sorely needed rational argument to such a politically charged topic. Second, on this comments section, "Mynameismatt" comment is always listed first and my rebuttals get to him, but do not appear under the video. Is there a formatting issues going on? Thanks again for your efforts on these series and I subscribe.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby =Is there a formatting issues going on? = Sorry you're having trouble with this. It is probably a YouTube thing. All I can say is that no one else has mentioned it, so perservere and it may right itself.
potholer54 6 months ago
@potholer54 You were right, the formatting fixed itself somehow. Perhaps the great and powerful internet Gods intervened? Thanks for the reply but more importantly, thanks for the great series of videos.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 According to The US Geological Survey, estimates are that volcanic emissions are at a much lower level than than the effects of current human activities, which generate 100-300 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes. "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects". U.S. Department of the Interior. 2006-01-10.
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I've already read what you're refering to, and it only addresses carbon dioxide, which is not the only "greenhouse gas" produced by volcanoes nor the most effecient at producing the warming effect. Humans mostly produce carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, which is why it is the most studied, but it has minimal effects on the atmosphere when compared to other carbon gasses, most of which are emmitted by the tons during volcanic eruptions.
mynameismatt2010 6 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 According to Wiki, The greenhouse gasses that effect temperatures in our atmosphere are listed in order of forcing effect. Water vapor is first, but that is not a carbon based, the second is CO2. Looks like you may have been misled by some politically motivated anti AGW misinformation.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I'm not one to trust Wiki over my ecology teacher. I at least know she has a masters, whoever wrote the Wiki could have been an idiot not knowing what he was taking about.
mynameismatt2010 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 The skill of skeptical thinking is to withhold judgement until you find real corroborating evidence and accept what science says, even if counterintuitive. Every scientific body in the world that studies Climate Change supports AGW. There is a political campaign by conservatives against AGW just like "cigarets don't cause cancer" in earlier times, both pushed by Heritage Foundation. Potholer is telling you what science says. Others are misinformed. Look it up yourself.
coolgreyoneabby 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010
1.A greenhouse gas is one of several gases that can absorb and emit longwave (infrared) radiation in a planetary atmosphere.
2. Water Vapor does that.
3. There is a shiton of it.
Look up the definition of greenhouse gas.
Use common sense and think about water vapor.
Hopefully you know that there is a lot of it in the atmosphere.
There no wiki required.
DNAz5646 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 Exactly, no wiki required, just common sense (and a bit of a reminder of physic's basis). Maybe by adding that WATER IN ITS GAS STATE is everywhere in our atmosphere (just look up the sky; does anyone see these white spots in front of that big blue background?)
Et voila!
philacoudre 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 I'm not denying that warming happens, i'm denying that mankind plays any significant part in that warming. It's a money making scam and thee is no REAL evidence supporting man affected climate change, while every ounce of logic in a fully reasonable adult human screams against the idea of humankind affecting the weather longterm. The only problem is that most of the people who support man affected warming are neither fully functioning nor adults.
mynameismatt2010 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010
Erm...even if mankind did not contribute don;t you think we should use money to save lives?
Why even care about natural disasters or do anything if a asteroid is going to collide with the earth?
Sit there and go herp derp wasn't our fault?
DNAz5646 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 Nothing yoy just said made any sense at all so more than likely you won't understand my reply. If there was any way lowering human emmisions saved lives, sure it'd be good, but in fact government forced regulation hurts people and is a major reason behind the current economic problems. We care about the present natural disasters even if there is an inevitable end for the same reason we try to continue living even though we know we'll eventually die.
mynameismatt2010 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010
Pollution does kill and damages health.
"government forced regulation hurts people and is a major reason behind the current economic problems" Well thats politicians being politicians. Just because people make stupid ideas to stop climate change does not invalidate it.
DNAz5646 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 When was the last time anyone died because the air in their city was too dirty? Yes, it's not good for you, but it won't kill you. It's total crap to say that human pollution kills.
Politicians being politicians?? That's just an excuse, how would you regulate pollution without killing the economy, which effects a hell of a lot more people than your imaginary pollution killer.
mynameismatt2010 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010
Im Korean and there is something called Asian dust..google it.
People get hospitalized and even die.
And not just air. Water and Land pollution too.
And reduction of lifespan isnt serious enough?
Is environmental regulation harming the economy..is green energy harming it.
Will have more regulation cause a DEATH of the economy when regulation is not killing it now.
DNAz5646 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 That asian dust stuff isn't pollution, i'm becoming more and more sure that you're very unintelligent. Enviromental regulation and forced green energy regulation are the root causes of the economic crisis, and you don't think it's killing the economy? Grece is bankrupt! Man made emmisions are not a big deal. The enviromental scare is a money making hoax, it doesn't help anyone.
mynameismatt2010 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010
1.Yellow dust is created by desertification MAN MADE infact its not Pollution but it is a type of environmental damage. And yellow dust is made worse by Chinese air pollution mixing with and getting carried by yellow dust.
