After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are all being totally screwed.
@azframer Roy Spencer is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, which is funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries.
This information is readily available at Wikipedia, Sourcewatch, and even the Heartland Institute's own website. Why do you need someone to show you something that is so easy to find yourself? Are you really that determined to remain ignorant?
Woe -this is like the pot calling the kettle black!
How can you try to discredit Spencer, when all the scientists on your side are in the employ of the IPCC/UN, an organisation with its own political aims?????
@frolly1000 You love to exaggerate, don't you? OK, google Barry Bickmore from Utah. He is not employed by the IPCC/UN. He's also made a correction or two on Spencer's work.
It's well known that Roy Spencer is in the pocket of oil and gas industry interests. NASA wouldn't tolerate his unscientific BS, so he went to good ol' U of Bammy--heart of the good ol boy network! Don't forget that Roy boy is a CREATIONIST--he don't believe in evolution! Hence why no professional scientist on Earth takes Roy seriously--he's a laughingstock in the pro science world.
So you gonna trust the judgment and interpretation... of a CREATIONIST? Let's check for those oil co. "tips".
@Rep0007 I see how Spener's religious beliefs might affect his analysis of the data, but I think it would be better if you could actually point to specific instances rather than simply casting aspersion. Also, Spencer's funding is not ideal, but Scientists always need more money. If the establishment rejects his unorthodox views, how is he supposed to fund his research?
In any case, it would be more constructive to refute Spencer's work on scientific grounds rather than ad hominem.
Wow-this is like the pot calling the kettle black!
How can you try to discredit Spencer, when all the scientists on your side are in the employ of the IPCC/UN, an organisation with its own political aims?????
The Great Lakes were formed by melting Ice over thousands of years......Hell - there were Wooly Mammoth Skeletons found just North of Detroit......How many SUV's were aound to cause that global warming ????
@Heteroz No he didnt, he said that the temperature is correlated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The next few years will tell if this is the case. Single year-to-year changes aren't significant.
"Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done[13]"
Spencer and colleague John Christy "published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated..."; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data.[11], [12]. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate put it:
If Ms. Boxer is what the people are voting into office, I am ashamed. This woman was chosen to chair this discussion.This is the best we could get? She is disrespectful, clearly is not open minded and did not address this expert and citizen with the respect you would give any dog let alone a human being. SHAME on you Ms. Boxer.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "
If Ms. Boxer is what the people are voting into office, I am ashamed. This woman was chosen to chair this discussion.This is the best we could get? She is disrespectful, clearly is not open minded and did not address this expert and citizen with the respect you would give any dog let alone a human being. SHAME on you Ms. Boxer.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "
What the hell does "climate denier" mean? The warmists are the real deniers. They deny that climate fluctuates periodically and cyclically regardless of human activities. They deny that any change in the climate can be a result of anything other than human activity. They even denied the medieval optimum. where the hell do they get off calling people "deniers"?
@frolly1000 you don't have a shred of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. In that light, the scientists have no evidence to back up their claims.
@oomblikkies People don't like to think about the future. In one hundred years they say the sea level will only rise 3 feet which is only involves the steady rate we observe today but there are many other geoligical factors which would change that rate like a change like Trapped Co2 in rock on ocean floor and permafrost, rainforrest burning etc once a certain temperature threshold is passed and we don't wait until that happens because a sudden fast rise is sea level could not be controlled.
Coastal cities will be underwater. If all of the ice caps completely melt, the sea level would rise 200 feet. Every major coastal city would be underwater and many countries like Indonesia which have many land areas not high above sea level would be under water. Even if the sea level only rose 30 feet New York City would be ruined and under water.
@oomblikkies Co2 has already become dangerous to us. Cetain species are becoming extinct as a result of a few degress temperature gain which you have not included. It only takes a few degrees rise in the temperature to cause the polar ice caps to start to melt. In order to stop the melting we need to reverse the Co2 ppm down below 300. We haven't even begun to do that. In less than 200 years Houston will be underwater.
@marsnr1 No. not typical of her only, but also typical of the alarmist mantra which says: 1. Do not discuss the science, 2. Attack the man and 3, Repeat the mantra: Humans are causing global warming.
The first mass extinctions were the dinosaurs 65 million years ago by the meteor. The second mass extinctions were caused by Co2. The third mass extinctions will be caused by man made Co2 from coal burning if we don't change to clean energy. Our biological life is not adapted to a higher temp. climate like 50 million years ago. If it was we'd have no problem.
@geoffreyah Oh boy, CO2 only becomes dangerous for human life at levels exceeding 1%, that is 10000 ppm (ten thousand parts per million). Currently the CO2 level is about 380ppm. Now let us do the math. CO2 increases at about 3 ppm per year. So, another 3200 years before we reach 1% CO2 in the atmosphere. The cherry on top of all this is that earth does not have enough carbon to get to those levels. I dont think we have a problem Houston.
That is correct. Actually the north and south poles were still warm 50 million years ago and that is when we had the mass extinctions. Plants removed much Co2 and polar ice caps began to form. A meteor collision with the Earth 65 million years ago caused the mass extinctions. We know the ice ages didn't begin until 3 million years ago because of the stalagtite deposits in caves. Different layers in the stalagtites show the rainfall.
It is interesting how some people still think the dinosaur fossels at the South pole were the result of plate movement and contiental drift but the South pole was virtually still in the same place 100 million years ago not a long time in geological history, one has to go back 250 million years before all the continents were connected in pangea, the one super continent which split up into the separate continents we see today.
you left out one thing. The average temperature of the entire Earth was much warmer 100 million years ago. The south pole had no ice cap. It was a land mass was 65 degress F. with a giant freshwater lake in the center at 59 degree temp.. Dinosaurs lived there. The reason is that there was much more volcanoes and vulcanism which expelled more Co2 in our air. The vulcanism decresed and the plants removed a lot of Co2 over past 100 million years lowering temp. and causeing mass extinctions.
All the large temperature changes in our the entire climate history of the Earth are caused by Co2 changes. We now know all the past climate history. It is no longer an unknown. There is no uncertainty.
Plants exhale oxgygen and breath in Co2. It litte Co2 is good but now we are buring the coal and gas which are made of dead plants, animals, dinosaurs, single celled organism. When we burn oil, gas which is made of oil and coal it puts it back into our air and too much Co2 will make the air hoter which melts the polar caps. 100 million years ago the co2 concentration in our air was 15 times higher and polar ice caps were completely melted Earth was hotter then.
The piling up of layers millions of years of dead trees in the wetlands turned into coal which absorbed enough Co2 to lower the temperaure 5 to 9 degrees which resulted in the first ice age 3 million years ago. Before that time we never had any ice ages except only 3 snow ball frozen Earth periods in 2.4 billion, 800 million and 400 million years ago. The build of up plant life during those times caused snow ball Earth period plants breath in all the Co2 without it Earth cannot be warm.
@PissFechtmiester. Clouds and winds are the symptoms of temperature. Clouds don't exists without a change in temperature and winds are the result in different temperatures which result in high and low pressure cells. High pressure always blows towards low pressure based on temperture differences between two regions. All of our ice ages result from only a temp drop of 5 to 9 degrees 3 million years ago when due to coal deposits of million year build of up of dead trees which absorbs Co2.
@PissFechtmeister Dude, we both agree. Global warming is made made caused by greenhouse gases. However, one does not have to be a scientist to know that cloud varriability as nit wit Dr. Roy spencer refers to has no affect on our climate. Clouds and winds are only the after affect of temperture which drives them. ANYONE WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT SCIENCE KNOWS THIS which is why Roy Spencer is a crackpot quack.
"man made climate change" is as big of a fraud as the Gulf of Tonkin incident. or 9/11, or the entire fed reserve fractional reserve banking system. (the system of legally robbing, raping, and taking over the entire planet through manipulation based on acquisition and playing on peoples' fears)
global warming, leading to global carbon taxes? who benefits from that, everyone somehow? earth? or those who set this up from the beginning and have direct ties to these companies?
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
Yeah its an ad hominem and she should do better, but his speech was full of straw men. The IPCC has doesn't really considered natural causes. The IPCC agenda was set by some policy guy 20 years ago...blah blah blah.
Spencer goes on and on about his wonderful work and gives the deniers lots of good quotes but his work fails. He is talking about how heat moves around in the system. His work has nothing to do with where the heat comes from nor how it gets into space. That is what matters.
so, because Rush 'smelled an agenda' and had/has embraced ROY SPENCER, that automatically marginalizes what he was saying all along? Democrats like Boxer are so fucking phony with their blatant and desperate ad homonym attacks . When Barbara was in college, she would have never fallaciously tried to discredit a position based on an association/admirer of a speaker. Junior college professors will bust you hard for that. It just goes to show: Blind ideology will make a dumb sonofabitch out of U.
