Yeah the app from SURVEYREMOVER(.)TK is finally a working sharecash download bypass tool ...remove the "(" and ")" ..works just great ! tested yesterday again he updated it too 2012
@jeshuajay That evil people in right-wing, so-called "think-tanks" are quite prepared to lie to you about important things -- such as ozone depletion, the effects of tobacco consumption on health, and global warming -- purely because of base ideological and/or financial motives.
These 32k scientist didnt get ptofits for signing it. they did it because its their opinion. environmentalism became a religion without any perspective for an open debatte.
Even if their is something anthropogenic in the global warming... al gore made it ridiculous
well, on that petition were over 10000 physiks and chemistrists combined. they know what causes a greenhouse effect and that CO2 is not what is is.
Over 1000 biologists who know that our planet and vegetation needs CO2
1600 Geologists who know that the CO concentration were 20x as high as now.
Maybe they arnt the best Scientist, but the same for IPCC (just 2500). and Al Gore is a joke who took false graphs (hockey stick) on porpuse. Why did IPCC publichesd it?
the theory doesn't fit the fact again. so 05 was the hottest year. 08 much colder. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (i guess) was much higher. following the theory, year by year, temperatures have to increase. That the average decade temperatues increases, but not the year by year temperatures is an indicator, that we are still heating up from the little ice age. (if CO2 should be the main reason?)
do you have any video about the amount of CO2 caused by human?
the annual variability, year to year, from cycles like el nino is large enough to mask the signal from gradual climate change, which is only visible when you look at longer time frames, a decade or longer.It is incorrect to think that global warming means each year must be warmer than the previous - it is the long term average that shows it.
We know that excess heat is still being stored in the oceans, even tho atmospheric temps do not go up in a straight monotonic line.
Amazing how fast the science is settled by a consesnous of climate scientist who would instantly loose thier jobs if they didn't tow the line. Not to mention the tens of billions in grant money and government funding, and junkets to copenhagen and the rock star status amoung AGW groupies. Big oil has given far more money to AGW alarmist than skeptics. Big oil contributions to skeptics + 1/3,500 of what the AGW pulls from tax payer funded grants.
I can see a similar video torpedoing the "climate scientists" and AL Gore just as effectively. The who "debate is over" claim is just as contradictory to the scientific method. No credible scientist would accept a "debate is over" stance and stop questioning. HOw many billions of "green" dollars does Gore stand to make if he's able to get some of this legislation passed. He won't debate anyone on the issue. The example he sets is flying around on a private jet. Al Gore = charlatan.
My advice: since scientists have still not settled everything about gravity, try jumping off the nearest bridge to prove, once and for all, that it's just a theory.
but then it WAS the "peace" prize, and NOT for anything even remotely related to a Scientific discipline, the same "peace" prize Adolf Hitler was nominated for in 1939, and Obama won in 2010 for doing precisely NOTHING
for AlBaby, wouldnt a pulitzer prize have been MORE apropos to the nature of his "work"? ah, but pulitzer might actually have STANDARDS for their awards, you know those pesky things called FACTS
I notice you ARENT denying that AlBaby IS the "face" of AGW
I could just as easily say 1st mark of a AGW thug = ad-hominem attack/name calling. It's the shrill thugish behavior of Gore and coments like "when is it going to start being ok to kill climate deniers" from the alarmists that prove the totally irrational emotion from which they operate from. I'm sorry to say but as the temps continue to fall and AGW goes the way of Imminent Ice age alarmism responsible people are going to look hard at the perpatrators of this scam and prosecution is an option
@greenman3610 There's a HUGE difference between gravity and the effects of jumping of a bridge, and the AGW debate and risking our nation's economy for a theory that's in doubt. Even is we do determine the climate is warming, the root cause is unproven. Even if we finally to determine the "debate is over" and AGQ is true, it makes no sense to cut our emissions 25, 50, 75% if any cuts we make will be more than negated by the growing economies of India, China, and other emerging economies.
@greenman3610 Check out the polar ice data on the University of Illinois climate science website. You'll see that total polar ice levels have remained relatively constant for the last 15 years. The global climate has actually cooled about 0.1 degree C since 1999. They found that in the 1990s, the polar ice caps were decreasing...on Mars. This shows more of a correlation between warming and the 11-year solar activity cycles. It makes NO sense to stop our economy based on inconclusive results
My friend, 97% of every independent, peer reviewed paper that has ever been released on the topic of global warming has concluded that C02 emissions are a causal factor. The remaining 3% do not make a conclusion either way.
So no, this is not a theory that is "in doubt" by any standard. The FACTS are that the theory is agreed upon very conclusively within the scientific community.
This is why we call you climate deniers. You deny facts.
@spacecowboy95 97%!? Really? You have a source for this claim? The facts are that Al Gore and his "global warming" neophytes have fudged data, ignored inconvenient data, and been reduced to insults and labels (e.g. "deniers") and outrageous comparisons of those ho disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers." WHen one side resorts to these sorts of tactics, they have lost the argument, as have you "my friend."
@Delphinus72 There was a paper published recently by the National Academy of Sciences called Expert Credibility in Climate Change which basically underlined the fact that almost every active and published scientist in their respective fields support the basic tenants of GW.
So here on our side, we have the entire scientific community.
Who do you have? No one. So you need to construct laughable conspiracy theories about why every person disagrees with you, just like creationists.
97%? sorry pluto ISNT a planet, and science isnt a democracy
all I see is a group of like minded individuals telling each other how WONDERFUL their ideas are, AKA a CIRCLE JERK
please show me a SINGLE instance of one of your vaunted "scientists" who have taken into account Magnetospheric variance in their WONDERFUL models, just ONE would be a nice start
or maybe why OTHER objects in the solar system have shown the SAME "climate change" over the SAME time. curious, isnt it?
you take the quote "mars climate change may be driven by different factors" to mean that changes there are CLEARLY not driven by SOLAR, oops no gold star! pray tell, if its NOT SOLAR, WHAT would it be driven BY?
please correllate your hallowed "hockey stick" with "sunspot activity" graphs
and you dont get to call "residual warming" on pluto and not factor it in here
sunspots? wait, did you claim there is no correlation to solar output?
lets see, a AGW truther is going to cite "leading climatologists"? I WONDER what they will say? I wonder what your "spin" will be?
you better make a trip over to albaby's to get your A-game
remember YOU brought the "residual warming" argument to the table
when you apply the concept of "residual warming" to the oceans, the FACT that forced TRAILING effects of things like Temp and CO2 levels REALLY cripple your entire AGW argument
@whodathunkit1960 Mars warming is regional and is related to changing albedo caused by dust storms. (Fenton, 2007, "Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo
changes on Mars"). The warming on Pluto is related to seasonal variations. Other bodies, such as Europa, are warming as well but those are also caused by factors specific to that particular body such as increasing pressure.
@whodathunkit1960 Nope, sorry. Science is not a dogma. It's just the application of reason to nature.
The problem you have is that us "climate truthers" are supported by the entire scientific community. But oh, they've all got it ass backwards haven't they? If only they'd listen to some nobody rant away on youtube...
The data is there, the papers have been published, you've probably never read any of them and probably never will, but whatever. You've already lost this argument.
no, not the "entire scientific comunity", not even close. just the isolated IPCC "climate truther" niche
what data? data massaged by those with VESTED interest in propagating the "AGW myth"? they FREELY ADMIT that they have "adjusted their data", sorry pal, in SCIENCE you dont get to do that! its RAW DATA, or its propaganda
explain HOW you can "adjust data" to support a theory, and not corrupt the entire study?
@whodathunkit1960 In science all data is adjusted. IF it is not adjusted for natural changes, such as orbital decay by satellites, you will not get the correct readings.
if its IPCC shillers you are calling "scientists" you better tell them they'd better get their bar tabs covered before the emperor realizes he has no clothes
Lots of circumstantial evidence and innuendo - but in the end useless to the overall debate....
3 questions:
Has it been proven that temperatures are going up?
Does increased co2 lead to higher temps or the other way round? (biggest cause of co2 in the atmosphere is water evaporation = the hotter it gets the more water evaporates the more co2 in the atmosphere)
What role does the sun play in global temps and is there a direct pattern?