2. Evidence that the economic troubles of today are cause by Regulation.
3. Who makes money when you go pro climate change? I do know that Countrys and Companys count on continued use of OIL for money and gain much for pushing anti CC agenda.
DNAz5646 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 1. Asian dust is natural and has been happening for a very long time, it is in no way caused by man.
2. Cap and trade.
3.Cap and trade.
mynameismatt2010 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010
1. It has been worsened and happens more regularly and you did not address how chinese air pollution makes it worse.
2. Thats a example and a very bad one at that. The effect on world economy is not clear cut please some direct examples.
3. Whats that mean? Its a trade. companies trade with each other. It doesn't go anywhere.
DNAz5646 5 months ago
@DNAz5646 1. i didn't mention it because it's not relevant, i think you have been grievously misinformed..
2. Do you know anything about economics? It is a perfectly clear example and the effects have been known since it was first suggested. I'll spell it out for you, cap and trade lowers the efficiency of a company, making that company raise it's prices, which, depending on it's location on the processing train, could cause a domino effect of increased cost. Artificial cost is bad.
3. ...Wow...
mynameismatt2010 5 months ago
@mynameismatt2010 You made a claim that says that there are other carbon gasses besides CO2 that come from volcanoes that are stronger greenhouse gasses, You did not say what they were, nor cited any references. Can you please?
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
So it's okay for the warmists to 'filter' the numbers, but not skeptics. And what about the 3 million volcanoes under the sea (NASA estimate) Not taken into account. Why? Because it is a huge gap of knowledge. Anyway, globa;l warming is good. I doubt if the dinasaurs would disagree. It is global warming that has allowed humans to flourish.
psysprouts 7 months ago
@psysprouts So Russia's loss of it's entire wheat crop due to drought (climate change) induced fires is a good thing? Flooding this year in the North American Prairies (and the loss of THOSE crops) is also a good thing? Please.
Paladiea 7 months ago
@psysprouts : Did the volcanic activity INCREASE??? pre-industrial CO2 levels reflect the balance between natural sources and natural sinks of CO2
ALL measurements confirm pre-industrial CO2 levels stable for very long periods of time at 280ppm. To change this balance there would have been a strong increase in volcanic activity right during the industrial age - NOBODY has observed that.
nigelelsass 6 months ago in playlist Climate Change
"contrails form high altitude clouds"??? Dude you need to do some research on that lol
CokeSupply 7 months ago
avionicswirenut and garith21 lol you guys should meet up...anyway it's a big coincidence that when we start to use fossil fuel at an alming rate the planet heats up thats proof on its own that we have tipped the balance normally this balance wound have tipped by major volcanos eiter dumping co2 to warm or sulfure to cool
magic3061 9 months ago
@magic3061
technically it on it's own wouldn't be, but there's an abundance of evidence that removes reasonable doubt, especially since there's the mechanism and predictions based on what you would expect from that mechanism not just correlation.
garith21 9 months ago
As a math professor, I realize how LITTLE people know about math (the difference between u and a 3rd grader is far less than my dif 2u) OTOH, I expect the same is true here. So I will shut up and listen to this expert's excellent presentation.
psistarpsi80 10 months ago
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 11 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 I do not understand your comment....The industrial revolution has only been around 100 to 150 years or so...What is the 800,000 year part ???? Humans have only been around in our, what you could call current form for 10 to 15 thousand years...I am probably wrong on that, but I am not going to chase the actual numbers...Last ice age ended roughly 15 thousand years ago...Ice core samples show Co2 increases before and during the first parts of ice ages...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"Ice core samples show Co2 increases before and during the first parts of ice ages"
Again your idiocy implies that AGW proponents state "CO2 is the only factor in any climate change" no one states this which makes your assertion a completely irrelevant point, we know what was the trigger in the past and that CO2 is a factor in continuing trends due to it's ability to absorb long wave radiation
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
The only difference is that now people are saying that instead of being a simple positive feedback it's the cause without asserting that CO2 has any different properties. We understand the physics of how the planet warmed/cooled as well as the properties of each to a reasonable degree of certainty and given the information we possess, the observations we have and knowledge we possess we can reasonably be certain that it's GHGS
garith21 10 months ago
Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, releasing fossil fuels from the ground into the atmosphere ended the 800,000+ year record of the earth having a balanced 300 PPM carbon outake that was absorbed by natural carbon sinks to now having carbon from the ground not absorbed by these natural carbon sinks but going into the atmosphere and catching heat. The PPM now is 390, which half of the 90 PPM are not being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, so they are going in the air and catching heat.
qwertypoiu4321 10 months ago
Great videos!
blackestjake 11 months ago
It takes one huge volcanic eruption to change the climate world wide...The climate has too many varibles to take into consideration before you can make a real conclusion..Co2 is just one varible.Using ice core data, the Co2 levels increase before an on coming ice age based on core samples covering thousands and thousands of years..A decade ago it was R12 killing the planet and now it is Co2.Blah blah blah, like I said, there are too many factors and Co2 is one part of it, but not the only one..
avionicswirenut 11 months ago
@avionicswirenut
No, volcanoes do not change the climate in the manner you're describing. A weather change, due to ash, is not a climate shift. A single, or even a 3 dozen big volcanoes don't begin to pump out the CO2 of the USA, much less the industrial world.