The Sun's brightness variability, Earths distance variability from the Sun and axis wobble tilt variablity which changes through time over 25, 000 years called precession have already been included in scientists calculations. Cloud variability is changed by temperative changes and increase in temperature by increase of Co2 which is why most scientists think cloud variability is only an after affect of global warming.
Natural cloud variability is something which can only be an after affect of global warming but NOT A CAUSE! Anyone with the smallest amount of scientific intuition knows this. Give me a break. What's causing the cloud variability? The same thing that drives all weather. The is the Sun's brightness, precision or woble of Earth's axis which causes ices ages and distance variabilityof Earth from the Sun. These HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE FACTORED IT INTO THEIR CALCUATIONS.
@geoffreyah Actually, the scientists admit that they aren't sure how to model the clouds' effect on climate. Same goes for glaciers, aerosols, and the oceans. And yet the tiny blip in temperatures is, without a doubt, due to man. Get real.
Exuse me. Infared radiation is heat radiation. Ozone gas absorbs at the same frequency which blocks Ultra violet light. Some still gets through which is what causes Sun burn but on Mars there is no Ozone or very little so most of the Ultra violet hits the surface of the planet. Astronauts will be protected by their space suits. CFC cloroflorocarbons destroy our ozone layer. The ozone layer deniers are the same as the Co2 deniers. They need to learn about science.
@prikhod Invisible? Most everything in quantum physics IS INVISIBLE. The radiowaves of cellphones, Most of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma, rays, x-rays, ultra violet, INFARED RADIATION and radiowaves which is heat radiation. Co2 gas absorbs at minus -667 frequency wavelengths which is exactly the frequency of infared light. Sun's rays hit Earth warm it. Earth emits infared rays and Co2 absorbs it. Al Gore did not explain why Co2 absobs infared light. Now you know.
To the deniers: you're right - not all PhDs in hard sciences (such as mathematics, as is mine) agree: the IPCC and environmental groups are way too soft, too conservative. They should have pushed to outlaw meat - needlessly growing animals for food - decades ago. And they should have banned most humans from reproducing. Meat & human overpopulation = biggest causes of global warming.
"Denier" is an interesting word. "Contrarian" would be neutral, and it wouldn't bias the viewer. If a contrarian isn't credible on his/her own, so be it. I feel this guy is more than credible.
there is no man made global warming. if it is so bad why is Al Gore flying in private jets, riding in a fleet of limos, has a mansion in Tenn. that uses enough electricity to light a number of houses for a month, bought a multi-million dollar beach house in Cal. Another thing is, if climate change is real, why won't they have a debate on it? numerous people have challenged Gore and he refuses.
@ARealAmericanVa 1) Gore is not a climatologist 2) Gore uses carbon offsetting e,g, tree growing programmes to bring his carbon footprint down to zero. 3) There isn't one major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus that humans are the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming since 1970.
@checkyoursources: "There isn't one major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus that humans are the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming since 1970"
You know, just because you keep saying this nonsense over and over again, it doesn't make it true. Wanna take butt plugs out of your ears?
@prikhod so because you can't fight what he is saying you attack him with profanity? come on, if your going to argue with someone at least have some sort of respect about it.
@prikhod Then find me a major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus? If you can't then you will have to take back your statement.
@prikhod Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming as the most likely cause of recent rapid warming including the russian academy of sciences (G8+5 Academies’ joint statement): I suggest you keep up to date. 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position (Anderegg et al 2010)
@checkyoursources: "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position"
I think 97.38% of all statistics is made up on the spot...
Listen, I don't have time for morons... so f... off... wanna believe in invisible pink unicorns? ENJOY! I don't give a shit, AGW is as dead as it gets...
@checkyoursources: I just looked at the garbage you watch, "how to deal with climate deniers" ... i don't have much say other than... FUCK YOU! :) <- that was a smiley
@prikhod ad hominem. Nothing to back your argument I see. Try reading some of these, I doubt you will because you clearly aren't here to talk about science: Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010)
Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants (Zhao 2010) Threat to fish populations (Munday 2010)
Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries (Mendelsohn 2006)
@prikhod I suggest you look up the results of 3 independent reviews of the scientists involved, all were cleared completely of any wrongdoing, try to keep up.
@checkyoursources: "3 independent reviews of the scientists involved"
Independent? LMAO!!! You're a fucking moron... I can read MYSELF, I don't need some socialist fuck with an agenda telling me "there's nothing to see here, it's all squeaky clean"... cuz I've read the emails and it's most certainly NOT
@prikhod If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. next.
@prikhod 1) Jones gave data that shows that between 1975 and 2009 there was statistically significant warming of 0.161 degrees C per decade.He also went on to say that there was no statistically significant cooling between 2005 and 2009
2) Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy".Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
@checkyoursources: "Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system."
So let me get this straight... so when the temperature goes up, it's 100% proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's doom and gloom and anybody who questiosn that is a denier...
But when the temperature doesn't go up... it's because of uhmm... "observational systems"
Do you not see what I see? There's a bit of a problem here...
@prikhod Read: Trenberth's views are in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". The very fact that Trenbeth's views are not hidden and available publicly in a peer reviewed paper shows that the e-mail is not some hidden scam as you suggest. Besides this was Trenbeth's view, not the view of the entire scientific community. Scientists don't "prove" things, they reduce uncertainty. There is less uncertainty about AGW that other natural theories.
@checkyoursources "I suggest you look up the results of 3 independent reviews of the scientists involved, all were cleared completely of any wrongdoing, try to keep up."
This is called "argument from authority", which every thinking person should know is a LOGICAL FALLACY and not an argument at all. Just as "the debate is over" or "there's a scientific consensus" - should logically be rejected as propaganda at the very best...
@checkyoursources: "Then find me a major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus? If you can't then you will have to take back your statement."
RAS
Furthermore, there's a very vocal dissent in most academies, including those in the US and UK.
@checkyoursources: "There isn't one major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus that humans are the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming since 1970"
You know, just because you keep saying this nonsense over and over again, it doesn't make it true. Wanna take butt plugs out of your ears?
No, it is your emotional reaction which is not based on science or thinking but emotion. furthermore, you think it is only about politics which is ideological. Science is not since it can be corroborated. We do need Co2 to keep our Earth warm with the greenhouse effect but too much of it will cause ice caps to melt
I am very comcerned that this oil in the ocean, spills throughout the years, almost mounthly, on top of what is happening now, could end up being biblical. Espesialy if it does go on for mounths and mounths.
The carbon levels follow temp. change by 3-800 years, meaning temp change changes carbon levels, not the other way around. That is the little secret Gore has covered up that is common knowledge now. It only makes sence too. The higher temp. means more vegitation growth in the summer, therefore more dieing of plant life in the winter=hence higher carbon levels. Man only adds 6% of the total carbon output of the planet. most of wich coming from the ocean and the decay of plant matter.
1) The time lag is from the equilibrium change at the warmed ocean's surface, not vegetation
2) Climatologists have known about this lag from the beginning, and reached their consensus of human driven global warming knowing it. (Hint: They understand this better than you)
3) The lag establishes that CO2 did not START those warming cycles - which was already known. It does NOT invalidate that CO2 contributed to temp increases as the CO2 increased (as physics/chemistry demands)
4) The human contribution to carbon flux, while not a huge percentage of the total surface emissions, is enough to make the sources greater than the sinks, and so represents a net annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without us, there would be an approximate equilibrium of sources and sinks. (The oceans absorb about half the net increase we're causing - acidifying in the process, and some suggest approaching their saturation, so they might not be able to maintain that.).
@VeryEvilPettingZoo This is based on theory. A convincing one at that. But you are playing god if you think we KNOW what exactly the atmosohere can and can-not put up with with what little we know about earth, and there are many factors at play wich we don't know about.I do believe we need to come clean with energy and stop with the oil spills already, that has more to do with the oceans PH levels than man made air-born carbon-in my opinion.
@holywarbirhtday I think the sciences are being highjacked to control industry in its intirety, pollitics are too corrupt to fix directly the real problems.
The science is fine. How scientific results are spun is full of bias/distortion/deception, as always, but the research process looking into global warming is working fine. There've been Herculean attempts by industry to try to convince the public otherwise (after all, taking a page from, and allied with, Big Tobacco, they know that when the science is against you, that "doubt is our product"), but their claims are, quick frankly, pure bullshit (and yes, I've investigated many of them)
Linking carbon emisions in the air to a degree of 6% to acidic levels in the ocean is an axample of bad science. Its like tracing fecal matter in a swiming pool to the house fly when there is a child swiming in the water with a dirty diaper. Giant astroids could not destroy this atmosphere BECAUSE of carbon Emisions from valcanoes. Carbon is the one thing that ALL life must have. The globe will warm, and cool, along with the output of the SUN.