This is what should be debated -not personal attacks
1, temps.... yep they go up... please ignore they go down too... every day
2. CO2 leading/trailing... depends what versions of whose graphs you look at, I think the only documentation that gets muddled worse than this is obamas birth certificate
3. under no circumstances should you PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THAT BURNING ORB IN THE SKY the ONLY topics welcome on this site are ones related to self loathing
question 2: Both. Based on Henry's Law of Thermal Radiation and Le Chatelier's Principal dealing with oceanic outgassing and intake.
question 3: The sun plays a major role historically. It is one of the major causes of the MWP and LIA. However solar output has declined for decades while temps have continued to increase and tropospheric longwave radiation at specific wavelengths show what gasses warming is caused by.
@WaxItYourself 1) How do you measure the average temp for the whole globe over a year? Dr. Ivar Giaever would say that you can't... "look at ecological responses" which ones? you just brushed off the most important scientific point in this debate - got any evidence of temps going up and if so how did you measure it? Also how do you explain the medieval warming period which was much warmer than now according to tree ring data and Ice core data?
@thegiantsquid433 You can measure with many ground based observatories and extrapolate the temperature over a large area or you can measure the energy imbalance at the tropopause via satellites. You can view ecological responses, such as the increasing spatial distribution of tropical disease vectors, the change pattern of migratory habits and changing seasonal cycles in the following peer reviewed literature: Walther, 2002; Thackeray, 2010; Carver, 2010 and so on.
@thegiantsquid433 You are aware that statistical significance deals with statistics and not temperature variation right? That statement has to do with the probability temperature variations are not due to noise. It has nothing to do with the amount of warming. Greenman or potholer54, one of them, have videos on this if you go through them. As for your previous reference to a scientific journal. I have found the full one and am reading it now.
@thegiantsquid433 No. It does not. There has been warming in the past 15 years in all data sets. In all data sets 9 of the warmest ten years on record occurred in the last decade. Statistical significance refers to the chance a trend is not due to noise. This is why he stated that statistical significance, right after what you quote, is more likely for longer time periods.
@thegiantsquid433 The medieval warm period was not warmer than now. It was equal to temperatures during the 1940s and 50s roughly. Since that time period, from roughly the 1970s, the temperature has increased while solar input has decreased. The medieval warm period also correlates with the medieval maximum. Historically the Sun has been the main driver of climate. however the Sun is not responsible for man's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which is causing the current waming.
@WaxItYourself "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.' - Professor Phil Jones - e.g. not enough data to confirm or deny
@thegiantsquid433 The MWP occurred a heck of a long time ago. To think that technology hasn't increased in the last 200 years or so is foolish. The MWP is based off of, as you stated, ice cores and tree ring data among other things. We currently have measured observational data from ground based observatories and satellites. Two completely different things. One deals with current climate while the other deals with paleoclimate.
@WaxItYourself - my point is: what data do we have to compare modern temps with to know that this is not a natural cycle - sure we have had a few warm years over the last hundred but we only have modern records to compare it to - the planet is billions of years old.
@thegiantsquid433 Everything has a cause. The warming has a cause. You would have to explain the cause of this 'natural cycle' you are referring to. We know the warming is due to increased greenhouse gas concentration, mainly CO2. We emit more CO2 than the atmosphere is increasing by. What is the cause of your 'natural cause'? The fact is that there are no known natural phenomenon that can account for it.
@WaxItYourself - so your argument is that AGW is the most likely cause of warming because there is no known natural cycle that can explain the warming over the last decade? isn't climate science relatively new though? could it be that rather than driving temps, CO2 simply holds heat in the atmosphere longer and therefore amplifies the natural cycle of the sun? my argument is that the sun drives climate CO2 just exaggerates the effect.
@thegiantsquid433 There is no natural cause of warming. Name me one. It is due to increased CO2. climate science has existed for longer than evolution science has existed. It is not due to the sun. Spatial, altitudinal, and temporal rates and variations of temperature change show this. (Alexander, 2006; Braganza, 2004) And we have been measuring solar input via satellite. It has been decreasing for a few centuries. I have stated this.
@thegiantsquid433 CO2 does not 'produce' heat. CO2 retains heat due to it's greenhouse gas properties. CO2 absorption is in a narrow band centered at 15um. If you want to learn about the greenhouse effect this is too short a place to describe it. Look it up on .edu websites.
@WaxItYourself exactly - the sun produces heat, co2 just holds it in the atmosphere longer - that doesn't mean temps are just going to continue to go up, it just means there will be a lag between the cycle of the sun and temps - the heat is driven by the sun. Taking a tiny amount of data, seeing an increase and then assuming that increase will just continue is silly, in the 70s they thought it would keep cooling then it warmed up - the sky is falling the sky is falling
@thegiantsquid433 you are ignoring the fact that are are reponsible for the increased CO2. As we emit more more energy will be retained. It will not get absorbed by the ocean because the partial pressure of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Look up HENRY'S LAW and LE CHATELIER'S PRINCIPAL. I have told you this. Have you done it yet? Stop remaining ignorant. I go now. Have a good night. Next time I answer you hopefully you have an understanding of those two things.
@WaxItYourself - and you are ignoring that vegetation absorbes co2 and the more co2 in the atmosphere the faster vegetation grows - nature has ways to deal with these things and restore natural balance - there have also been more volcanic eruptions over the last 2 centuries than any other time, that also produces co2. Still not sure what we are supposed to be afraid of... not once have I attacked you personally yet you call me 'ignorant', thats just rude. Live your life with fear if you want..
@thegiantsquid433 I have never said anything about vegetation yet. Certain types of vegetation will grow better IF CO2 is the mitigating factor. Volcanic eruptions amount to about 200 million tons of CO2 while human emissions account for over 30 billion tons as Greenman has stated before me. The main gas emitted by most volcanoes is water vapour. I'm ignorant of many things as well, I don't see that as an attack sorry if you did.
@greenman3610 I completely agree. And when you try and show them the knowledge, the data, the measurements and so on they refuse to acknowledge it much as this person is doing as well as that other individual I was having a discussion with in here. There are some who are actually skeptical who wish to learn more but these two are definitely not them.
@greenman3610 I always try and post as much relative information and data as I can in response so if they are skeptical they can look it up for themselves if they are just reading it. I'm a regular poster on the Yahoo Answers global warming section and am use to trolling questions and answering in ways where skeptical lurkers can get the most relative information and data and see it for themselves.
@WaxItYourself I've been looking at the figures and when you factor in water vapor, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect, it seems the alarmists (ege politicians & media) out there often neglect to factor in water vapor - would you agree?
@thegiantsquid433 No. It is well known that water vapour is a feedback as stated previously. A doubling of CO2 will amount to 1C of warming. This is accepted by all climatologists. A greater amount of warming is attributable to water vapour, roughly 2.5C on average is expected. The IPCC and other scientific bodies state that there is a most likely probability of a 3.5C increase due to doubling of CO2 due to these factors. I do not pay attention to politcians and media.
@thegiantsquid433 It is not discounted. It is a feedback and can not be a forcing.Most of the warming even in AGW comes from water vapour feedback as I've already explained. It says this right in the IPCC reports.
@thegiantsquid433 You can see the differences between warmer temperatures and cooler temperatures by looking at the differences between El Nino and La Nina years. There is a possibility of a trend in increased hurricane strengths, greater precipitation in rain prone areas, greater and more frequent drought in drought prone areas, possible extinctions such as what happened with Harlequin Frogs, loss of habitat, northward movement of pests and disease vectors, and so on.
@WaxItYourself And again factoring in water vapor = Anthropogenic CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, which as far as i can tell is insignificant! - would you agree with this as well?
@WaxItYourself Wallace Broecker, geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.....cont
@WaxItYourself cont...His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.
@WaxItYourself " I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. " - Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
@thegiantsquid433 Dr Wallace Broeker should realize then that water vapour can not be a forcing because it's concentration is dependent on water vapour. If he claims it is water vapour then he has to define what that forcing is. Water vapour is and will always be a feedback. How do you think clouds are formed and rain falls?
@whodathunkit1960 I have watched them thanks. The fact is is that water vapour does not condense into clouds unless it is cold enough. This is high school science. You didn't fail that too did you?