What you're not grasping is that volcanoes change climate slowly, when they actually cause a true climate change. Think: 50M years of massive eruptions, during the 2nd Great Extinction, only got us to 600ppm of CO2.
MasterPCTech 10 months ago
@MasterPCTech The claim is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes GW..Ok, if a large vulcano goes off it can throw enough ash into the air to have an effect..It might be a cooling effect....After 911 when all flying was ceased, the atmosphere temperature went up by a few degrees..All that I am trying to say is that there is more to this other than Co2....Ice core samples show an increase of Co2 before and during the beginning of an ice age...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) It causes AGW and is a factor in determining the earth's climate.
2) Volcanoes have a short term cooling effect due to the aerosols and don't produce near the amount of CO2 we produce in the industrialized world.
3) If you read the studies at night it also went down by about the same amount as clouds also act to retain heat.
4) Scientists are quite aware of this, but when other factors are equal it changes by the factors that do change.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"Ice core samples show an increase of Co2 before and during the beginning of an ice age."
This statement assumes that no one considers other factors, this is a grave misunderstanding and such changes are understood relatively well. I advise you actually read some of the literature, or if you're lazy watch the first video where pot talks about the various factors that are available.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
Also keep in mind that it's not "just" that the temperatures are changing which makes AGW convincing, even if we had zero long term paleoclimactic data and only the instrumental data, the finger print of when and where it is warming the quickest points to the basic physics of climate change from GHGs and more specifically carbon based ghgs is what makes it convincing.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Not going to argue the fact that yes, some of the shit we are doing is bad...But, still too many factors involved....One thing that does bother me is the ice cors samples of the last 100 years show a rise in CFC's...Man made CFC's....On the other hand, Why should I be forced to give up my hobbies and driving while that asshole Al Gore lives in a huge house and flies his private jet everywhere..If the Co2 crap is real, the only answer is no cars, no planes, no more anything...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"still too many factors involved"
Um, like what, there's how much energy that's coming in, which we know directly from satellites, there's how much energy that's retained from ghgs, we can even measure which ones we contribute, there's albedo and natural cycles that we're relatively aware of. Between that and the basic physics tells us what's the most likely culprit in a rather non obscure way.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
I could understand your argument if it was relatively vague, but it's not and it has the fingerprints we'd expect if it was ghgs to a high degree of accuracy. Are you telling me it's some unknown cause that just happens to have the same fingerprint as ghgs? Sorry if I'm skeptical of your claim, but it's just not convincing.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 So basically you believe in full that Co2 is the only source of G/W created by man???? No other factors could be the blame....All in all, this planet will die one of these days anyway and there is nothing we can do about it....So why not enjoy it now, within reason of not making things worse...Enviro nuts want everyone to go back to the stone age..Cap and trade supporters want to tax us to death..So what do you want ????
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) I believe it's the primary cause of the recent warming as that's what the evidence indicates.
2) So screw future generations as much as possible by doing as little as possible now is what you're saying?
3) Uh I accept global warming and I'm for more technology and investments in long term energy solutions, have you even looked at some of the most recent technology or even some of the old ones or did you just say "OHHH NO back to stone age if it's true so lets say it's not"
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Some solutions do some good, but for the most part like ethenal for fuel.It takes more energy to make ethenal and you lose fuel economy and power with ethenal, in return more energy used and more pollution.Wind power is fair, but very little gains.Hydro power, but the enviro nuts bitch about building dams..Nuclear power, very clean,but dangerous..Solar, sucks when cloudy and takes large areas for solar panels..Battery powered cars, toxic battery chemicals and terrible vehicle range.
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) I take it you haven't heard of cellulose based biofuels which essentially makes fuel out of grass eating bacteria? Not to mention it's carbon neutral unlike getting carbon deposits that have taken the earth millions of years to sequester.
2) Using large tracks of land that aren't being used don't really seem like a major loss, not to mention that wind farms can be used in the ocean, not to mention tidal power as well.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 I have heard of the many subjects you have brought up..I use CFL's now for the most part...Cheaper yes, they suck in the cold weather...They also cause RFI in some cases...I use wideband receivers and sometimes I can hear a CFL or fluorescent lights over the radio and they also flicker some..The new LED stuff is somewhat better, but the light is hard on the eyes.