I might be wrong, you might be totaly right to believe humans are destroying the atmosphere with fosil fuels, but frankly, if we had no oil spills in the oceans, and all this attention of "science was put into forest management, then that would completely fix the ocean toxicity level-wich I do believe is a huge problem.
@holywarbirhtday Yeah, and not being able to spell correctly is an example of bad education. So, using your logic, you're a denier 'tard. Just sayin'...
@holywarbirhtday Pretty much. Illiteracy does have its downside. So does AGW. If you'd take the time to read the scientific literature on the subject, you may not sound like such a 'tard. You'll still have to spell correctly and put together cogent and grammatically correct sentences, though. Kinda helps make you not sound like such a 'tard.
Congradulations! your a dick! Not all scientist agree with the "science" you are reading. You know that though, all knowing dick. That video I referenced is a perfect example....DICK, and they are probably better spellers than you....dick. And with all that profesional dick handling you must do.....dick.... You can go suck a ...........
@holywarbirhtday Got under your skin, did I? Roy Spencer is nuts; a wackjob. He pretends to be sane, but he ain't. You're right, not all scientists agree; there are some who think the IPCC is being too conservative with their estimation of sea level rise, glacial melt, polar ice melt, Greenland melt. Mostly the conservative estimates are due to our lack of understanding of the rate at which the melt is occurring. Otherwise, 98% of climate scientists agree.
@sTevefor3, I love that you feel if someone has an opinion on a matter that differs from yours, you should instantly label them as insane, stupid or a conspiracy theorist.
Also pulling % figures out of your ass on what you believe scientists opinions are is a pile of bull. 98% of people like eating marshmellows. see? I can do it to! Get a fucking clue.
@smellyduckz@smellyduckz: Well, if science was based on opinion, then yours might matter, but it's not, so your opinion has no merit. Look for this study at pnas dot org: "Expert credibility in climate change" from Stanford:
That's "pnas", as in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course, if you had bothered to look up this reference yourself, you would have seen that the "98%" figure is, indeed, correct.
Bam! Another denier bites it. How's that denier-marshmallow taste?
I completely agree that this is very complex stuff, having lots of dynamic processes all influencing one another, and that scientists don't understand it fully. But this is what science is all about - the usual situation - they basically never know anything "for sure", so they obsess about understanding and bounding the scale of their uncertainty and error. This is their job, and they've collectively reached their considered and informed judgment: humans are driving global warming.
Re: "And humans 6% carbon footprint is nothing compared to what nature produces"
(It's less, more like 3%-4% if I recall). Yes, and my point still stands. I'll make it again with an analogy.
You run a company producing wigets. You're breaking even: no profit and no loss. The cost of your raw materials goes up by 3%, but you your sales revenue doesn't change. You now run at an annual loss, and your debt grows with every passing year. That it was "only" 3% doesn't matter.
Re: "Where you connected temp change and plants from what I wrote is your device. You misunderstood what I wrote to make a convenient little arguement for yourself."
I took it from your:
"The higher temp. means more vegitation growth in the summer, therefore more dieing of plant life in the winter=hence higher carbon levels."
My point was that your mechanism for "increasing temps increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration" is minor compared to effect from the oceans.
The radiative forcing (basically, impact on global mean temperature change) from changes in the sun (total solar irradiance) is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE smaller compared to CO2 (in w/m^2, it's 0.12 vs 1.66 according to IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM). Further, the data shows no hidden correlations between solar cycles and earth temps (including time lags). Armchair intuitions don't trump QUANTITATIVE science - that's kinda why we do science- to actually measure stuff and see what the reality actually is
I never said that carbon doesnt effect temp. change! I am
saying over all the sun's radiance is the driving factor . And humans 6% carbon footprint is nothing compared to what nature produces. Where you connected temp change and plants from what I wrote is your device. You misunderstood what I wrote to make a convenient little arguement for yourself.
hahaha that was great. Boxer basically said that she wants everyone to understand whats really happening . . . that Rush Limbaugh agrees! LMAO. Spencer was so professional and impressive and his closing point was fantastic. "And I trust you would agree madam chair, that such a result should be greeted with relief." He knows that she would not be. Its all about politics
Baraba Boxer, who knows nothing about science resorts to Ad Hominem attacks to supposedly refute this scientists claims? Of course she can not directly address his research because she knows nothing. The good state of California I hope you have seen enough of this womans arrogance and are fed up with her.
Anti-environmentalists & corporations are the true silencers of dissent and differences of opinion. They have done so for decades against scientists who proved that tobacco kills, against animal rights activists who try to show the torture that goes on behind closed doors in gov't military burn labs, and against free-marketer religionists.
@arachn1dinshoe Did you have a point or a contradiction to his claims or are you simply resorting to personal attacks? The anthropogenic global warming crowd are depleted of verified facts to support the-sky-is-falling explanation of climate change. Here is a thought on what could cause the earth to warm, the SUN. Wow, what a revelation. Imagine the SUN actually influencing the temp. on the earth. Check the solar activity over the last 100 years you might see some real correlation.
@arachn1dinshoe Did you have a point or a contradiction to his claims or are you simply resorting to personal attacks? The anthropogenic global warming crowd are depleted of verified facts to support the-sky-is-falling explanation of climate change. Here is a thought on what could cause the earth to warm, the SUN. Wow, what a revelation. Imagine the SUN actually influencing the temp. on the earth. Check the solar activity over the last 100 years you might see some real correlation.
What do you think scientists do all day? They're very smart people who've dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff in as much detail and broad perspective as is possible. Do you really think they'd have reached their consensus that humans are driving the recent global warming without first considering the sun?
...
The sun's influence has been measured and considered. It's not the cause.
No real scientists are saying that humans are the "majority influence", however, if you'd like a micro-human influence proven in 60seconds...tell me, how many kcal of thermal energy would have been liberated into the troposphere if a million gallons of crude oil had not been liberated in the gulf this month and had not been set on fire? The answer is zero. However, man has now had a net increase of X-kcal of global warming get it? Not to mention the clathrate displacement at 5000ft down.
Good work there Barbara Box Stands ready to jump on anybody who goes against the Gore Lie. Good work there Box , Jump him and make a fool out of him before he lets the Lie out of the Bag. I wished one day we would have a congress for the people and not tell the people what to do. I think it is the time where the people will start tell the congress what to do of vote them out of office.
1 it is 3 degree up or 1 degree down but there must be a good time between the degree to not unset the system. 100 years for 1 degree would be fine.
2 There is no such thing as a Static state. The system regulates it's self and if we raise temp. of air the trees and plant life we will make all to grow faster by 1/2 or maybe 1 degree. we would start having bumper crops all over the world. Plant life needs warmer temp. to grow and by Raise the temp. you raise the food.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
The oceans absorb far more Co2 than they release. The Co2 released from the ocean is the same Co2 that we put into the atmosphere from man made greenhouse gases. In other words, the Co2 level increase is caused by our coal burning power plants and cars, jets, etc. it is o.k. to have some Co2 there is no greenhouse effect without it, it keeps our air warm which warms our Earth. When the Co2 increases faster than it is absorbed by plants oceans etc then the temperature goes up. That is bad.
The ocean is a carbon sink; it absorbs the Carbon from the Co2 and it falls onto the ocean floor. There is a convection current where some of it is returned into the atmosphere from the ocean floor but much less is released by into the air than is absorbed by the ocean. The amount which is returned COMES FROM THE Co2 WE HAVE PUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AND WAS ALREADY THERE; IT FROM THE SAME SOURCE SO THERE CANNOT BE AN INCREASE BUT ONLY A DECREASE. See wikipedia oceans absorb Co2!!!
Water is made of H2O Two molecues hydrogen one molecule oxygen. Co2 is one atom CARBON two atoms oxygen. The ocean helps absorb 1/3 one third of the Co2 added to our atmosphere by greenhouse gases from coal burning, gas, natural gas and oil but we are putting into our atmosphere faster than the plants and ocean can absorb it. High school chemistry should be manditory.
propane is sometimes uses for cloud seeding according to Wikipedia online encyclopedia under cloud seeding. However, so what. so do the following use propane; campfire flight, stoves, hot water heaters gas stoves WHICH ARE USED ALL OVER THE WORLD MUCH MORE THAN CLOUD SEEING WHICH MOSTLY USES SILVER IODIDE. In otherwords, these greenhouse gases are man made by the general public and we need to get more solar and wind electric power because those are causing global warming old fashioned
If you mean aerosol cans, they used to use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) but have stoped since the late 1970s. The reason being is they combine with ozone and remove it. Now arerosols use the propellants butane, propane and Co2 which are greenhouse gases. They have never been used in cloud seeding because those gases would not cause an increase of rainfall. cloud seeding ions silver iodide increases the water gathering in a very specific area and increases cloud formation.