@thegiantsquid433 Alright. Water vapour concentration is dependent on temperature. As an air parcel cools if it's at it's saturation point water vapour will condense and form clouds then rain out. This is why water vapour can not cause a warming and will only be able to enhance a warming due to some other cause. My guess is that you misunderstood what was being said. As an it warms it gains the ability to hold more water vapour and retain more energy at specific wavelengths up to a point.
@WaxItYourself Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in an interview with National Geographic News. “Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
@WaxItYourself In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.” - Could explain any apparent warming over the last 15years, could it not?
@thegiantsquid433 dimming and brightening are related to atmospheric aerosols not solar output. I'm pretty sure that the increase in solar radiation at the surface can no where near account for the warming we felt. Changes in CO2 radiative forcing accounts for 1.66W/m^2 while changes in solar forcing accounts for 0.12W/m^2 but has been declining for several decades now. These measurements are taken at the tropopause as all radiative forcing components are.
@WaxItYourself -“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto,and now Mars has some scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,”- Benny Peiser
@thegiantsquid433 I have not heard, as stated, that global warming is occurring on Jupiter. You have named 4 of the 100s of bodies that are in the Solar system, each with their own orbital variations and atmospheric anomalies. I believe I've already provided you with the reason for warming on Mars. It is due to albedo changes and dust storms. See Fenton, 2007.
@thegiantsquid433 And the Sun does drive climate and CO2 does exaggerate the effects. However, as humans are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere that carbon sinks are not taking up that increases the effect and retains more energy. As stated, measurements show this to be occurring and responsible for the current warming.
@WaxItYourself - and if the earth is getting slightly warmer (which i don't thing we have the data to establish in the first place) so what? AGW proponents seem to think that the temps will just continue to increase - but couldn't CO2 just elongate the the natural cycle of the sun, which means the temps will go down again as they always have. Co2 also means plants grow faster - isn't that a good thing? I'm not sure what it is we're supposed to be afraid of....
@thegiantsquid433 We do have the data. It is NOT due to the Sun. We are responsible for the CO2 increase as our emissions are greater than atmospheric increase and the ocean is acting as a sink during a warming period. Both the oceans and atmosphere are warming so that energy must be coming from somewhere. Measurements and data, which I have provided, show where it is coming from. Look up increased precipitation, increased flooding, drought, and so on.
@WaxItYourself - so the sun plays no role in temps? where does the heat come from in the first place? increased flooding, drought, rain? where is the data on that?
sun drives temps - co2 may hold the temp in the atmosphere to create a lag between sun cycle and temp cycle - heat comes from the sun then gets trapped in the atmosphere for longer because of increased co2 - it still follows the cycle of the sun it just elongates the length of time in the atmosphere.
@thegiantsquid433 Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? You seem to have no understanding of the greenhouse effect. Increased floods and precipitation is again shown in Alexander, 2006 and others. Different areas of the world will be affected differently. The energy comes from the Sun, gets retained in the atmosphere longer due to increasing greenhouse gases, and warms the atmosphere. You are arguing red herrings. Anyways, i'm going to bed, have a good night.
@WaxItYourself lol i just described the greenhouse effect - so what happens when the heat from the sun reduces (natural cycle) - do temps just magically continue to rise? or do they slowly reduce? floods and rain and drought have always been around - still not sure what we are supposed to be afraid of even if it is all true. anyway it's been fun have a good night
@thegiantsquid433 No... listen. They won't continue to rise if the amount of increasing retained energy is greater than the amount of decreasing output energy. This is simple grade school math. And dealing with your 'have always been around' statement' It's the TRENDS that matter not single occurrence. The trends of those incidents will INCREASE. 30 year minimum, as I have stated. You have a good night as well.
@whodathunkit1960 and your idiotic understanding continues. If you add energy to a system that system will heat up. How exactly is the retained energy going to be increased through other causes? Is there some mysterious cause that we do not know about that acts similar to the greenhouse effect? I'll expect a report outlining this cause, mathematics to back it up, and measurements and data to show it to be occurring.
the SANE side of the aisle says you are ignoring the single BIGGEST contributor to global warming, the burning orb in the sky
you say "WE" arent paying attention to CO2, which is a MINISCULE factor
so, what IS causing GW on the OTHER bodies in the solar system? well we do have 2 rovers on mars, maybe thats causing it there we DID land a probe on Titan and flew a couple by Triton
and you STILL deny that the sun is actually getting HOTTER? in spite of the maunder low?
@whodathunkit1960 And this is why I've decided not to speak with you anymore. You ignore EVERYTHING. Mars warming is caused by dust storms. Look up "Mars warming dust storms" on Google. There is no maunder low. A Maunder minimum would make the planet DECREASE in temperature. CO2 is not the ONLY thing that can cause warming, which I have told you before and you ignore. Some bodies in the solar system are warming while others are cooling such as Uranus. Explaining things to you is getting tiring.
you ARE aware that the reason the brits changed over to beer was that during the MWP, it was WARMER than today, and vineyards were prevalent in the UK... meaning they drank WINE instead of beer...
or have your IPCC masters forbidden acknowledgement of these FACTS
@whodathunkit1960 And there you go again. You are aware that brits currently do have vineyards do you not? Camel Valley, Adgestone, Purbeck, and many others. Why do you continue to fail at these things? Is it because you're possibly ignorant? Yes it is. (And for that matter since when does England = Global?)
You stated, 'vineyards were prevalent in the UK' as if they were not today. I showed you you were wrong as they are prevalent there today. You can dance around all you want. As for your claim that sweeter grapes were grown in that time I'd like to see some peer reviewed literature on it. Generally though it is known that various areas of the UK were warmer during medieval times. However that does not equate to warmer globally.
@thegiantsquid433 Also measurements of ice sheets and glacial mass show a warming world. You can view this in the following scientific literature: Barry, 2006; Chen, 2009; Kwok, 2009; Rignot, 2011; Velicogna, 2009; Zemp, 2009 and so on.
Dr. Ivar Giaever is also 82 years old, he has a PHD in mechanical engineering and he worked for GM and earned his Nobel prize in electron tunneling. He is not a climate scientist and never has been.
@whodathunkit1960 Oh of course why didn't I think of that. The reason glaciers are receding is not because it is getting warmer. It is because they are going through more sublimation. Gee, thanks for talking sense into me.
@whodathunkit1960 I gave you links to show that both glacial melt and polar melt are occurring. Where do you think they go? Sea levels are rising at a rate of about 3.4mm per year. They couldn't possibly be going into the sea could they? Look up Bahr 2009 and Rignot 2011
@whodathunkit1960 150 feet by 2010? No. They measure it with ARGO floats. If you knew anything about the effects of a warming atmosphere you would know this. You deny all the data and measurements that show that the world is warming. You're a joke and once again I see no point in continuing this conversation. You don't want to learn anything but instead want to stick to your anti-scientific indoctrinated beliefs. Have fun.
would you call the oceanic depression off the coast of austrailia a "denier conspiracy" or... would you just ignore that that was actually measured about 5 years ago...
I bring this up, because CERTAINLY your 3.4 mm accounts for that...
wait, seeing that they couldnt come up for a reason for it, HOW could they compensate for it?
@WaxItYourself 2) If both are true how do measure which percentage is caused by humans and which is a natural reaction to a natural cycle? volcanoes - water evaporation etc.
3) You say temps have continued to increase but wasn't the hottest year on modern record 1995(according to AGW proponents)? if that is true how can you say it is continuing to get warmer? wouldn't it be more accurate to say that temps have plateaued?
@thegiantsquid433 Looking at the radiation measurements we once again see CO2 to be the major cause of warming. Currently CO2 increase by humans amount to over 30gt/y. Measurements of atmospheric CO2 by Scripps in various places around the world show an increase of about 2ppm per year which is roughly equal to 15.8gt/y. We are emitting more than the atmospheric increase. Oceans are currently absorbing half of what we emit.
@WaxItYourself - but we have already established that warming is also the cause of increased CO2 - how do we know which CO2 is caused by humans and which is natural? you say oceans are absorbing half our CO2 but if the temps are getting warmer wouldn't oceans be releasing CO2 due to water evaporation?
@thegiantsquid433 Yes we have due to Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal which I have already mentioned and as we are increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere that is also why the oceans are acting as a carbon sink. Before going further look up those two things. The temperature would not be increasing and the atmosphere would not be gaining CO2 concentration if we did not emit CO2 in our burning of fossil fuels. You can also look up what ocean acidification is.