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) Then why did you bring up the ignorant bits up if you knew that there were better options and that the arguments you brought up were bad.
2) If you're using lightbulbs for the heat you're doing it wrong
3) RFI is a fair point, although not really relevant to the average consumer nor to the points brought up earlier
4) So you're anti technology?
5) Uh, it's not hard to find places to recycle batteries at now a days, do you need a guy going door to door?
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
Hydro power is good, but we've pretty much dammed up most of the usable rivers anyways
Nuclear is clean and relatively safe, not to mention there's many new generations of nuclear power plants that are in the works that can make use of current nuclear power plant waste as usable power.
Uh, you do realize that batteries are recyclable right, and the driving range is improving with newer technologies, completely ignoring that they're more than adequate for the average consumer now
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
4) you do realize that there's a lot of technology that is out there right? From making carbon nanotubes from plastic bags to generating relatively low pollution energy from our trash, potential battery technology that might cost 1/3 of the technology we're using today, even the application of batteries on our current system could improve what we have by nearly 15% without making a single plant, I haven't even touched on renewables and improved techniques in those as well.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 The ban on standard bulbs..Flourecent bulbs have mercury in them..It takes 2 drops of mercury to contaminate 2000 gallons of water..Batteries for power are full of dangerous components...More hi-tech electronic shit is full of hazardous products..It is a give and take world....Everything has a plus and minus...From what I can tell most solutions are worse than the disease...It is late and I am tired, so go hug a tree....You will feel better..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
You do realize that you get more mercury in the environment resulting from the generation of power over the life time of incandescent light bulbs since a good chunk of our energy comes from coal fire plants right? I guess the people you reference for data didn't tell you that little tid bit of info right?
"More hi-tech electronic shit is full of hazardous products"
You do realize that we're progressing to doing more with less even with electronic circuitry right?
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"so go hug a tree....You will feel better."
go read something else other than your climate "skeptic" blogs and you might learn something, judging by how much you're resorting to classic blog arguments I won't hold my breath on the matter.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Another subject..People like you hate people like me..I like off-road sports...I raced off-road motorcycles for many years..Enviro nuts want my hobby banned ..Why...Off roaders want to keep the land as it is..We want the trees..We want the hills....We want the nature....It is developers and big companies who come in and destroy the land..They destroy acres of land for malls and large houses for the rich..Wind farms are ugly..Regardless of your view, I am not the enemy of this land..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
if you're too lazy to read on CFL's vs incandescents and energy usage to mercury in the environment CDK007 has a video on just this very topic assuming the worst case scenario for CFLs, they result in less CO2, less money out of your pocket over it's life time and less mercury in the environment
garith21 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@avionicswirenut
"More hi-tech electronic shit is full of hazardous products"
Uh wait, didn't you just rag on the stone age, why are you ragging on modern technology, besides, if you haven't noticed modern technology is doing more with less with higher tech goods. Sort of like how you can get a dual or quad core on the same silicon wafer that would occupy a single chip just a few years ago.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 I have been around electronics all my life..Four years of electronics school, 21 years aircraft avionics and I hold an FCC GROL liscense.. Yes electronics is getting more compact, but there is way more of it now...That stuff is full of toxic materials...They now use a leadless solder...That stuff is junk, but it is supposed to be safe...Batteries are recyclable yes, but most places do not offer this..It seems like everything uses batteries and lots of them...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@garith21 These new batteries, lithium ion...They are real safe..Accidently poke a hole in one or short one out...They go off like a phosphorous bomb....It seems most enviro safe solutions have a draw back and in some cases are worse than what they are replacing...Electric cars, clean burning, but still take almost the same energy to build as an SUV..Bio diesel, good solution, but why can we not get clean diesel here in the USA..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
So basically you think laptops are "phosphorus bombs" nice, all the same they're not the only new battery technology, although they do have a higher energy density than lead/acid batteries.