@Yoetah All cloud seeding uses only silver iodide. They stopped using dry ice 50 years ago. Aerosols are simply small particles floating high in the atmosphere. Man made aerosols are made from the burning of Oil and Coal!!!! Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide cause acid rain and global warming. Other aerosols are desert dust and volcanic dust.
Only somebody with a complete lack of knowledge of science would believe that the warming of the Earth causes an increase in Co2. Only on Mars does it get cold enough for Co2 to become frozen. There is no other way for warmer temperatures to increase the level of Co2 which is never naturally solid on our Earth. it has to be fronzen a freezer. How else can warming cause an increase in Co2? It can't. you are welcome for the science lesson. Co2 is always in a gas state on Earth.
As the temperature of the ocean increases, it releases some of the CO2 that is dissolved in it, since CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. Thus, warming can cause an increase in CO2.
Chemistry and any scientist with any honor, decency, and good values will tell you it is complete impossible for the warming of the Earth to cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere. How can warming cause Co2 to increase? Co2 is chemical it doesn't come from warmth which is simply the thermal motion or movement of atoms caused by heat. You need something to warm and Co2 freezes at -160 below zero. In otherwords Co2 is never in a frozen solid form anywhere on Earth lowest temp is -120.
the natural warming,he was talking about ..is called solar flairs..we are back to a cooling..just like all the planets in our solar system..they all warmed up,why? becuase of solar flairs from the big yellow ball in space..that thing that comes up in the morning and goes down at night
You guys who think global warming is a hoax no nothing about the science of global warming nor anything about the simple chemistry involved in the burning of greenhouse gases which produce Co2 when burned, natural gass like methane and propane and the gas in automobiles when burned produce greenhouse gases. It's very simple anyone can understand it and CORROBORATE it. You don't need to be a scientist. If I ask you guys to explain the process you simply don't know it which is a biased view.
Both climatology and meteorology are science. Climatology deals more with long term temperatures and meteorology. Dr. Roy Spencer says that the sattelites measured temperatures don't match the Earthly thermomiters. Who's thermomiters? Roy Spencer's? NASA and the whole world says that the Sattelites temperatures do match the Earthly temperatures. Dr. Roy Spencer thinks he is right and the whole world is wrong? He is a xucking idiot.
Your emotional reaction to the subject matter is telling of how it was programed into you. It is important to understand the basics of propaganda and it's appeal to base emotional responses and group think. Both of which are apparent in your statement.
I'm sorry, MISS BOXER, what relevance do your questions have to what Dr. Spencer said? Is your PMS flaring up again? You aren't having a scientific hearing, you are trying to smear (unsuccessfully) an honorable and credentialed scientist. You, Miss Boxer are a shit stain on a minor footnote of history.
Unfortunfornately, a few complete quacks, nutjobs and crackpots make it through the educational system. Roy Spencer has a degree in meteorology and NOT CLIMATOLOGY! e. Even people with simple knowledge can understand Co2 is a great absorber of infared rays or heat energy. Venus is a great example of a runaway greenhouse effect caused by CO2. He actually does not belief CO2 causes a greenhouse effect which is a disgrace for a scientist of the atmosphere and its chemistry.
Venus is also the second closest planet to the sun bro... I think that "might" have more to do with the extreme temps rather than just the CO2 atmosphere... ;-)
Also, negativity does nothing to support your point of view.
Did you catch what he said? Part of it basically amounted to "I have an unpublished paper showing that current climate science is very wrong, and CO2 isn't a real problem anymore. I presented it in a room of 40 scientists, and they didn't dispute it at the time. But the IPCC doesn't spend research money on these issues."
This has been flagged as spam show
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are all being totally screwed.
1000frolly 5 days ago
@frolly1000 None of it has been discredited. In fact, it has all been vindicated.
And you haven't offered a shred of evidence to the contrary.
GL0BEmaster 1 week ago
Why call a respectable scientist names like denier?
He is an expert in his field, and if you listen you may learn someting.....
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
This is where we are - a mindless liberal questioning a scientists about science. Boxer is a retard.
wb8yjf 1 month ago
'A Dessler has just had a paper printed in 'Geophysical Review Letters' addressing Spencer et al's paper AND claims by Lindzen.
Here is a summary:
watch?v=C2ngavUkmis
Skeptical Science has a great page on the subject too'
Reposted from
Herecomesthefatlady
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
@blackadderthe4 In fairness, Roy Spencer has a response to Dessler's paper on his website
robzed2 4 months ago
@robzed2
'Spencer has a response to Dessler's paper on his website' but there many debunking him, just one
w ww.squidoo.c om/roy-spencer
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
@blackadderthe4
You've been looking at too many hockey sticks.
You need to look at this subject objectively.
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
@frolly1000
'look at this subject objectively' yes like reading the science behind it!
blackadderthe4 2 weeks ago
@blackadderthe4
If you are talking about the IPCC funded science, it is all pretty well discredited, and doesn't make much sense anyway.
Sad that this is all the US taxpayer has got so far for his $30 billion.
All that is left is discredited computer models which have proven to be way off target.
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frolly1000
'All that is left is discredited computer models' how wrong you are on so many levels!
watch?v=SfN9F9dvjaQ
blackadderthe4 2 weeks ago
@azframer Roy Spencer is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, which is funded by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries.
This information is readily available at Wikipedia, Sourcewatch, and even the Heartland Institute's own website. Why do you need someone to show you something that is so easy to find yourself? Are you really that determined to remain ignorant?
GL0BEmaster 5 months ago
@GL0BEmaster
Woe -this is like the pot calling the kettle black!
How can you try to discredit Spencer, when all the scientists on your side are in the employ of the IPCC/UN, an organisation with its own political aims?????
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
@frolly1000 You love to exaggerate, don't you? OK, google Barry Bickmore from Utah. He is not employed by the IPCC/UN. He's also made a correction or two on Spencer's work.
hozelda 1 week ago
It's well known that Roy Spencer is in the pocket of oil and gas industry interests. NASA wouldn't tolerate his unscientific BS, so he went to good ol' U of Bammy--heart of the good ol boy network! Don't forget that Roy boy is a CREATIONIST--he don't believe in evolution! Hence why no professional scientist on Earth takes Roy seriously--he's a laughingstock in the pro science world.
So you gonna trust the judgment and interpretation... of a CREATIONIST? Let's check for those oil co. "tips".
Rep0007 6 months ago
@Rep0007 Well send me a link that shows he is in the pocket of BIG OIL!
azframer 5 months ago
@Rep0007 I see how Spener's religious beliefs might affect his analysis of the data, but I think it would be better if you could actually point to specific instances rather than simply casting aspersion. Also, Spencer's funding is not ideal, but Scientists always need more money. If the establishment rejects his unorthodox views, how is he supposed to fund his research?
In any case, it would be more constructive to refute Spencer's work on scientific grounds rather than ad hominem.
GorterPoss 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rep0007
Wow-this is like the pot calling the kettle black!
How can you try to discredit Spencer, when all the scientists on your side are in the employ of the IPCC/UN, an organisation with its own political aims?????
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
The Great Lakes were formed by melting Ice over thousands of years......Hell - there were Wooly Mammoth Skeletons found just North of Detroit......How many SUV's were aound to cause that global warming ????
MetalDetroit 6 months ago
You can answer the Global warming question yourself.
What was the average Temperature in the Time before the Meteorite impact?
It was tropcal.
And it will go back too that sooner or later
Polarbears only exist because of the iceage
if it ends they will go extinct or will become another kind of Bear again
like they where before
Don´t get fooled by the Government influenced Media
xxXToushirouXxx 10 months ago
Spencer says warming will reverse in 08'. how wrong he has proven to be
Heteroz 11 months ago
@Heteroz When did he fuckin say that you asshole suck my dick
tree089 8 months ago
@Heteroz No he didnt, he said that the temperature is correlated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The next few years will tell if this is the case. Single year-to-year changes aren't significant.
robzed2 4 months ago
Ray Pierrehumbert (2008-05-21). How to cook a graph in three easy lessons. RealClimate. Retrieved on 2010-12-11.