@WaxItYourself Ok you make valid points but one thing still bothers me - if increased co2 thickens (for want of a better term) the troposphere therefore trapping more solar radiation inside the atmosphere to create higher temps, wouldn't it also reduce the amount of solar radiation coming in? and wouldn't that balance out or nullify the effect?
@thegiantsquid433 No. Greenhouse gases are called such because they block specific frequencies of infrared radiation. Specifically between 5um and 100um as those are the frequencies the Earth emits based on it's temperature. CO2 blocks a band centered at about 15um. Increases of energy at these wavelengths are what is causing most of the warming. Each greenhouse gas has it's own specific absorption frequencies.
@WaxItYourself are saying that the frequency of the radiation coming in is different from the radiation going out? so it can still get in but then changes and cant get out?
@thegiantsquid433 Yes it is. Both are based off of the temperature of the object emitting the radiation. As the Sun is quite a bit warmer than the Earth it emits radiation in a much shorter wavelength. The Sun emit radiation shorter than 4 micrometers while the Earth re-emits that radiation at longer than 4 micrometers. Type the following into google: "greenhouse gases site:uchicago.edu" and click on the first link.
@thegiantsquid433 No the hottest year on record was not 1995. The warmest year on record in some datasets has been margin and it is 1998. That was, however, due to the strongest El Nino to date. Look up the 'ENSO Index' to see this. In other datasets 2005 and 2010 are warmer than 1998. climate changes are measured over 30 year time periods at a minimum to weed out any background noise such as Oscillations and other short term natural cycles.
@thegiantsquid433 No. According to NASA GISS 2010 is the warmest year on record. 1998 is the only year of the 1990s that even make it in the top 10, all other top 10 years are all within the past decade. Look up NASA GISS to get NASA's dataset.
@WaxItYourself - Warmest year on record where? Northern region? southern region? some parts are warmer some parts are cooler how do you measure the warmest year on record? and what data can you compare it to? we have only been measuring temps for the last couple of centuries if that, so to say "on record" is a little dubious as we don't have historical data to compare with...
@thegiantsquid433 It refers to global temperature variation. Records began being kept in the 1880s. The warmest year on record refers to the average temperature over all zones. Why are you asking these questions? Just go look at the Hadcrut dataset, the GISS dataset, and various other ones. In it they explain exactly how they collect the data. 'On record' refers to since measurements begun being kept.
@WaxItYourself I'm apprehensive about the GISS data set as from what i understand the information was put together by Phil Jones who has apparently misplaced the raw data he used and who was also involved in "cablegate" - is there an independent source (e.g. non government NASA/UN) you could point me in the direction of, that shows the increase in temps?
@thegiantsquid433 The HADCRU dataset, the RSS dataset, and so on. Phil Jones also used data from the satellites that are freely available. He didn't misplace any RAW data. The HADCRU dataset is run by Christy and Spencer, two of the most prominent skeptiks though even in their data there is significant warming.
@WaxItYourself - 3) E. Friis-Christensen & K.Lassen in "Science" in 1991 - "70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity"
And now expect the denier cultists to ignore absolutely everything you say and continue on with their dangerous unnecessary time-wasting action-interfering debate
Yes, yes, and yes. I'm sure you went to the IPCC website and read all their reports before coming here and asking superficial questions that scientists have investigated along with many more you haven't thought of
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah the app from SURVEYREMOVER(.)TK is finally a working sharecash download bypass tool ...remove the "(" and ")" ..works just great ! tested yesterday again he updated it too 2012
omgyeahhh1 3 days ago
Watching this video was a complete waste of time. What is it supposed to prove?
jeshuajay 1 week ago
@jeshuajay That evil people in right-wing, so-called "think-tanks" are quite prepared to lie to you about important things -- such as ozone depletion, the effects of tobacco consumption on health, and global warming -- purely because of base ideological and/or financial motives.
xchopp 1 week ago
pretend there is a 'u' instead of the second 'o' in Oregon. That way, you can pronounce it correctly.
MrOttopants 2 weeks ago
i think it is sad.
These 32k scientist didnt get ptofits for signing it. they did it because its their opinion. environmentalism became a religion without any perspective for an open debatte.
Even if their is something anthropogenic in the global warming... al gore made it ridiculous
IFrancyISantosI 1 month ago
@IFrancyISantosI
If you don't know the difference between a climate scientist and a proctologist, I'm sure that no logical discussion is possible.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
well, on that petition were over 10000 physiks and chemistrists combined. they know what causes a greenhouse effect and that CO2 is not what is is.
Over 1000 biologists who know that our planet and vegetation needs CO2
1600 Geologists who know that the CO concentration were 20x as high as now.
Maybe they arnt the best Scientist, but the same for IPCC (just 2500). and Al Gore is a joke who took false graphs (hockey stick) on porpuse. Why did IPCC publichesd it?
IFrancyISantosI 1 month ago
@IFrancyISantosI
and 39 climate scientists.
presumably, next time you have a brain tumor, you will have a "chemistrist"
remove it. a good chemistrist, I'm sure.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
first we can assume that there are at least 100 times more physics and chemistrists than climate scientists in the world.
In WG1 of IPCC (who "searching" the cause of warming, there are only 18 specialized on Carbon Cycle and other 18 on anthropogenic forcing.
I think thats not much aswell. But not the democracy tells who is right in sience. the evidences do.
why didn't the temperature increase since 1998 and even decrease since 2002?
IFrancyISantosI 1 month ago
@IFrancyISantosI
See if you can find a scientist.
A real one, not an orthodontist or a chiropractor. have him or her explain the concept of "Cherry picking" to you.
watch?v=w5D7P2qbKCs
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
"cooling since 1998"
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610
the theory doesn't fit the fact again. so 05 was the hottest year. 08 much colder. But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (i guess) was much higher. following the theory, year by year, temperatures have to increase. That the average decade temperatues increases, but not the year by year temperatures is an indicator, that we are still heating up from the little ice age. (if CO2 should be the main reason?)
do you have any video about the amount of CO2 caused by human?
IFrancyISantosI 1 month ago
@IFrancyISantosI
the annual variability, year to year, from cycles like el nino is large enough to mask the signal from gradual climate change, which is only visible when you look at longer time frames, a decade or longer.It is incorrect to think that global warming means each year must be warmer than the previous - it is the long term average that shows it.
We know that excess heat is still being stored in the oceans, even tho atmospheric temps do not go up in a straight monotonic line.
greenman3610 1 month ago
We will all die at the hands of the greedy and religiously deluded. The only up side is that those fuckers will die too.
DaToNyOyO 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The most astonishing series you would ever watch
Search For
"THE GREAT DISASTERS"
eliasmouawad 2 months ago
And now 5,000 MORE e-mails released showing the chicanery on the part of the climate scientologists. Climategate 2.0
Delphinus72 3 months ago
@Delphinus72
will this be any better than the first one? cuz that fell pretty flat.
see here
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
greenman3610 3 months ago
Amazing how fast the science is settled by a consesnous of climate scientist who would instantly loose thier jobs if they didn't tow the line. Not to mention the tens of billions in grant money and government funding, and junkets to copenhagen and the rock star status amoung AGW groupies. Big oil has given far more money to AGW alarmist than skeptics. Big oil contributions to skeptics + 1/3,500 of what the AGW pulls from tax payer funded grants.
DamageSix 4 months ago
I can see a similar video torpedoing the "climate scientists" and AL Gore just as effectively. The who "debate is over" claim is just as contradictory to the scientific method. No credible scientist would accept a "debate is over" stance and stop questioning. HOw many billions of "green" dollars does Gore stand to make if he's able to get some of this legislation passed. He won't debate anyone on the issue. The example he sets is flying around on a private jet. Al Gore = charlatan.
Delphinus72 4 months ago
@Delphinus72
first mark of a climate crank = Gore bashing
My advice: since scientists have still not settled everything about gravity, try jumping off the nearest bridge to prove, once and for all, that it's just a theory.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610
um, albore... the pulitzer "prize" winner... for his "work" on the "science" of AGW
but we are not allowed to point out the foibles of the FACE of the AGW movement?
sorry Greenman... you may WANT to distance AGW from AlBaby... but hes ALL yours!!!!