"Electric cars, clean burning, but still take almost the same energy to build as an SUV"
Um, you do realize that around 90% of the energy for the foot print of a car is in their runtime right? There's that blog info bit going again.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 All in all..Yes we need to cut pollution...Yes I would like my truck to get 30 plus miles per gallon...On the dark side, most advances cost more...Like the cap and trade..The only result will be higher energy cost for cleaner energy..If you really follow the money behind most of this, it has nothing to do with saving the planet..Certain groups or companies will make huge profits while you and me flip the bill...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
All I hear is excuses, wah wah wah, I don't like some of the solutions so I don't want to do anything, wah wah wah, who gives a shit about nature because it might cost money, wah wah wah, if you don't give a shit about the topic and just want to keep living the way you want to live without concern for nature then just say so, but don't pretend we don't know anything about global warming so you can justify not caring about what will happen due to inaction.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 They started a recycle program here..It lasted a year or two, but it became too costly..I try to keep my energy use as low as possible...I try to minimize driving...I have to use a truck for my biz though...I have a small house and yard....The only thing left for me to stop waste is to give up living....So it is what enviro nuts want, give up large houses, get rid of cars, everyone live in apartments...While the rich can do as they please, like Al Gore..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
man you're just hopeless, why do you give a crap about al gore or think that "enviro nuts" even though I'm not one of "them" would give concessions to politicians if they wanted universal changes. It's cute that you'll complain about some of the solutions and say you care but not really provide any solutions that meet your criteria for good solutions or even address retorts to your "it's bad" complaints.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 It has been nice arguing with you..It is time to continue my trolling along...Science is flawed on both sides..Who do you trust...Follow the money, because that is what most of this is about...Solutions will cause problems, problems will cause solutions...Right now we are going into some real deep shit...I see that we just bombed Libya..Oh shit..Another lie from the prez that the wars would end..So cheers my friend..G/W is man made..G/W is man made up...Follow the money..End is near..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
Ahh, conspiracy theories, unmitigated, uncited, unverifiable pieces of crap. If your only argument against anyone that disagrees with you is "it's a conspiracy" then there's no point in conversation because you're just going to say "it's part of the conspiracy". Cheers, don't pretend you care about the truth though.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"Who do you trust"
I trust the evidence, I don't trust paid goons like monckton which pretend to be scientific while misrepresenting scientific work hoping you won't read it, if what you care about is truth you should care about what the evidence indicates not "oh no I don't like potential outcomes so I'll just deny it rather than seeing what's true and call it a conspiracy when it disagrees with what I want". Wishful thinking doesn't change reality.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 The paid goons are on both sides of the fence..Follow the money on both sides....Each side has much money to make or lose either way..You still did not answer me..Do you think Co2 is the only cause of G/W....If so, no other factor can be part of the equation..You remember when R-12 was the only thing destroying the planet atmosphere..Ban R-12 and out comes 134A..Which company made a killing profit wise...Just follow the money..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@avionicswirenut
".Do you think Co2 is the only cause of G/W"
I did answer it, I believe CO2 is the primary cause of the recent warming over the last few decades because it's what the evidence indicates, hell it's basic physics of how GHGs work and the understanding of positive feedback is also really easy to understand, money or not.
Again conspiracy theories aren't convincing, evidence is.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
If the only thing you have to present is "omg it's all a conspiracy" it's not convincing, provide evidence or just be labeled as a paranoid delusional with a tinfoil hat
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Give me a tinfoil hat before I get hit from the falling sky...G/W, the sky is falling, the sky is falling....How do you feel about all the concrete city's..What about removing grass and trees for fields of crops...How about the cutting down of the rain forest in South America...I do know when the harvest the wheat and plow the fields the temp around here will jump from 90 to 95 up to 100 plus and the air dries out...You need vegitation to cool the ground and hold moisture...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
*yawn*
wake me up when you have something tangible to say, basically all you've been doing so far is presenting problems with modern society if it's true that need to be addressed and insisting that it involves destroying everything we hold dear despite the vast amount of environmentally friendly solutions we already have. You don't even care if it's true because you're afraid of any change that might occur if we do accept that it is which is irrelevant to it being true. =P
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Problems with modern society, your the one blaming G/W on man ..Is that not modern society ??? If Co2 is the only man made G/W factor, then why has the planet been warming from the last ice age around 13 to 15 thousand years ago..You cannot blame man made Co2 for that...Ice at one time covered a good part of North America...I am sick and tired of hearing G/W is recent or climate change or whatever it is called today..The climate has been changing for millions of fucking years....
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) Where's your evidence for this claim, even during the instrumental record there are rather significant plateaus barring significant geological events.
2) AGW has always been about the most recent warming since we understand previous warming and the physics behind it, we also have the mechanisms for the most recent warming and discounted other factors along with having predictions that have been met for the trigger being ghgs.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Are you some sort of school teacher or professor or something like that ???? You remind me of talking to aircraft engineers about aircraft problems.. They just feed me a load of engineering bullshit and big words that mean nothing when a solution to a defect is so obvious that explained to an engineer they do not get it...Like talking to a bick wall...Common and sense do not go together type of deal..How do you explain ice age retreat without planet warming ??
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"How do you explain ice age retreat without planet warming ?"
That depends on the ice age, some are due to the trigger of an axial tilt or orbital forcing amplified by positive feedbacks, at least one was due to a large amount of ghgs in the atmosphere accumulating due to a lack of ability for the earth to sequester.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 So now your saying GHG's are not new and have been around for a while....I thought this whole aguement was that Co2 and or GHG's are something that is man made and only has occured in the last 100 to 200 years or so....Maybe I cannot grasp your comments, but to me you back peddel more than our government....
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) GHGs have always been a factor in climate, no one's ever said otherwise, even amongst the community of qualified skeptics.