Heteroz 11 months ago
"Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done[13]"
Heteroz 11 months ago
Spencer and colleague John Christy "published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated..."; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data.[11], [12]. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate put it:
Heteroz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Ms. Boxer is what the people are voting into office, I am ashamed. This woman was chosen to chair this discussion.This is the best we could get? She is disrespectful, clearly is not open minded and did not address this expert and citizen with the respect you would give any dog let alone a human being. SHAME on you Ms. Boxer.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "
Thomas Jefferson
nebwws123 1 year ago
If Ms. Boxer is what the people are voting into office, I am ashamed. This woman was chosen to chair this discussion.This is the best we could get? She is disrespectful, clearly is not open minded and did not address this expert and citizen with the respect you would give any dog let alone a human being. SHAME on you Ms. Boxer.
"Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. "
Thomas Jefferson
nebwws123 1 year ago
What the hell does "climate denier" mean? The warmists are the real deniers. They deny that climate fluctuates periodically and cyclically regardless of human activities. They deny that any change in the climate can be a result of anything other than human activity. They even denied the medieval optimum. where the hell do they get off calling people "deniers"?
Vot63 1 year ago
@Vot63
Warmists resort to insults because they HAVENT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to back up their claims - only hockey sticks and discredited models.
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
@frolly1000 you don't have a shred of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. In that light, the scientists have no evidence to back up their claims.
hozelda 1 week ago
I.P.C.C. = International Panel on Citizen Control.. that's all
MrMeanderthal 1 year ago
@oomblikkies People don't like to think about the future. In one hundred years they say the sea level will only rise 3 feet which is only involves the steady rate we observe today but there are many other geoligical factors which would change that rate like a change like Trapped Co2 in rock on ocean floor and permafrost, rainforrest burning etc once a certain temperature threshold is passed and we don't wait until that happens because a sudden fast rise is sea level could not be controlled.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
Coastal cities will be underwater. If all of the ice caps completely melt, the sea level would rise 200 feet. Every major coastal city would be underwater and many countries like Indonesia which have many land areas not high above sea level would be under water. Even if the sea level only rose 30 feet New York City would be ruined and under water.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
@oomblikkies Co2 has already become dangerous to us. Cetain species are becoming extinct as a result of a few degress temperature gain which you have not included. It only takes a few degrees rise in the temperature to cause the polar ice caps to start to melt. In order to stop the melting we need to reverse the Co2 ppm down below 300. We haven't even begun to do that. In less than 200 years Houston will be underwater.
geoffreyah 1 year ago 2
Interesting how Barbara Boxer attacks the person, and not his arguments. Typical of her.
marsnr1 1 year ago
@marsnr1 No. not typical of her only, but also typical of the alarmist mantra which says: 1. Do not discuss the science, 2. Attack the man and 3, Repeat the mantra: Humans are causing global warming.
oomblikkies 1 year ago
The first mass extinctions were the dinosaurs 65 million years ago by the meteor. The second mass extinctions were caused by Co2. The third mass extinctions will be caused by man made Co2 from coal burning if we don't change to clean energy. Our biological life is not adapted to a higher temp. climate like 50 million years ago. If it was we'd have no problem.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
@geoffreyah Oh boy, CO2 only becomes dangerous for human life at levels exceeding 1%, that is 10000 ppm (ten thousand parts per million). Currently the CO2 level is about 380ppm. Now let us do the math. CO2 increases at about 3 ppm per year. So, another 3200 years before we reach 1% CO2 in the atmosphere. The cherry on top of all this is that earth does not have enough carbon to get to those levels. I dont think we have a problem Houston.
oomblikkies 1 year ago
That is correct. Actually the north and south poles were still warm 50 million years ago and that is when we had the mass extinctions. Plants removed much Co2 and polar ice caps began to form. A meteor collision with the Earth 65 million years ago caused the mass extinctions. We know the ice ages didn't begin until 3 million years ago because of the stalagtite deposits in caves. Different layers in the stalagtites show the rainfall.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
It is interesting how some people still think the dinosaur fossels at the South pole were the result of plate movement and contiental drift but the South pole was virtually still in the same place 100 million years ago not a long time in geological history, one has to go back 250 million years before all the continents were connected in pangea, the one super continent which split up into the separate continents we see today.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
you left out one thing. The average temperature of the entire Earth was much warmer 100 million years ago. The south pole had no ice cap. It was a land mass was 65 degress F. with a giant freshwater lake in the center at 59 degree temp.. Dinosaurs lived there. The reason is that there was much more volcanoes and vulcanism which expelled more Co2 in our air. The vulcanism decresed and the plants removed a lot of Co2 over past 100 million years lowering temp. and causeing mass extinctions.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
All the large temperature changes in our the entire climate history of the Earth are caused by Co2 changes. We now know all the past climate history. It is no longer an unknown. There is no uncertainty.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
Plants exhale oxgygen and breath in Co2. It litte Co2 is good but now we are buring the coal and gas which are made of dead plants, animals, dinosaurs, single celled organism. When we burn oil, gas which is made of oil and coal it puts it back into our air and too much Co2 will make the air hoter which melts the polar caps. 100 million years ago the co2 concentration in our air was 15 times higher and polar ice caps were completely melted Earth was hotter then.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
The piling up of layers millions of years of dead trees in the wetlands turned into coal which absorbed enough Co2 to lower the temperaure 5 to 9 degrees which resulted in the first ice age 3 million years ago. Before that time we never had any ice ages except only 3 snow ball frozen Earth periods in 2.4 billion, 800 million and 400 million years ago. The build of up plant life during those times caused snow ball Earth period plants breath in all the Co2 without it Earth cannot be warm.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
@PissFechtmiester. Clouds and winds are the symptoms of temperature. Clouds don't exists without a change in temperature and winds are the result in different temperatures which result in high and low pressure cells. High pressure always blows towards low pressure based on temperture differences between two regions. All of our ice ages result from only a temp drop of 5 to 9 degrees 3 million years ago when due to coal deposits of million year build of up of dead trees which absorbs Co2.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
@PissFechtmeister Dude, we both agree. Global warming is made made caused by greenhouse gases. However, one does not have to be a scientist to know that cloud varriability as nit wit Dr. Roy spencer refers to has no affect on our climate. Clouds and winds are only the after affect of temperture which drives them. ANYONE WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT SCIENCE KNOWS THIS which is why Roy Spencer is a crackpot quack.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
Spencer is the man!
frickface1 1 year ago
"man made climate change" is as big of a fraud as the Gulf of Tonkin incident. or 9/11, or the entire fed reserve fractional reserve banking system. (the system of legally robbing, raping, and taking over the entire planet through manipulation based on acquisition and playing on peoples' fears)
global warming, leading to global carbon taxes? who benefits from that, everyone somehow? earth? or those who set this up from the beginning and have direct ties to these companies?
google: Climategate
theblackmanOyeah 1 year ago
Climate change is all conspiracy theory.
character654 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Yeah its an ad hominem and she should do better, but his speech was full of straw men. The IPCC has doesn't really considered natural causes. The IPCC agenda was set by some policy guy 20 years ago...blah blah blah.
Spencer goes on and on about his wonderful work and gives the deniers lots of good quotes but his work fails. He is talking about how heat moves around in the system. His work has nothing to do with where the heat comes from nor how it gets into space. That is what matters.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
so, because Rush 'smelled an agenda' and had/has embraced ROY SPENCER, that automatically marginalizes what he was saying all along? Democrats like Boxer are so fucking phony with their blatant and desperate ad homonym attacks . When Barbara was in college, she would have never fallaciously tried to discredit a position based on an association/admirer of a speaker. Junior college professors will bust you hard for that. It just goes to show: Blind ideology will make a dumb sonofabitch out of U.