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
well, if you don't know the difference between a pulitzer and a Nobel, you're just proving my point about the uninformed cluelessness of deniers.
you bash whichever personality you like. I'll stick to the science, and bash ignorance such as yours, instead.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610
nobel
but then it WAS the "peace" prize, and NOT for anything even remotely related to a Scientific discipline, the same "peace" prize Adolf Hitler was nominated for in 1939, and Obama won in 2010 for doing precisely NOTHING
for AlBaby, wouldnt a pulitzer prize have been MORE apropos to the nature of his "work"? ah, but pulitzer might actually have STANDARDS for their awards, you know those pesky things called FACTS
I notice you ARENT denying that AlBaby IS the "face" of AGW
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
I could just as easily say 1st mark of a AGW thug = ad-hominem attack/name calling. It's the shrill thugish behavior of Gore and coments like "when is it going to start being ok to kill climate deniers" from the alarmists that prove the totally irrational emotion from which they operate from. I'm sorry to say but as the temps continue to fall and AGW goes the way of Imminent Ice age alarmism responsible people are going to look hard at the perpatrators of this scam and prosecution is an option
DamageSix 4 months ago
@greenman3610 There's a HUGE difference between gravity and the effects of jumping of a bridge, and the AGW debate and risking our nation's economy for a theory that's in doubt. Even is we do determine the climate is warming, the root cause is unproven. Even if we finally to determine the "debate is over" and AGQ is true, it makes no sense to cut our emissions 25, 50, 75% if any cuts we make will be more than negated by the growing economies of India, China, and other emerging economies.
Delphinus72 3 months ago
@Delphinus72
"There's a HUGE difference between gravity and the effects of jumping of a bridge, and the AGW debate"
If you haven't done your research, how do you know? Run the experiment, then get back to me.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610 Check out the polar ice data on the University of Illinois climate science website. You'll see that total polar ice levels have remained relatively constant for the last 15 years. The global climate has actually cooled about 0.1 degree C since 1999. They found that in the 1990s, the polar ice caps were decreasing...on Mars. This shows more of a correlation between warming and the 11-year solar activity cycles. It makes NO sense to stop our economy based on inconclusive results
Delphinus72 3 months ago
@greenman3610
WHERE are your climatologists controls?
wait, you arent experimenting (or even doing science for that matter) you are conducting CIRCLE JERKS
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
@Delphinus72 A theory that's in doubt?...
My friend, 97% of every independent, peer reviewed paper that has ever been released on the topic of global warming has concluded that C02 emissions are a causal factor. The remaining 3% do not make a conclusion either way.
So no, this is not a theory that is "in doubt" by any standard. The FACTS are that the theory is agreed upon very conclusively within the scientific community.
This is why we call you climate deniers. You deny facts.
spacecowboy95 3 months ago
@spacecowboy95 97%!? Really? You have a source for this claim? The facts are that Al Gore and his "global warming" neophytes have fudged data, ignored inconvenient data, and been reduced to insults and labels (e.g. "deniers") and outrageous comparisons of those ho disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers." WHen one side resorts to these sorts of tactics, they have lost the argument, as have you "my friend."
Delphinus72 3 months ago
@Delphinus72 There was a paper published recently by the National Academy of Sciences called Expert Credibility in Climate Change which basically underlined the fact that almost every active and published scientist in their respective fields support the basic tenants of GW.
So here on our side, we have the entire scientific community.
Who do you have? No one. So you need to construct laughable conspiracy theories about why every person disagrees with you, just like creationists.
spacecowboy95 3 months ago
@spacecowboy95
97%? sorry pluto ISNT a planet, and science isnt a democracy
all I see is a group of like minded individuals telling each other how WONDERFUL their ideas are, AKA a CIRCLE JERK
please show me a SINGLE instance of one of your vaunted "scientists" who have taken into account Magnetospheric variance in their WONDERFUL models, just ONE would be a nice start
or maybe why OTHER objects in the solar system have shown the SAME "climate change" over the SAME time. curious, isnt it?
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
"other planets' nonsense
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610
did you leave your A-game at albaby's
you take the quote "mars climate change may be driven by different factors" to mean that changes there are CLEARLY not driven by SOLAR, oops no gold star! pray tell, if its NOT SOLAR, WHAT would it be driven BY?
please correllate your hallowed "hockey stick" with "sunspot activity" graphs
and you dont get to call "residual warming" on pluto and not factor it in here
sunspots? wait, did you claim there is no correlation to solar output?
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
wait a few days. will be updating my "the sun did it crock" video.
for now, you can watch a moronic congressman ask the same question of one of the world's leading climatologists.
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610
lets see, a AGW truther is going to cite "leading climatologists"? I WONDER what they will say? I wonder what your "spin" will be?
you better make a trip over to albaby's to get your A-game
remember YOU brought the "residual warming" argument to the table
when you apply the concept of "residual warming" to the oceans, the FACT that forced TRAILING effects of things like Temp and CO2 levels REALLY cripple your entire AGW argument
you've BEEN warned, lol
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 Mars warming is regional and is related to changing albedo caused by dust storms. (Fenton, 2007, "Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo
changes on Mars"). The warming on Pluto is related to seasonal variations. Other bodies, such as Europa, are warming as well but those are also caused by factors specific to that particular body such as increasing pressure.
WaxItYourself 2 months ago
@spacecowboy95
ah, this is RICH
where are the "control"s for your "climatologists" "experiments"?
hell. where ARE the experiments? EVERYTHING climatology is OBSERVATIONAL
and EVERY SINGLE collection of "climatology observations" ignores the BIG factors
How can you possibly claim "SCIENCE" when you dismiss the MAJOR FACTORS influencing your observations?
and then you "climate truthers" claim that anyone who doesnt blindly accept your dogma is a HERETIC
where have we seen this before?
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 Nope, sorry. Science is not a dogma. It's just the application of reason to nature.
The problem you have is that us "climate truthers" are supported by the entire scientific community. But oh, they've all got it ass backwards haven't they? If only they'd listen to some nobody rant away on youtube...
The data is there, the papers have been published, you've probably never read any of them and probably never will, but whatever. You've already lost this argument.
spacecowboy95 3 months ago
@spacecowboy95
science stands on its own
no, not the "entire scientific comunity", not even close. just the isolated IPCC "climate truther" niche
what data? data massaged by those with VESTED interest in propagating the "AGW myth"? they FREELY ADMIT that they have "adjusted their data", sorry pal, in SCIENCE you dont get to do that! its RAW DATA, or its propaganda
explain HOW you can "adjust data" to support a theory, and not corrupt the entire study?
try "BAD Science Ben Goldacre' on TED
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 In science all data is adjusted. IF it is not adjusted for natural changes, such as orbital decay by satellites, you will not get the correct readings.
WaxItYourself 2 months ago
@spacecowboy95
97%...
that ratio doesnt cause ANY alarms to go off?
really?
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
Like I say, "Follow the money".
m1aws 4 months ago
A lie goes all the way around the world before the truth can even gets its shoes on. Thanks for doing this Peter, we really appreciate you.
Pillowpants8495 5 months ago
@Pillowpants8495
lies going all around the way around the world
deary.... the only thing I see going around the world is IPCC conventions...
are THOSE the lies of which you speak?
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 Oh those craaaaaazy scientists are at it again...
Pillowpants8495 4 months ago
@Pillowpants8495
if its IPCC shillers you are calling "scientists" you better tell them they'd better get their bar tabs covered before the emperor realizes he has no clothes
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
Check out these organizations that debunk the global-warming-denying crazies.
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
mphello 4 months ago
@mphello
nice list of AGW cess pits... lol
you ARE aware that Brazil is the "new oil baron" on the block
China is the BIGGEST collection of CO2 deniers on the planet (its not OUR problem)
france is... well... FRANCE
India is slated to be the SECOND biggest CO2 belcher out there
and THEN theres Italy - SAY NO MORE
if science were a democracy, then "voting" and 97% would matter
its NOT.... and 97% should do ONE thing... set off alarms from here to.... beijing?
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
Check out these organizations that debunk the global-warming-denying crazies.
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
mphello 4 months ago
@mphello
I could go on...