2) You think very wrong as there are many sources of CO2 and other ghgs, however we're the only factor that has been adding over multiple decades that hasn't also had a natural sequestration to balance it.
3) No, you just don't understand the stance and you keep attacking one that no one holds.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Lets talk about the last 40 years..Here in Oklahoma the 70's into the 80's we use to get snow every winter and from what I remember lots of it...Mt St Helens went off in the early 80's, not saying this is a factor,but late 80's, 90's and 00's we had very little snow until the last 8 years or so we got some record snow falls.Many of our high records for temp during the winter was more in the early 1900's and not recent..Rainfall varies, about every 10 years we have a dry 10 and wet 10.
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) large volcanic eruptions result in a short term cooling not warming due to the aerosols
2) Local temperature differences are not global temperature differences
3) Sunspot activity ceased being correlated with recent temperatures a few decades ago, that's why people that assert it's a cause now stop charts around the 80's
4) I have no idea where you got the earth magnetic shift idea, would you mind giving a source?
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 If you look north as a true north, the magnetic field is to the right approxamatly 7 degrees here in Oklahoma, magnetic north...The magnetic field is shifting to the right...Do some research....To swing an aircraft, the compass rose has to be re-varified so many years due to the magnetic shift...The north pole is part of the shift...When I started in the arcraft biz magnetic north was 5 degrees and it is now 7 degrees or more to the right if you are facing north...It is shifting..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
Right, I'm quite aware of how magnetic north deviates claiming that it affects climate is another topic entirely, what I want is your evidence for the claim that it does.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 My comment was more that the magnetic north is shifting slightly...The compass rose that we used were recertified every couple of years for aircraft compass swings....I was just saying the shift could be something to investigate further not necessarily a cause..The items that I mentioned before were just ideas or other areas that could affect climate...I do not have time to dig into this to find any good references..If I come across some info I will shoot it to you...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"I do not have time to dig into this to find any good references."
well magic climate pixies can influence climate to, what I'm asking you is what are your references to indicate that they're responsible for the most recent warming, this is assuming we completely ignore the climate models that have recreated recent climate events and ones that don't include ghg concentration fail to do this. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt and you have no references?
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Type in ' magnetic pole shift effects and climate change ' on the net...Some stuff popped up but it looks like theory...I feel you need hard evidence to my accusations on G/W causes..Most of this is theory...The human race has not been here long enough to witness an ice age much less a magnetic shift...You have put up a very good arguement with your evidence on the most recent climate changes...It is obvious you have way more time than I have to research the so called G/W..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"magnetic pole shift effects and climate change"
I did, I tracked it to one source for those that provided it and it didn't make claims regarding to the warming over the last few decades on a global basis, at most it stated minor local redistributions of heat which don't affect global average temperatures since it's a simple redistribution. Heck the paper people link doesn't even say how or which direction it affects climate change.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"Most of this is theory."
It's reasonable extrapolations based upon physical evidence and physical laws. It's about as much theory as estimating the density of a planet based upon our current understanding of gravity and estimated diameter. It's not like we excavate every bit of the planet to determine the density we do it based upon our existing understanding of physical laws. It's a theory in the sense that it's based upon those laws and observations and it connects them.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 There was some articles on the NASA site some time ago that was talking about the polar caps on Mars were disappearing..I would have to dig them up again, but if this was true then the ice melt here would be caused by the sun or other outside influence. When the sun spot activity increases or decreases, evidence shows the sun poles may swap..There is so much we do not know about this world and universe, all of us might be overlooking the obvious....
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
*palms face*
Actually read the papers on the matter, the reasons why mars is warming up in certain regions is because it's axis is funky, it's essentially going through it's version of summer so that region of mars is getting more direct sunlight on it's area. The primary reason for recent warming on mars is because sand storms revealed dark patches on it's surface meaning it absorbs more solar energy, no requirement for an outside influence.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Science on both sides, to me is like bying a car..They just move numbers around to make it feel like you got a good deal..I am done chatting with you for now..Too many problems in the works..Our RV biz is having some issues and last night April 2nd, the neighbor across the street pulled a gun on his neighbor to the east..No shots fired, just a lot of yelling and cops..I gotta move..I will try to check into more of what you have said about several topics..Cheers...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"Science on both sides"
The issue is that you can easily verify it yourself, in most cases skeptics only tell you half truths, while proponents will not only show you the paper and what it says but encourage you to read the whole thing, I can't count the number of times I've read skeptics pages to be linked to a paper that says the exact opposite of what they say it does. Doesn't sound the most honest thing.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"When the sun spot activity increases or decreases, evidence shows the sun poles may swap"
Which is irrelevant to the point of affecting climate and the evidence for it affecting the climate over the last few decades.