FlauntussFloyd 1 year ago
The Sun's brightness variability, Earths distance variability from the Sun and axis wobble tilt variablity which changes through time over 25, 000 years called precession have already been included in scientists calculations. Cloud variability is changed by temperative changes and increase in temperature by increase of Co2 which is why most scientists think cloud variability is only an after affect of global warming.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
Natural cloud variability is something which can only be an after affect of global warming but NOT A CAUSE! Anyone with the smallest amount of scientific intuition knows this. Give me a break. What's causing the cloud variability? The same thing that drives all weather. The is the Sun's brightness, precision or woble of Earth's axis which causes ices ages and distance variabilityof Earth from the Sun. These HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE FACTORED IT INTO THEIR CALCUATIONS.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
@geoffreyah Actually, the scientists admit that they aren't sure how to model the clouds' effect on climate. Same goes for glaciers, aerosols, and the oceans. And yet the tiny blip in temperatures is, without a doubt, due to man. Get real.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
Comment removed
geoffreyah 1 year ago
Exuse me. Infared radiation is heat radiation. Ozone gas absorbs at the same frequency which blocks Ultra violet light. Some still gets through which is what causes Sun burn but on Mars there is no Ozone or very little so most of the Ultra violet hits the surface of the planet. Astronauts will be protected by their space suits. CFC cloroflorocarbons destroy our ozone layer. The ozone layer deniers are the same as the Co2 deniers. They need to learn about science.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
@prikhod Invisible? Most everything in quantum physics IS INVISIBLE. The radiowaves of cellphones, Most of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma, rays, x-rays, ultra violet, INFARED RADIATION and radiowaves which is heat radiation. Co2 gas absorbs at minus -667 frequency wavelengths which is exactly the frequency of infared light. Sun's rays hit Earth warm it. Earth emits infared rays and Co2 absorbs it. Al Gore did not explain why Co2 absobs infared light. Now you know.
geoffreyah 1 year ago
August 2010 was the second hottest August in the 32-year satellite temperature dataset, according to Dr. John Christy.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
Keep up the great work, sTevefor3!
deskset24 1 year ago
To the deniers: you're right - not all PhDs in hard sciences (such as mathematics, as is mine) agree: the IPCC and environmental groups are way too soft, too conservative. They should have pushed to outlaw meat - needlessly growing animals for food - decades ago. And they should have banned most humans from reproducing. Meat & human overpopulation = biggest causes of global warming.
deskset24 1 year ago
"Denier" is an interesting word. "Contrarian" would be neutral, and it wouldn't bias the viewer. If a contrarian isn't credible on his/her own, so be it. I feel this guy is more than credible.
pburto 1 year ago
there is no man made global warming. if it is so bad why is Al Gore flying in private jets, riding in a fleet of limos, has a mansion in Tenn. that uses enough electricity to light a number of houses for a month, bought a multi-million dollar beach house in Cal. Another thing is, if climate change is real, why won't they have a debate on it? numerous people have challenged Gore and he refuses.
ARealAmericanVa 1 year ago
@ARealAmericanVa 1) Gore is not a climatologist 2) Gore uses carbon offsetting e,g, tree growing programmes to bring his carbon footprint down to zero. 3) There isn't one major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus that humans are the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming since 1970.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: "There isn't one major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus that humans are the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming since 1970"
You know, just because you keep saying this nonsense over and over again, it doesn't make it true. Wanna take butt plugs out of your ears?
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod so because you can't fight what he is saying you attack him with profanity? come on, if your going to argue with someone at least have some sort of respect about it.
Syn427 1 year ago
@Syn427: I wasn't attacking him... I very much agree with what Dr. Spencer has to say.
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod Then find me a major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus? If you can't then you will have to take back your statement.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: RAS, i think that's major enough to go against the "CONSENSUS"
Btw, monkey, consensus is the THE definition of non-science
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming as the most likely cause of recent rapid warming including the russian academy of sciences (G8+5 Academies’ joint statement): I suggest you keep up to date. 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position (Anderegg et al 2010)
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: "95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position"
I think 97.38% of all statistics is made up on the spot...
Listen, I don't have time for morons... so f... off... wanna believe in invisible pink unicorns? ENJOY! I don't give a shit, AGW is as dead as it gets...
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod Thanks for confirming your opinion is subjective and not based on evidence.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: yea, the sky is falling :) LOL
prikhod 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: evidence :) LMAO ohhhh jokes...
prikhod 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: I just looked at the garbage you watch, "how to deal with climate deniers" ... i don't have much say other than... FUCK YOU! :) <- that was a smiley
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod ad hominem. Nothing to back your argument I see. Try reading some of these, I doubt you will because you clearly aren't here to talk about science: Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010)
Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants (Zhao 2010) Threat to fish populations (Munday 2010)
Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries (Mendelsohn 2006)
Reduced water supply in New Mexico (Hurd 2008)
checkyoursources 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources: Blah blah blah...
prikhod 1 year ago
@checkyoursources:
from Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't."
Explain that, bitch!
AGW is dead... ohh I forgot it's "Global Climate Disruption" now, LOL!!!
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod I suggest you look up the results of 3 independent reviews of the scientists involved, all were cleared completely of any wrongdoing, try to keep up.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: "3 independent reviews of the scientists involved"
Independent? LMAO!!! You're a fucking moron... I can read MYSELF, I don't need some socialist fuck with an agenda telling me "there's nothing to see here, it's all squeaky clean"... cuz I've read the emails and it's most certainly NOT
Keep drinking the kool-aid!
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. next.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources: No no no... don't give me general bullshit
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
1. Is there no warming? And of course there's no warming as per Jones BBC interview... hence "Global Climate Disruption" lol
2. Why is a person who's supposedly trying to solve the issue of warming UPSET about the "lack of warming at the moment"?
If the damage control explanation satisfies you... you're truly a moron!
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod 1) Jones gave data that shows that between 1975 and 2009 there was statistically significant warming of 0.161 degrees C per decade.He also went on to say that there was no statistically significant cooling between 2005 and 2009
2) Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy".Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
checkyoursources 1 year ago 2
@checkyoursources: "Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system."
So let me get this straight... so when the temperature goes up, it's 100% proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's doom and gloom and anybody who questiosn that is a denier...
But when the temperature doesn't go up... it's because of uhmm... "observational systems"
Do you not see what I see? There's a bit of a problem here...
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod Read: Trenberth's views are in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". The very fact that Trenbeth's views are not hidden and available publicly in a peer reviewed paper shows that the e-mail is not some hidden scam as you suggest. Besides this was Trenbeth's view, not the view of the entire scientific community. Scientists don't "prove" things, they reduce uncertainty. There is less uncertainty about AGW that other natural theories.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources; Furthermore, you did NOT answer my question:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (Trenberth)
What exactly is this supposed to mean?
prikhod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "I suggest you look up the results of 3 independent reviews of the scientists involved, all were cleared completely of any wrongdoing, try to keep up."
This is called "argument from authority", which every thinking person should know is a LOGICAL FALLACY and not an argument at all. Just as "the debate is over" or "there's a scientific consensus" - should logically be rejected as propaganda at the very best...
prikhod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources: "Then find me a major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus? If you can't then you will have to take back your statement."
RAS
Furthermore, there's a very vocal dissent in most academies, including those in the US and UK.
prikhod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources: "There isn't one major national science academy or scientific research organisation that goes against the concensus that humans are the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming since 1970"
You know, just because you keep saying this nonsense over and over again, it doesn't make it true. Wanna take butt plugs out of your ears?
prikhod 1 year ago
Can I jump ahead using the slider below?
gombis666 1 year ago
And today the theory of AGW is dead. Good call Dr. Spencer.
Brantoc 1 year ago
@Brantoc Don't be so stupid.
StunnedByStupidity 1 year ago
No, it is your emotional reaction which is not based on science or thinking but emotion. furthermore, you think it is only about politics which is ideological. Science is not since it can be corroborated. We do need Co2 to keep our Earth warm with the greenhouse effect but too much of it will cause ice caps to melt
geoffreyah 1 year ago
@geoffreyah: The amount of hot air coming out of your word-hole will cause my brain to melt...
prikhod 1 year ago
Where are you environmentalist nuts now while Obama allows the largest crime by a corporate entity to occur on our beaches? Where is the outcry?
You are utterly silent!
You are giving Obama a PASS!
Shame on you!
Boostnitup 1 year ago
I am very comcerned that this oil in the ocean, spills throughout the years, almost mounthly, on top of what is happening now, could end up being biblical. Espesialy if it does go on for mounths and mounths.
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
Please youtube, "the global warming co2 scam"
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
The carbon levels follow temp. change by 3-800 years, meaning temp change changes carbon levels, not the other way around. That is the little secret Gore has covered up that is common knowledge now. It only makes sence too. The higher temp. means more vegitation growth in the summer, therefore more dieing of plant life in the winter=hence higher carbon levels. Man only adds 6% of the total carbon output of the planet. most of wich coming from the ocean and the decay of plant matter.
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
@holywarbirhtday
1) The time lag is from the equilibrium change at the warmed ocean's surface, not vegetation
2) Climatologists have known about this lag from the beginning, and reached their consensus of human driven global warming knowing it. (Hint: They understand this better than you)
3) The lag establishes that CO2 did not START those warming cycles - which was already known. It does NOT invalidate that CO2 contributed to temp increases as the CO2 increased (as physics/chemistry demands)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
4) The human contribution to carbon flux, while not a huge percentage of the total surface emissions, is enough to make the sources greater than the sinks, and so represents a net annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without us, there would be an approximate equilibrium of sources and sinks. (The oceans absorb about half the net increase we're causing - acidifying in the process, and some suggest approaching their saturation, so they might not be able to maintain that.).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo This is based on theory. A convincing one at that. But you are playing god if you think we KNOW what exactly the atmosohere can and can-not put up with with what little we know about earth, and there are many factors at play wich we don't know about.I do believe we need to come clean with energy and stop with the oil spills already, that has more to do with the oceans PH levels than man made air-born carbon-in my opinion.