HEREs a thought... cross off every one of them with IPCC ties...
unless Japan is building a new building for the Caribbean Academy, I THINK they may be the ONLY survivor there
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
Skip to 8:14 to see the leading scientists who dispute climate change.
great video man. a little perspective changes everything.
poorandimmature 5 months ago
Lots of circumstantial evidence and innuendo - but in the end useless to the overall debate....
3 questions:
Has it been proven that temperatures are going up?
Does increased co2 lead to higher temps or the other way round? (biggest cause of co2 in the atmosphere is water evaporation = the hotter it gets the more water evaporates the more co2 in the atmosphere)
What role does the sun play in global temps and is there a direct pattern?
This is what should be debated -not personal attacks
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433
1, temps.... yep they go up... please ignore they go down too... every day
2. CO2 leading/trailing... depends what versions of whose graphs you look at, I think the only documentation that gets muddled worse than this is obamas birth certificate
3. under no circumstances should you PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THAT BURNING ORB IN THE SKY the ONLY topics welcome on this site are ones related to self loathing
you may now resume flagellation
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 question 1: Yes, look at ecological responses.
question 2: Both. Based on Henry's Law of Thermal Radiation and Le Chatelier's Principal dealing with oceanic outgassing and intake.
question 3: The sun plays a major role historically. It is one of the major causes of the MWP and LIA. However solar output has declined for decades while temps have continued to increase and tropospheric longwave radiation at specific wavelengths show what gasses warming is caused by.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself 1) How do you measure the average temp for the whole globe over a year? Dr. Ivar Giaever would say that you can't... "look at ecological responses" which ones? you just brushed off the most important scientific point in this debate - got any evidence of temps going up and if so how did you measure it? Also how do you explain the medieval warming period which was much warmer than now according to tree ring data and Ice core data?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 You can measure with many ground based observatories and extrapolate the temperature over a large area or you can measure the energy imbalance at the tropopause via satellites. You can view ecological responses, such as the increasing spatial distribution of tropical disease vectors, the change pattern of migratory habits and changing seasonal cycles in the following peer reviewed literature: Walther, 2002; Thackeray, 2010; Carver, 2010 and so on.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself "for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming." - Professor Phil Jones
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 You are aware that statistical significance deals with statistics and not temperature variation right? That statement has to do with the probability temperature variations are not due to noise. It has nothing to do with the amount of warming. Greenman or potholer54, one of them, have videos on this if you go through them. As for your previous reference to a scientific journal. I have found the full one and am reading it now.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself it means that within the scientific margin of error there has been no warming over the past 15 years
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 No. It does not. There has been warming in the past 15 years in all data sets. In all data sets 9 of the warmest ten years on record occurred in the last decade. Statistical significance refers to the chance a trend is not due to noise. This is why he stated that statistical significance, right after what you quote, is more likely for longer time periods.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
Keep up the awesome work!
mphello 4 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 The medieval warm period was not warmer than now. It was equal to temperatures during the 1940s and 50s roughly. Since that time period, from roughly the 1970s, the temperature has increased while solar input has decreased. The medieval warm period also correlates with the medieval maximum. Historically the Sun has been the main driver of climate. however the Sun is not responsible for man's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which is causing the current waming.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.' - Professor Phil Jones - e.g. not enough data to confirm or deny
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 What you stated there has nothing to do with the amount of warming or cooling. You refer to the regional aspect of it.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - I refer to the complexities involved in collecting temp data and the fact that even the scientists aren't sure
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 The MWP occurred a heck of a long time ago. To think that technology hasn't increased in the last 200 years or so is foolish. The MWP is based off of, as you stated, ice cores and tree ring data among other things. We currently have measured observational data from ground based observatories and satellites. Two completely different things. One deals with current climate while the other deals with paleoclimate.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - my point is: what data do we have to compare modern temps with to know that this is not a natural cycle - sure we have had a few warm years over the last hundred but we only have modern records to compare it to - the planet is billions of years old.
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Everything has a cause. The warming has a cause. You would have to explain the cause of this 'natural cycle' you are referring to. We know the warming is due to increased greenhouse gas concentration, mainly CO2. We emit more CO2 than the atmosphere is increasing by. What is the cause of your 'natural cause'? The fact is that there are no known natural phenomenon that can account for it.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - so your argument is that AGW is the most likely cause of warming because there is no known natural cycle that can explain the warming over the last decade? isn't climate science relatively new though? could it be that rather than driving temps, CO2 simply holds heat in the atmosphere longer and therefore amplifies the natural cycle of the sun? my argument is that the sun drives climate CO2 just exaggerates the effect.
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 There is no natural cause of warming. Name me one. It is due to increased CO2. climate science has existed for longer than evolution science has existed. It is not due to the sun. Spatial, altitudinal, and temporal rates and variations of temperature change show this. (Alexander, 2006; Braganza, 2004) And we have been measuring solar input via satellite. It has been decreasing for a few centuries. I have stated this.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - pretty sure satellites are new - they sure weren't around a few centuries ago. Please explain to me how CO2 produces heat?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 CO2 does not 'produce' heat. CO2 retains heat due to it's greenhouse gas properties. CO2 absorption is in a narrow band centered at 15um. If you want to learn about the greenhouse effect this is too short a place to describe it. Look it up on .edu websites.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself exactly - the sun produces heat, co2 just holds it in the atmosphere longer - that doesn't mean temps are just going to continue to go up, it just means there will be a lag between the cycle of the sun and temps - the heat is driven by the sun. Taking a tiny amount of data, seeing an increase and then assuming that increase will just continue is silly, in the 70s they thought it would keep cooling then it warmed up - the sky is falling the sky is falling
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 you are ignoring the fact that are are reponsible for the increased CO2. As we emit more more energy will be retained. It will not get absorbed by the ocean because the partial pressure of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Look up HENRY'S LAW and LE CHATELIER'S PRINCIPAL. I have told you this. Have you done it yet? Stop remaining ignorant. I go now. Have a good night. Next time I answer you hopefully you have an understanding of those two things.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - and you are ignoring that vegetation absorbes co2 and the more co2 in the atmosphere the faster vegetation grows - nature has ways to deal with these things and restore natural balance - there have also been more volcanic eruptions over the last 2 centuries than any other time, that also produces co2. Still not sure what we are supposed to be afraid of... not once have I attacked you personally yet you call me 'ignorant', thats just rude. Live your life with fear if you want..
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433
well, bringing up the "volcanoes" canard does indicate a lack of knowledge.
google the US Geological survey -
usgs volcanic gases climate
where you will find that man releases 100 times more co2 than volcanoes annually.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 you are right about the volcanoes - touche :)
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 I have never said anything about vegetation yet. Certain types of vegetation will grow better IF CO2 is the mitigating factor. Volcanic eruptions amount to about 200 million tons of CO2 while human emissions account for over 30 billion tons as Greenman has stated before me. The main gas emitted by most volcanoes is water vapour. I'm ignorant of many things as well, I don't see that as an attack sorry if you did.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
knowledge is viewed as a threat by deniers
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 I completely agree. And when you try and show them the knowledge, the data, the measurements and so on they refuse to acknowledge it much as this person is doing as well as that other individual I was having a discussion with in here. There are some who are actually skeptical who wish to learn more but these two are definitely not them.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
shape your answers to help the genuinely curious lurkers.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 I always try and post as much relative information and data as I can in response so if they are skeptical they can look it up for themselves if they are just reading it. I'm a regular poster on the Yahoo Answers global warming section and am use to trolling questions and answering in ways where skeptical lurkers can get the most relative information and data and see it for themselves.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
shape your answers to help the genuinely curious lurkers.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 What a load of crap - now you sound like self congratulating elitists....
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself I've been looking at the figures and when you factor in water vapor, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect, it seems the alarmists (ege politicians & media) out there often neglect to factor in water vapor - would you agree?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 No. It is well known that water vapour is a feedback as stated previously. A doubling of CO2 will amount to 1C of warming. This is accepted by all climatologists. A greater amount of warming is attributable to water vapour, roughly 2.5C on average is expected. The IPCC and other scientific bodies state that there is a most likely probability of a 3.5C increase due to doubling of CO2 due to these factors. I do not pay attention to politcians and media.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself I would like to know about water vapor being considered feedback - does this make it irrelevant? if so why is it discounted?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 It is not discounted. It is a feedback and can not be a forcing.Most of the warming even in AGW comes from water vapour feedback as I've already explained. It says this right in the IPCC reports.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself and what do they think a 3.5C increase will result in? why is it something to be feared?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 You can see the differences between warmer temperatures and cooler temperatures by looking at the differences between El Nino and La Nina years. There is a possibility of a trend in increased hurricane strengths, greater precipitation in rain prone areas, greater and more frequent drought in drought prone areas, possible extinctions such as what happened with Harlequin Frogs, loss of habitat, northward movement of pests and disease vectors, and so on.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself And again factoring in water vapor = Anthropogenic CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, which as far as i can tell is insignificant! - would you agree with this as well?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself Wallace Broecker, geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.....cont
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself cont...His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself " I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. " - Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Dr Wallace Broeker should realize then that water vapour can not be a forcing because it's concentration is dependent on water vapour. If he claims it is water vapour then he has to define what that forcing is. Water vapour is and will always be a feedback. How do you think clouds are formed and rain falls?
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself I meant it's concentration is dependent on temperature.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
um waxy....
you MAY want to look at some of Greenmans latest posts...
they talk about cloud formation...
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 I have watched them thanks. The fact is is that water vapour does not condense into clouds unless it is cold enough. This is high school science. You didn't fail that too did you?
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself not really sure what you're saying - do you mind rephrasing?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Alright. Water vapour concentration is dependent on temperature. As an air parcel cools if it's at it's saturation point water vapour will condense and form clouds then rain out. This is why water vapour can not cause a warming and will only be able to enhance a warming due to some other cause. My guess is that you misunderstood what was being said. As an it warms it gains the ability to hold more water vapour and retain more energy at specific wavelengths up to a point.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in an interview with National Geographic News. “Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
Comment removed
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.” - Could explain any apparent warming over the last 15years, could it not?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 dimming and brightening are related to atmospheric aerosols not solar output. I'm pretty sure that the increase in solar radiation at the surface can no where near account for the warming we felt. Changes in CO2 radiative forcing accounts for 1.66W/m^2 while changes in solar forcing accounts for 0.12W/m^2 but has been declining for several decades now. These measurements are taken at the tropopause as all radiative forcing components are.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself -“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto,and now Mars has some scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,”- Benny Peiser
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 I have not heard, as stated, that global warming is occurring on Jupiter. You have named 4 of the 100s of bodies that are in the Solar system, each with their own orbital variations and atmospheric anomalies. I believe I've already provided you with the reason for warming on Mars. It is due to albedo changes and dust storms. See Fenton, 2007.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
Another great response!
Denier cultists are not mentally capable of reading what you just said.
It is beyond their inferior mental capacity.
Bravo!
mphello 4 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 And the Sun does drive climate and CO2 does exaggerate the effects. However, as humans are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere that carbon sinks are not taking up that increases the effect and retains more energy. As stated, measurements show this to be occurring and responsible for the current warming.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - and if the earth is getting slightly warmer (which i don't thing we have the data to establish in the first place) so what? AGW proponents seem to think that the temps will just continue to increase - but couldn't CO2 just elongate the the natural cycle of the sun, which means the temps will go down again as they always have. Co2 also means plants grow faster - isn't that a good thing? I'm not sure what it is we're supposed to be afraid of....
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 We do have the data. It is NOT due to the Sun. We are responsible for the CO2 increase as our emissions are greater than atmospheric increase and the ocean is acting as a sink during a warming period. Both the oceans and atmosphere are warming so that energy must be coming from somewhere. Measurements and data, which I have provided, show where it is coming from. Look up increased precipitation, increased flooding, drought, and so on.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - so the sun plays no role in temps? where does the heat come from in the first place? increased flooding, drought, rain? where is the data on that?
sun drives temps - co2 may hold the temp in the atmosphere to create a lag between sun cycle and temp cycle - heat comes from the sun then gets trapped in the atmosphere for longer because of increased co2 - it still follows the cycle of the sun it just elongates the length of time in the atmosphere.
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? You seem to have no understanding of the greenhouse effect. Increased floods and precipitation is again shown in Alexander, 2006 and others. Different areas of the world will be affected differently. The energy comes from the Sun, gets retained in the atmosphere longer due to increasing greenhouse gases, and warms the atmosphere. You are arguing red herrings. Anyways, i'm going to bed, have a good night.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself lol i just described the greenhouse effect - so what happens when the heat from the sun reduces (natural cycle) - do temps just magically continue to rise? or do they slowly reduce? floods and rain and drought have always been around - still not sure what we are supposed to be afraid of even if it is all true. anyway it's been fun have a good night
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 No... listen. They won't continue to rise if the amount of increasing retained energy is greater than the amount of decreasing output energy. This is simple grade school math. And dealing with your 'have always been around' statement' It's the TRENDS that matter not single occurrence. The trends of those incidents will INCREASE. 30 year minimum, as I have stated. You have a good night as well.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
"if the amount of increasing retained energy is greater than the amount of decreasing output energy"
THAT is a colossal piece of "double-speak"
logically that sounds good. HOWEVER, that also predisposes that CO2 is the cause
in BIG BOY science, that type of predisposition has a VERY nasty habit of tainting the research
what if the retained energy is being increased from OTHER causes?
NOW because I am questioning the holy IPCC cause, condescending BS starts in 5,4,3...
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 and your idiotic understanding continues. If you add energy to a system that system will heat up. How exactly is the retained energy going to be increased through other causes? Is there some mysterious cause that we do not know about that acts similar to the greenhouse effect? I'll expect a report outlining this cause, mathematics to back it up, and measurements and data to show it to be occurring.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself
condescention delivered... on queue... hell waxy, if your AGW theorists were THAT accurate, there wouldnt be ANY questtions
waxy, weve SEEN your pathetic math skills... so there is NOTHING we could show you that you would have ANY hope of understanding
magnetospheric variances.... youve been running from that like its some kind of snake...
well I guess if you actually ACKNOWLEDGED that, your hallowed AGW would be as dead as if it had been bitten by a snake...
theres
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 You fail to provide anything regarding the proof. I'll just accept that you can;t and that you've given up.
WaxItYourself 4 months ago
@WaxItYourself
the SANE side of the aisle says you are ignoring the single BIGGEST contributor to global warming, the burning orb in the sky
you say "WE" arent paying attention to CO2, which is a MINISCULE factor
so, what IS causing GW on the OTHER bodies in the solar system? well we do have 2 rovers on mars, maybe thats causing it there we DID land a probe on Titan and flew a couple by Triton
and you STILL deny that the sun is actually getting HOTTER? in spite of the maunder low?
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 And this is why I've decided not to speak with you anymore. You ignore EVERYTHING. Mars warming is caused by dust storms. Look up "Mars warming dust storms" on Google. There is no maunder low. A Maunder minimum would make the planet DECREASE in temperature. CO2 is not the ONLY thing that can cause warming, which I have told you before and you ignore. Some bodies in the solar system are warming while others are cooling such as Uranus. Explaining things to you is getting tiring.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
waxy... there you go again
the MWP was not warmer than now?
you ARE aware that the reason the brits changed over to beer was that during the MWP, it was WARMER than today, and vineyards were prevalent in the UK... meaning they drank WINE instead of beer...
or have your IPCC masters forbidden acknowledgement of these FACTS
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 And there you go again. You are aware that brits currently do have vineyards do you not? Camel Valley, Adgestone, Purbeck, and many others. Why do you continue to fail at these things? Is it because you're possibly ignorant? Yes it is. (And for that matter since when does England = Global?)
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
realizing that the only thing you loathe more than opposition to your Anthropogenic phobias is critical thought
lets try again
we go on the UK for several reasons 1) less migration 2) easier translation
during the MWP, the nature of the UK vinyards were to the sweeter varieties, than we see there today
why? well they could have all been lushes, or roman influence, but lets just look at it
maybe because the CLIMATE was warmer and the warmer climate (sweeter) grapes FLOURISHED?