"all of us might be overlooking the obvious"
Right and just like the existence of a giant squid extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and constantly saying "I'm not sure even with all the evidence" gets you nowhere even when people are reasonably so.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Irrelevant to climate change? You should look into astrophysics and read up a little more about the sun. The earth is like a tiny dot compared to the sun, and tiny changes can have huge repercussions for our planet - a pole shift would most likely be highly significant to the earth, as a pole shift will most likely affect the sun's temperature due to the friction in the gas arising from the turbulence of the moving poles - the change will be small for the sun but significant for earth
CokeSupply 7 months ago
@CokeSupply
1) Read the full statement, he made a claim that "x will happen soon" and I pointed out that it's pointless to state it's the cause of the warming trend over the last few decades if it's something that hasn't happened yet. Perhaps you should learn to read before commenting.
2) The sun doesn't explain the most recent warming over the last few decades and it's not even warming in the right places even if you assumed it was the sun.
garith21 7 months ago
@CokeSupply
"the change will be small for the sun but significant for earth"
Again even if I assume it's true, you can't attribute warming in the past to an event that may happen in the future unless you're completely insane. Even then I'd require evidence to support such a claim. My understanding is current estimates state that it's likely the sun will actually be relatively even more quiet in the coming decade, though it will be insufficient to overcome AGW nor would it solve it.
garith21 7 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"There was some articles on the NASA site some time ago that was talking about the polar caps on Mars were disappearing."
Why don't you read the articles, or do you just read "Mars is melting" and people linking you to it while asserting that "AGW proponents must think humans are using suvs there too, herp derp"
"Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," from the NASA article.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"all of us might be overlooking the obvious"
well, the fact that the observations fit what you'd expect from the cause of CO2 don't seem convincing to you, like it's warming at night the same amount as the day, it's warming earlier in the seasons and shorter winters, it's warming in areas with low water vapor concentration such as higher latitudes, it's warming in the troposphere and higher atmospheric layers it's cooling. Like I said...it's basic physics.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
more appropriately I want your source for the claim so I can read it myself.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
I have found exactly one reference that says it can, but it doesn't say to what degree or even in what direction. I've found other sources claiming that it challenges AGW, but when I read the actual paper it doesn't say anything of the sort when you actually read it. If you have another source other than Lyakhov 2006, I'd like to see it, since this is the only paper I've seen that's referred to for this claim.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
6) My stance is pretty simple, while the climate is a complicated system, there has been much study in the matter of previous and current climate as well as the factors that influence it, we understand the mechanisms really well and the only significant factor over the last few decades that seems to take into account all the observations and data is GHG concentration.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 People use the arctic ice as evidence of warming...Some shipping records from back in the early days of shipping show that there was an ice free passage in the arctic..I fail to see this as evidence in G/W..like I said many records of temps were way warmer a 100 years ago than now...Some man made GHG's are the more current cause, but I will still argue on Co2..A 100 year record keeping cannot argue with a 650,000 years of ice core samples..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"I said many records of temps were way warmer a 100 years ago than now"
you haven't said that and there's nothing, anywhere that I've ever seen that indicates this on a global basis.
"f the Earth was to shift closer to the sun or away from the current orbit, would we even survive"
This is as bad as Al gore saying "if x amount of ice melted we'd get x amount of rising sea level" the question is, how likely is it =P
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 In conclusion you feel I have no ground to stand on for the recent years of climate warming, maybe, maybe not...Human activity is a partial cause, but not the only..The planet climate has changed from the beginning of the planet till now...If the Earth was to shift closer to the sun or away from the current orbit, would we even survive...It does not take much to really screw things up...This planet will die one of these days anyway..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@garith21 Humans have only been on this planet a very short time, considered against how old the planet is and records have only been kept over the most recent several hundred years..So we can only speculate the past with science..In some cases flawed..Current science evidence can be drawn to a conclusion, but can also be flawed..The more we learn, the less we know..Every time I see a science show, how it was then, that was not right, this is what we know now...Who knows...Cheers amigo...
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) Your line of argumentation of "humans have only been on the planet for a short time" is as intelligent as the fire comparison.
2) we "speculate" in the same way that we assume that gravity or basic physical laws and observations work, can it be flawed? Sure, is there a good reason to think it is? I'd like some evidence, it's the only way to improve our understanding.
3) asserting non causes or non active causes for something isn't logical either.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
Again your point is moronic because we already know why with basic physics, you're literally looking at something and going "hey it got warmer/colder in the past without humans, I don't need to know how or why, therefore humans can't have an effect now" it really is as stupid as saying, fires happen in nature all the time, therefore humans can't cause fires.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
3) Also haven't people like you been ragging on temperature reconstructions such as those done by the CRU?
"The climate has been changing for millions of fucking years"
well technically it would be billions, but what's important isn't simply that it changed, but that we understand the mechanisms and make predictions based upon those mechanisms which we've done. Your argument is as pointless as saying man can't cause fires because fires can naturally happen.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 So basically other things can cause climate change other than man made stuff and it has done so for billions of years ??? That is what I have been trying to say for the last week that there are other causes other than Co2 and man made polution... I have always agreed polution is a problem and ice core samples of the last 100 years show an increase of man made CFC's...I am just saying Co2 is not the only factor..That was my original point !!!!!
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
1) No one ever said that previous climate change was due to man made causes
2) As stated before the evidence supports the fact that man is the major cause of the warming over the last few decades.
3) We know to a high degree of certainty what mechanisms caused previous warming and cooling and we also know to a high degree of certainty they aren't at play now
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Some other factors I have mentioned as current and past causes of climate change...Planet tilt, planet distance from sun, planet rotation rate or changes, planet magnetic field changes, sun activity, sun spots, sun magnetic field changes, solar storms, vulcanos, large metorite impacts, plant life, removing of large tree areas, changing of mountain heights and continent shifts. I guess large earthquakes can change the orbit tilt and rotaition rate of the planet from new data..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
4) You still avoided the question, what mechanism(s) do you think is causing the most recent warming over the last few decades other than GHG concentration or do you object to labeling which mechanisms are at play right now to avoid critical analysis.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 Rain and snow here has a lot to do with la ninia and el ninia years..Over the last 40 I mentioned Mt St Helens and most recent was Ireland vulcanoes.There have been some others over the last 40 .Which we both agree have some, but temporary affect..The 70's and 80's were full of dirty autos, but the oil embargo of the 70's took care of most of the big engines..Now days we have far better burning cars, but more of them...Also now days the larger cities are getting bigger..
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
5) it seems you're just throwing stuff out that you heard can effect the climate, some of this such as solar cycles of various types, volcanoes and the like are short term variations which wouldn't explain a multi decade trend, and others such as axial tilt, mountain heights and continental shifts would take thousands of years to see the difference that we're seeing over the last few decades.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 So with the bigger cities, more people and more autos.Flying has increased big time over the last 40..We fly higher and further, but are using more efficient engines, just more of them..So at this point my comments would side with human activity being the majority of the GHG's....The only other activity that has been a cycle over the last 40 would be the sun spot activity and the earth magnetic shift which is still increasing..The removal of trees in greater numbers might be a factor.
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
5) deforestation is a human factor as well
6) GLOBAL temperature change over many decades is what's seen, cyclical variations of local phenomenon can easily affect specific areas and large cyclical changes can have a global effect, but only over the course of the cycle, that's why we observe it over multiple cycles.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"I am just saying Co2 is not the only factor"
The funny part is you won't ever say what the other factors are, we're aware of other positive feed backs caused by an initial warming and those wouldn't occur without an initial warming and the only mechanism that seems to be at play is increased CO2 concentrations. We're also aware that natural causes of previous climate changes aren't at play now.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
If you're going to assert that it's not the factor that's causing the warming then please do enlighten me as to what the other mechanisms are, you don't seriously think the earth just warms up magically do you?
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"You cannot blame man made Co2 for that"
no one has, you should examine the mechanisms that we're reasonably sure caused previous global climate change, of course you could just keep pounding your head against the mindless blogs you claim to hate.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
It really bothers me when people like you finally admit that agw might be true then resort to this sort of "must find any excuse not to do anything" or "blame this on 'environuts' so you have to address it" or "blame the results of capitalism on scientific advancements", because your intent in doing so is to make the conversation go nowhere so you can feel good about not wanting to take any action what so ever to put this problem on the next generation, just like the last did.
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"Like the cap and trade"
Why the hell do you people keep talking about cap and trade, I don't want cap and trade to be the solution, I want consumers to be really informed so they care about more than the price tag and start doing it because it's the right thing to do, because if we don't do it on our own the government will take action to impose it because it's obvious we aren't going to do it on our own =P
garith21 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
"Bio diesel, good solution, but why can we not get clean diesel here in the USA.."
resorting to sources that are renewable as opposed to those that have been sequestered are cases where we're moving towards being carbon neutral, ie emitting as much as we sequester, as opposed to drilling and emitting Carbon deposits that have been out of the atmosphere for millions of years.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 There is a technology that can take plastics and turn them back into diesel..I heard this from a respectable source...It made some news on the net a while back, but has since been hushed..Have not heard any more about it....Back on the recycle thing, most products were made of metal, but almost everything is plastic junk..Nothing last like it use too, so you have to replace stuff more often..Most low use energy products do not work as good as the old stuff. Dish washers for example.
avionicswirenut 10 months ago
@avionicswirenut
I find it hilarious that you're only looking as negative as possible on any given solution, is it perfect? No, is it better than the alternative is the only general question and you seem to look at very shortsighted "this is bad" without acknowledging anything good about it. Not to mention you try and focus on specific cases as if there are no other alternatives in the currently ava