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
@holywarbirhtday I think the sciences are being highjacked to control industry in its intirety, pollitics are too corrupt to fix directly the real problems.
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
@holywar
The science is fine. How scientific results are spun is full of bias/distortion/deception, as always, but the research process looking into global warming is working fine. There've been Herculean attempts by industry to try to convince the public otherwise (after all, taking a page from, and allied with, Big Tobacco, they know that when the science is against you, that "doubt is our product"), but their claims are, quick frankly, pure bullshit (and yes, I've investigated many of them)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Linking carbon emisions in the air to a degree of 6% to acidic levels in the ocean is an axample of bad science. Its like tracing fecal matter in a swiming pool to the house fly when there is a child swiming in the water with a dirty diaper. Giant astroids could not destroy this atmosphere BECAUSE of carbon Emisions from valcanoes. Carbon is the one thing that ALL life must have. The globe will warm, and cool, along with the output of the SUN.
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
@holywarbirhtday
I might be wrong, you might be totaly right to believe humans are destroying the atmosphere with fosil fuels, but frankly, if we had no oil spills in the oceans, and all this attention of "science was put into forest management, then that would completely fix the ocean toxicity level-wich I do believe is a huge problem.
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
@holywarbirhtday Yeah, and not being able to spell correctly is an example of bad education. So, using your logic, you're a denier 'tard. Just sayin'...
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@sTevefor3
yeah. if you can't spell well your wrong. thats a great way to look at it
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
@holywarbirhtday Pretty much. Illiteracy does have its downside. So does AGW. If you'd take the time to read the scientific literature on the subject, you may not sound like such a 'tard. You'll still have to spell correctly and put together cogent and grammatically correct sentences, though. Kinda helps make you not sound like such a 'tard.
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@sTevefor3 .
Congradulations! your a dick! Not all scientist agree with the "science" you are reading. You know that though, all knowing dick. That video I referenced is a perfect example....DICK, and they are probably better spellers than you....dick. And with all that profesional dick handling you must do.....dick.... You can go suck a ...........
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
@holywarbirhtday Got under your skin, did I? Roy Spencer is nuts; a wackjob. He pretends to be sane, but he ain't. You're right, not all scientists agree; there are some who think the IPCC is being too conservative with their estimation of sea level rise, glacial melt, polar ice melt, Greenland melt. Mostly the conservative estimates are due to our lack of understanding of the rate at which the melt is occurring. Otherwise, 98% of climate scientists agree.
sTevefor3 1 year ago 2
@sTevefor3, I love that you feel if someone has an opinion on a matter that differs from yours, you should instantly label them as insane, stupid or a conspiracy theorist.
Also pulling % figures out of your ass on what you believe scientists opinions are is a pile of bull. 98% of people like eating marshmellows. see? I can do it to! Get a fucking clue.
smellyduckz 1 year ago
@smellyduckz @smellyduckz: Well, if science was based on opinion, then yours might matter, but it's not, so your opinion has no merit. Look for this study at pnas dot org: "Expert credibility in climate change" from Stanford:
That's "pnas", as in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Of course, if you had bothered to look up this reference yourself, you would have seen that the "98%" figure is, indeed, correct.
Bam! Another denier bites it. How's that denier-marshmallow taste?
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@smellyduckz Oh, here's what they said: "Here, we
use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their
publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98%of the climate
researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support
the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific
prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially
below that of the convinced researchers."
Heh
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@smellyduckz And if you don't know what "ACC" is, it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change".
Bam! To coin a phrase: "Confidence IS sexy..."
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@sTevefor3 ACC is the new AGW or the new MMGW or .. etc.. changing the name doesnt make it more accurate.
Brantoc 1 year ago
@holywar
I completely agree that this is very complex stuff, having lots of dynamic processes all influencing one another, and that scientists don't understand it fully. But this is what science is all about - the usual situation - they basically never know anything "for sure", so they obsess about understanding and bounding the scale of their uncertainty and error. This is their job, and they've collectively reached their considered and informed judgment: humans are driving global warming.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
Re: "And humans 6% carbon footprint is nothing compared to what nature produces"
(It's less, more like 3%-4% if I recall). Yes, and my point still stands. I'll make it again with an analogy.
You run a company producing wigets. You're breaking even: no profit and no loss. The cost of your raw materials goes up by 3%, but you your sales revenue doesn't change. You now run at an annual loss, and your debt grows with every passing year. That it was "only" 3% doesn't matter.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont)
Re: "Where you connected temp change and plants from what I wrote is your device. You misunderstood what I wrote to make a convenient little arguement for yourself."
I took it from your:
"The higher temp. means more vegitation growth in the summer, therefore more dieing of plant life in the winter=hence higher carbon levels."
My point was that your mechanism for "increasing temps increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration" is minor compared to effect from the oceans.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
(cont)
The radiative forcing (basically, impact on global mean temperature change) from changes in the sun (total solar irradiance) is an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE smaller compared to CO2 (in w/m^2, it's 0.12 vs 1.66 according to IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM). Further, the data shows no hidden correlations between solar cycles and earth temps (including time lags). Armchair intuitions don't trump QUANTITATIVE science - that's kinda why we do science- to actually measure stuff and see what the reality actually is
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
I never said that carbon doesnt effect temp. change! I am
saying over all the sun's radiance is the driving factor . And humans 6% carbon footprint is nothing compared to what nature produces. Where you connected temp change and plants from what I wrote is your device. You misunderstood what I wrote to make a convenient little arguement for yourself.
holywarbirhtday 1 year ago
hahaha that was great. Boxer basically said that she wants everyone to understand whats really happening . . . that Rush Limbaugh agrees! LMAO. Spencer was so professional and impressive and his closing point was fantastic. "And I trust you would agree madam chair, that such a result should be greeted with relief." He knows that she would not be. Its all about politics
Protege385 1 year ago
Baraba Boxer, who knows nothing about science resorts to Ad Hominem attacks to supposedly refute this scientists claims? Of course she can not directly address his research because she knows nothing. The good state of California I hope you have seen enough of this womans arrogance and are fed up with her.
beaminup 1 year ago
Anti-environmentalists & corporations are the true silencers of dissent and differences of opinion. They have done so for decades against scientists who proved that tobacco kills, against animal rights activists who try to show the torture that goes on behind closed doors in gov't military burn labs, and against free-marketer religionists.
duck24x 1 year ago
he's lying.... he keeps scratching behind his ear... watch his body language.
arachn1dinshoe 1 year ago
@arachn1dinshoe Did you have a point or a contradiction to his claims or are you simply resorting to personal attacks? The anthropogenic global warming crowd are depleted of verified facts to support the-sky-is-falling explanation of climate change. Here is a thought on what could cause the earth to warm, the SUN. Wow, what a revelation. Imagine the SUN actually influencing the temp. on the earth. Check the solar activity over the last 100 years you might see some real correlation.
gnirye 1 year ago
@arachn1dinshoe Did you have a point or a contradiction to his claims or are you simply resorting to personal attacks? The anthropogenic global warming crowd are depleted of verified facts to support the-sky-is-falling explanation of climate change. Here is a thought on what could cause the earth to warm, the SUN. Wow, what a revelation. Imagine the SUN actually influencing the temp. on the earth. Check the solar activity over the last 100 years you might see some real correlation.
gnirye 1 year ago
@gnirye
What do you think scientists do all day? They're very smart people who've dedicated their lives to understanding this stuff in as much detail and broad perspective as is possible. Do you really think they'd have reached their consensus that humans are driving the recent global warming without first considering the sun?
...
The sun's influence has been measured and considered. It's not the cause.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No real scientists are saying that humans are the "majority influence", however, if you'd like a micro-human influence proven in 60seconds...tell me, how many kcal of thermal energy would have been liberated into the troposphere if a million gallons of crude oil had not been liberated in the gulf this month and had not been set on fire? The answer is zero. However, man has now had a net increase of X-kcal of global warming get it? Not to mention the clathrate displacement at 5000ft down.
Getsen42 1 year ago
Ok, that was pretty weak. So just because Rush Limbaugh says something about this guy that completely refutes his scientific data?