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
You stated, 'vineyards were prevalent in the UK' as if they were not today. I showed you you were wrong as they are prevalent there today. You can dance around all you want. As for your claim that sweeter grapes were grown in that time I'd like to see some peer reviewed literature on it. Generally though it is known that various areas of the UK were warmer during medieval times. However that does not equate to warmer globally.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
gee waxy, apparently you have as much trouble with the english language as you do with critical thought.
prevalent, means widespread.... and just because you can name a few dozen wineries DOES NOT EQUATE to wineries being PREVALENT in the UK
yeah, I think that English wines rate right up there just ahead of the ever famous SCANDINAVIAN wines...
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 You still aren't providing any data. All you're doing is to continue talking out your ass.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
I think it was YOU who was last caught talking from their nether regions....
something about how "electromagentism has NOTHING to do with anything"
go ahead waxy... spin it
whodathunkit1960 4 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Also measurements of ice sheets and glacial mass show a warming world. You can view this in the following scientific literature: Barry, 2006; Chen, 2009; Kwok, 2009; Rignot, 2011; Velicogna, 2009; Zemp, 2009 and so on.
Dr. Ivar Giaever is also 82 years old, he has a PHD in mechanical engineering and he worked for GM and earned his Nobel prize in electron tunneling. He is not a climate scientist and never has been.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
you ARE aware that the major "receding" factors for glaciation at altitude is sublimation?
there are MANY places here on good old earth where it never gets warm enough for the glaciers to melt... but go on
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 Oh of course why didn't I think of that. The reason glaciers are receding is not because it is getting warmer. It is because they are going through more sublimation. Gee, thanks for talking sense into me.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
ah nice to see you are still the silver tongued devil
so waxy, do explain where the glaciers go in places where it has never gotten warm enough for them to melt?
are those nasty stinkin rotten yellow fairies being forced out of the troposphere by all the AGW CO2 coming down to make snocones?
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 I gave you links to show that both glacial melt and polar melt are occurring. Where do you think they go? Sea levels are rising at a rate of about 3.4mm per year. They couldn't possibly be going into the sea could they? Look up Bahr 2009 and Rignot 2011
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
More IPCC claptrap... you want me to believe you dont drink the IPCC piss... but thats ALL you bring to the table...
3.4mm per year....
2 things...
1) ever BEEN to the ocean? pray tell HOW would you measure 3.4 mm per year?
2) ONE of your climatologists (disney footage in the early 60s) was claiming that it would be 150 FEET by 2010
guess we're supposed to IGNORE that load of rubbish...
just pay attention to the shiny new IPCC blessed load of rubbish?
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@whodathunkit1960 150 feet by 2010? No. They measure it with ARGO floats. If you knew anything about the effects of a warming atmosphere you would know this. You deny all the data and measurements that show that the world is warming. You're a joke and once again I see no point in continuing this conversation. You don't want to learn anything but instead want to stick to your anti-scientific indoctrinated beliefs. Have fun.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
hey waxy
would you call the oceanic depression off the coast of austrailia a "denier conspiracy" or... would you just ignore that that was actually measured about 5 years ago...
I bring this up, because CERTAINLY your 3.4 mm accounts for that...
wait, seeing that they couldnt come up for a reason for it, HOW could they compensate for it?
whodathunkit1960 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
you DO know what sublimation is... DONT YOU?
and how it works?
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
@WaxItYourself 2) If both are true how do measure which percentage is caused by humans and which is a natural reaction to a natural cycle? volcanoes - water evaporation etc.
3) You say temps have continued to increase but wasn't the hottest year on modern record 1995(according to AGW proponents)? if that is true how can you say it is continuing to get warmer? wouldn't it be more accurate to say that temps have plateaued?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Looking at the radiation measurements we once again see CO2 to be the major cause of warming. Currently CO2 increase by humans amount to over 30gt/y. Measurements of atmospheric CO2 by Scripps in various places around the world show an increase of about 2ppm per year which is roughly equal to 15.8gt/y. We are emitting more than the atmospheric increase. Oceans are currently absorbing half of what we emit.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - but we have already established that warming is also the cause of increased CO2 - how do we know which CO2 is caused by humans and which is natural? you say oceans are absorbing half our CO2 but if the temps are getting warmer wouldn't oceans be releasing CO2 due to water evaporation?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Yes we have due to Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal which I have already mentioned and as we are increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere that is also why the oceans are acting as a carbon sink. Before going further look up those two things. The temperature would not be increasing and the atmosphere would not be gaining CO2 concentration if we did not emit CO2 in our burning of fossil fuels. You can also look up what ocean acidification is.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself Ok you make valid points but one thing still bothers me - if increased co2 thickens (for want of a better term) the troposphere therefore trapping more solar radiation inside the atmosphere to create higher temps, wouldn't it also reduce the amount of solar radiation coming in? and wouldn't that balance out or nullify the effect?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 No. Greenhouse gases are called such because they block specific frequencies of infrared radiation. Specifically between 5um and 100um as those are the frequencies the Earth emits based on it's temperature. CO2 blocks a band centered at about 15um. Increases of energy at these wavelengths are what is causing most of the warming. Each greenhouse gas has it's own specific absorption frequencies.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself are saying that the frequency of the radiation coming in is different from the radiation going out? so it can still get in but then changes and cant get out?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 Yes it is. Both are based off of the temperature of the object emitting the radiation. As the Sun is quite a bit warmer than the Earth it emits radiation in a much shorter wavelength. The Sun emit radiation shorter than 4 micrometers while the Earth re-emits that radiation at longer than 4 micrometers. Type the following into google: "greenhouse gases site:uchicago.edu" and click on the first link.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself Ok will do
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 No the hottest year on record was not 1995. The warmest year on record in some datasets has been margin and it is 1998. That was, however, due to the strongest El Nino to date. Look up the 'ENSO Index' to see this. In other datasets 2005 and 2010 are warmer than 1998. climate changes are measured over 30 year time periods at a minimum to weed out any background noise such as Oscillations and other short term natural cycles.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - According to NASA it was 1995 you say 1998 0r maybe 2005 or 2010? sounds to me like the science isn't settled on this point....
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 No. According to NASA GISS 2010 is the warmest year on record. 1998 is the only year of the 1990s that even make it in the top 10, all other top 10 years are all within the past decade. Look up NASA GISS to get NASA's dataset.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - Warmest year on record where? Northern region? southern region? some parts are warmer some parts are cooler how do you measure the warmest year on record? and what data can you compare it to? we have only been measuring temps for the last couple of centuries if that, so to say "on record" is a little dubious as we don't have historical data to compare with...
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 It refers to global temperature variation. Records began being kept in the 1880s. The warmest year on record refers to the average temperature over all zones. Why are you asking these questions? Just go look at the Hadcrut dataset, the GISS dataset, and various other ones. In it they explain exactly how they collect the data. 'On record' refers to since measurements begun being kept.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself I'm apprehensive about the GISS data set as from what i understand the information was put together by Phil Jones who has apparently misplaced the raw data he used and who was also involved in "cablegate" - is there an independent source (e.g. non government NASA/UN) you could point me in the direction of, that shows the increase in temps?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 The HADCRU dataset, the RSS dataset, and so on. Phil Jones also used data from the satellites that are freely available. He didn't misplace any RAW data. The HADCRU dataset is run by Christy and Spencer, two of the most prominent skeptiks though even in their data there is significant warming.
WaxItYourself 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself Thanks i will have a look
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself - 3) E. Friis-Christensen & K.Lassen in "Science" in 1991 - "70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity"
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@WaxItYourself
Keep up the awesome work!
And now expect the denier cultists to ignore absolutely everything you say and continue on with their dangerous unnecessary time-wasting action-interfering debate
and ask the world exactly the same 3 questions.
mphello 4 months ago
@thegiantsquid433
Yes, yes, and yes. I'm sure you went to the IPCC website and read all their reports before coming here and asking superficial questions that scientists have investigated along with many more you haven't thought of
for 100 years now.
mphello 5 months ago
@mphello do you think being an asshole is proving your point?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433 No, because I'm not an asshole.
Do you think being a unpatriotic piece of shit fuckhead coward that deserves to be raped and killed helps YOUR point?
mphello 5 months ago
@mphello unpatriotic?
thegiantsquid433 5 months ago
@thegiantsquid433
"is temp going up?" - yes, in every temperature data set, ground based and satellite.
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
"temp leads carbon" crock -
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
"Its the Sun" - video soon to be updated
for now, google
Solar activity & climate