MachiavelliReborn 1 year ago
Barbara Boxer is the one who should be answering questions!
kenzo5716 1 year ago
Good work there Barbara Box Stands ready to jump on anybody who goes against the Gore Lie. Good work there Box , Jump him and make a fool out of him before he lets the Lie out of the Bag. I wished one day we would have a congress for the people and not tell the people what to do. I think it is the time where the people will start tell the congress what to do of vote them out of office.
turtle4aire 1 year ago
To the AGW crowd could you please tell answer a couple of questions for us skeptics?
1) What is the optimal global temperature?
2) Are we suppose to believe that we can keep our climate in a static state?
bilracer 1 year ago
@bilracer your answer
1 it is 3 degree up or 1 degree down but there must be a good time between the degree to not unset the system. 100 years for 1 degree would be fine.
2 There is no such thing as a Static state. The system regulates it's self and if we raise temp. of air the trees and plant life we will make all to grow faster by 1/2 or maybe 1 degree. we would start having bumper crops all over the world. Plant life needs warmer temp. to grow and by Raise the temp. you raise the food.
turtle4aire 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
scientific advice from a creationist??
the u.s has fucked up really bad this time.
i know al gore its a hypocrite...
but this is too much.
odinmp5 1 year ago
It's not the scientist that matters, it's the data and procedures used.
xp19375 1 year ago
The oceans absorb far more Co2 than they release. The Co2 released from the ocean is the same Co2 that we put into the atmosphere from man made greenhouse gases. In other words, the Co2 level increase is caused by our coal burning power plants and cars, jets, etc. it is o.k. to have some Co2 there is no greenhouse effect without it, it keeps our air warm which warms our Earth. When the Co2 increases faster than it is absorbed by plants oceans etc then the temperature goes up. That is bad.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The ocean is a carbon sink; it absorbs the Carbon from the Co2 and it falls onto the ocean floor. There is a convection current where some of it is returned into the atmosphere from the ocean floor but much less is released by into the air than is absorbed by the ocean. The amount which is returned COMES FROM THE Co2 WE HAVE PUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AND WAS ALREADY THERE; IT FROM THE SAME SOURCE SO THERE CANNOT BE AN INCREASE BUT ONLY A DECREASE. See wikipedia oceans absorb Co2!!!
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Water is made of H2O Two molecues hydrogen one molecule oxygen. Co2 is one atom CARBON two atoms oxygen. The ocean helps absorb 1/3 one third of the Co2 added to our atmosphere by greenhouse gases from coal burning, gas, natural gas and oil but we are putting into our atmosphere faster than the plants and ocean can absorb it. High school chemistry should be manditory.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
propane is sometimes uses for cloud seeding according to Wikipedia online encyclopedia under cloud seeding. However, so what. so do the following use propane; campfire flight, stoves, hot water heaters gas stoves WHICH ARE USED ALL OVER THE WORLD MUCH MORE THAN CLOUD SEEING WHICH MOSTLY USES SILVER IODIDE. In otherwords, these greenhouse gases are man made by the general public and we need to get more solar and wind electric power because those are causing global warming old fashioned
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
If you mean aerosol cans, they used to use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) but have stoped since the late 1970s. The reason being is they combine with ozone and remove it. Now arerosols use the propellants butane, propane and Co2 which are greenhouse gases. They have never been used in cloud seeding because those gases would not cause an increase of rainfall. cloud seeding ions silver iodide increases the water gathering in a very specific area and increases cloud formation.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
@Yoetah All cloud seeding uses only silver iodide. They stopped using dry ice 50 years ago. Aerosols are simply small particles floating high in the atmosphere. Man made aerosols are made from the burning of Oil and Coal!!!! Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide cause acid rain and global warming. Other aerosols are desert dust and volcanic dust.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
Only somebody with a complete lack of knowledge of science would believe that the warming of the Earth causes an increase in Co2. Only on Mars does it get cold enough for Co2 to become frozen. There is no other way for warmer temperatures to increase the level of Co2 which is never naturally solid on our Earth. it has to be fronzen a freezer. How else can warming cause an increase in Co2? It can't. you are welcome for the science lesson. Co2 is always in a gas state on Earth.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
@rockpianoguy
As the temperature of the ocean increases, it releases some of the CO2 that is dissolved in it, since CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. Thus, warming can cause an increase in CO2.
xp19375 1 year ago
Chemistry and any scientist with any honor, decency, and good values will tell you it is complete impossible for the warming of the Earth to cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere. How can warming cause Co2 to increase? Co2 is chemical it doesn't come from warmth which is simply the thermal motion or movement of atoms caused by heat. You need something to warm and Co2 freezes at -160 below zero. In otherwords Co2 is never in a frozen solid form anywhere on Earth lowest temp is -120.
rockpianoguy 1 year ago
Clouds have a warming effect.
How coincidental! What's the purpose of decades of the use of aerosol to seed clouds?
It's got to be frustrating being instructed on what one can say and cannot say in a mtg. that's meant to discuss data.
It's gotta be frustrating to be labeled a "wacko conspiracy nut," by the same ones who praised you for exemplary work
It's gonna be frustrating when ppl realize how their compassion was taken for ignorance
Cloud-seeding aerosol properties is "classified
;-(
Yoetah 1 year ago
the natural warming,he was talking about ..is called solar flairs..we are back to a cooling..just like all the planets in our solar system..they all warmed up,why? becuase of solar flairs from the big yellow ball in space..that thing that comes up in the morning and goes down at night
copperwaxwing 1 year ago
Boxer is a C*** for trying to label him a right wing wackjob by association with Limbaugh.
tenebroust 1 year ago
You guys who think global warming is a hoax no nothing about the science of global warming nor anything about the simple chemistry involved in the burning of greenhouse gases which produce Co2 when burned, natural gass like methane and propane and the gas in automobiles when burned produce greenhouse gases. It's very simple anyone can understand it and CORROBORATE it. You don't need to be a scientist. If I ask you guys to explain the process you simply don't know it which is a biased view.
rockpianoguy 2 years ago
@rockpianoguy
Historical data shows warming causes CO2 increases. Historical data does NOT show that CO2 causes warming
bilracer 1 year ago
Comment removed
rockpianoguy 2 years ago
Causing global warming chemtrails...
WhatCanIsay100 2 years ago
Both climatology and meteorology are science. Climatology deals more with long term temperatures and meteorology. Dr. Roy Spencer says that the sattelites measured temperatures don't match the Earthly thermomiters. Who's thermomiters? Roy Spencer's? NASA and the whole world says that the Sattelites temperatures do match the Earthly temperatures. Dr. Roy Spencer thinks he is right and the whole world is wrong? He is a xucking idiot.
rockpianoguy 2 years ago
Yo Rockpainoguy,
Your emotional reaction to the subject matter is telling of how it was programed into you. It is important to understand the basics of propaganda and it's appeal to base emotional responses and group think. Both of which are apparent in your statement.
For more information on this please watch
watch?v=onnFTOF5XhI
clevername333 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
rockpianoguy 2 years ago
Comment removed
rockpianoguy 2 years ago
I'm sorry, MISS BOXER, what relevance do your questions have to what Dr. Spencer said? Is your PMS flaring up again? You aren't having a scientific hearing, you are trying to smear (unsuccessfully) an honorable and credentialed scientist. You, Miss Boxer are a shit stain on a minor footnote of history.
Modnar357 2 years ago
@Modnar357 We are deleting the wench in November.
Boostnitup 1 year ago
Absolute proof that man is causing Global Climate Change. Please watch:
watch?v=onnFTOF5XhI&feature=related
clevername333 2 years ago
Unfortunfornately, a few complete quacks, nutjobs and crackpots make it through the educational system. Roy Spencer has a degree in meteorology and NOT CLIMATOLOGY! e. Even people with simple knowledge can understand Co2 is a great absorber of infared rays or heat energy. Venus is a great example of a runaway greenhouse effect caused by CO2. He actually does not belief CO2 causes a greenhouse effect which is a disgrace for a scientist of the atmosphere and its chemistry.
rockpianoguy 2 years ago
Venus is also the second closest planet to the sun bro... I think that "might" have more to do with the extreme temps rather than just the CO2 atmosphere... ;-)
Also, negativity does nothing to support your point of view.
clevername333 2 years ago
@rockpianoguy
Where did the "science" of climatology have its origins except in Meterology? Climatology as a "science" has NO credibility.
Modnar357 2 years ago
@rockpianoguy
Spencer does believe in the greenhouse effect, but not that it is the main forcing for the current warming. It is in his blog.
xp19375 1 year ago
Did you catch what he said? Part of it basically amounted to "I have an unpublished paper showing that current climate science is very wrong, and CO2 isn't a real problem anymore. I presented it in a room of 40 scientists, and they didn't dispute it at the time. But the IPCC doesn't spend research money on these issues."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago