How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (pt 1 of 3)

[darkhairedguy]

-No, no. Don't trust this man. He's a clown. Just look at what he's got on his head.

Tripple todays CO2 levels, and You get a maximum of 1.5 deg. celsius global warming. Make it 10 times what it is today: 2.4 C global warming. We will not be able to warm the earth much by emitting CO2, even if we wanted to.

We must find or invent a better greenhouse gas to emit, to avoid a new Little Ice-Age, as more and more serious climathologists now believe. CO2 is a little too whimpy to really matter.

[QuietOneOnLine]

How much money would have prvented the ICE AGE.... Global INSTANT COOLING?

There is NOT enought money in the world to STOP Mother nature!

[netster007z]

So carbon based fuels are a renewable resource.  You learn something new every day.

[wonderingmind42]

@netster007z Yeah, but the timeframe to "renew" them is a bitch--200,000,000 years or so. :-(

[netster007z]

@wonderingmind42 Yeah I know, for practical purposes carbon based fuels are definitely non-renewable. These videos have been pretty interesting. You really go into each detail and calmly address many of the objections. I can tell you're definitely concerned for your cause.

[Gilbertronium]

we dont produce much methane....atleast not directly but we farm alot of cows, we make their herds bigger to meet the demand of meat and milk and they are the largest methane producers "A single cow can produce between 100 and 200 litres of methane every day" from the gauidian news paper. a ferrari will output 500grams of co2 per km my clio will do 120g/km and because most of us only drive 30-40miles to work thats not very much compared to the cow output even if u drove a ferarri.

[painxtreme]

@Gilbertronium You never fart? Must be a Sorority girl. jk

[sparky303]

look at that gut hanging over his pants. I am guessing this teacher has been hitting the mcdonalds drive thru too much. That is a poor choice to make if you are trying to combat global warming.

[truthofevolution]

"this process takes hundreds of millions of years" not to a creationist haha. Thats where I come in.

[Thisawareness]

Choo Choo Charlie's Big Oil ties

Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, Director of the Oil &

Natural Gas Company of India; Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited; established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme; Member of the Oil Industry

Restructuring Group, for the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India; Member of the International Advisory Board of Toyota Motors.

[TrulyEvilBob]

You're like an anti-Glenn Beck. You even have a white board instead of a black board. (looking at the date, his shtick came after yours so maybe Glenn Beck is a Bizzaro version of you)

[1madaboutguitar]

What a fuckin tool

[BlueIcesevensix]

All Gore was behind Global Cooling in the 70's. What about the other planets out there that are also getting warmer not just earth? I will tell you it's the sun, Mr Wizard.

There is more water vapor in the air than Co2 which makes you're statement all wrong. Mars has more Co2 but you don't see Mars getting any hotter so how do you explain this?

This Global Warming is made up.

[GamesMusicAndVideo]

what is the % of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emited from vehicles and is carbon monixide a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide?

[pkt42]

The amount of CO should be very low compared to the amount of CO2; the main purpose of the catalytic converter in the exhaust system is to convert CO to CO2 to reduce the amount of CO output.

Not sure of the % CO compared to CO2, but it is very small. The US emission limits are quoted in grams/mile which don't seem very intuitive to me. Permitted emission levels are being tightened overtime.

[rotaryinnovator]

"300,000,000 years"?......<--<--<-- what a joke!

[GamesMusicAndVideo]

i thought cars emit carbon monoxide not carbon dioxide ?

[nightvid08]

They emit both.

[samwired12]

trust me ...im a physics teacher t-shirt and a joker hat

[Entropy56]

"expansion pack" LOL! Thinks we are getting a great deal. Expansion Pack...

"bloody hot"? Does he think he is English, or what...

[fdxfield]

I feel, it becomes God's will when there are no agents within our atmosphere to neutralize or naturally combat our contamination. Like an immune system for the planet. Some people are created with a weaker immunity to substances that we are all exposed to. While others harbor a stronger defense against such agents. Our planet could have been created with a weak resistance, via

"God's will". It was eliminated, possibly, as a warning gauge that we can experience the immediate effects of.

[WeAreCameron]

Herein lies the issue.

The only people that this information is being registered with are people who already understand it.

We need to come up with a more efficient way of controlling stupid people.

[SuperAllenZ]

you are awesome, please please keep going, and get some governments around the world to start making some changes!!

[gazmaticc]

right now, as i am typing, i am in an air conditioned room and it is 7:00pm and i am felling very stuffy. can someone explain this? i am not a 45 year old menopausal lady and no, my unit is not malfunctioning. is this a sign of global warming or am I jus an alramist? to those who say dat the sun causes global warmin... venus vs earth. the earth gets more sun yet venus is hotter. Y? explain dat to me.... i am waiting

[Wcoltd]

7pm and it's stuffy with the air conditioner on, I don't know what to tell you, maybe get a bigger air condtioner. Whether or not its a sign of global warming is hard to say.

Venus is closer to the sun, and it's atmosphere is much thicker, it absorbs more of the heat. Also, Venus has a molten surface.

Another reason is that the surface of the earth is mostly covered in water, which has a high specific heat, and will begin to evaporate above a certain temperature. Evaporation cools the planet.

[Dreari]

Hey! THis has nothing to do with the compiler!

[cramlow1]

If we can cause climate change by pumping chemicals into the air... then we can be damn sure we can stop it by pumping different chemicals up. They already try to control weather with cloud busters and bullshit like that. whats stoping us from pumping some reflective shit up there to decrease sunlight?

[Zeuts85]

Who knows? That may very well be a viable option. We don't appear to have the luxury of time to find out. My admittedly limited knowledge of chemistry leads me to doubt that such a solution would really be a "solution." Rather, it would be a treatment to buy us a bit of time until we can find a "cure." I expect it's worth looking into--but not, in my opinion, as an ALTERNATIVE. Instead, as an addition to cutting back on CO2 emissions. We need to cut back NOW while we figure this out.

[NZGringito]

This may have been posted before, but you make the assumption that Oil is a "Fossil Fuel", It's been a while since ive read my sources, but from what have read Oil is formed from a high pressure, high temperature reaction between

CaCO2 (limestone a very abundant substance in the earths crust), Fe2O3(Ironoxide, also abundant, sorry if my compounds arnt balanced) and H2O(watervapour in this case) to produce that various forms of oil. This has been proven in a lab. However more energy in than out

[guy1481]

It's the rate that matters most. In nature, oil takes millions of years to produce; we are consuming it at a much faster rate.

[112048112048]

how many hats do you have?

[yetimtbfreak]

Could you please tell me what the correct temperature for our planet is?

[elko9er]

The correct temperature for our planet is: stable.

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

I've seen little mention of the increased danger from hydromethane (right term?) liquified methane in the oceans shallows, which are now boiling to the gasious state ever faster than was expected when this was made.

I see the cooling mentioned being ignored too. Good, i assume that means that the oceanic heat transfer patterns are better understood, and that the argument is silly.

[Entropy56]

These videos were recorded before all the record breaking cold temperatures in 2008 and 2009.

[elko9er]

In the videos he explains that "global warming" is an inaccurate term, and that "global climate destabilization" is more accurate. The heat trapped by human-produced carbon can cause all sorts of unpredictable things to happen, and it's that instability that is the problem. That may not explain record cold temps, but it allows for them.

[Entropy56]

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

[elko9er]

wm42 is right, Grist's "how to talk to a climate" skeptic" makes it easy:

"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe"

"recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost."

There's more, and it's well worth checking out.

[Entropy56]

You may be right except that "Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water."

I'd say that pawnes your argument.

[elko9er]

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point, or what you're quoting there. And "pawnes"... Is that like pwn? Are you incorporating a leetspeak smack talk in a climate discussion? This isn't an FPS, but I wish it was :)

More on the Antarctic, from Grist: "As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."

[Entropy56]

Read it and weep...

"Cleaning up skies choked with smog and soot would sharply curtail the capacity of plants to absorb carbon dioxide and blunt global warming, according to a study released on Wednesday.

Plant life -- especially tropical forests -- soak up a quarter of all the CO2 humans spew into the atmosphere, and thus plays a critical role in keeping climate change in check."

[elko9er]

What's the source of that quote? How does cleaning up sooty skies keep plants from absorbing CO2?

If it's a valid point, then it would be one factor to consider in the hugely complicated subject of climate science. I would expect the most qualified science organizations in the world would take it into account, and I'd trust their assessment of that factor. More so than mine or yours.

And trust me, if there is good reason to not worry about climate change, I'll be happy, not weeping.

[Entropy56]

"Surprisingly, the effects of atmospheric pollution seem to have enhanced global plant productivity by as much as a quarter from 1960 to 1999," said Linda Mercado, a researcher at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Britain, and the study's lead author" google it.

Just like as capitalism is self correcting so is the earth. But government intervention always makes it worse. Environmentalists are socialist by nature.

[MaToHim]

Capitalism being self correcting? Joking right? Socialism is a complement in Europe. It is not the same as communism. Without government intervention we won't be able to prevent or slowdown the climate changes that are a threat to us right now.

[Entropy56]

Socialism is government violence.

[Entropy56]

I'm going to vote for the government to take 80 percent of your income and then pat myself on the back for being such a compassionate boy.

[Entropy56]

You should listen to Vaclav Klaus.

[Entropy56]

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -- Sir Winston Churchill

[charbuk]

unless you find a way to save the world while, at the same time, making billions for the men in power, rest assured that nothing will get done. the few people who can bring about a change have all of this info. it is not a problem of conflicting science. it is one of ethics. the leaders of politics and business will not lift a finger unless it means filling their own pockets in the short run. if saving the world requires any sacrifice on their part, then we're probably doomed.

[Entropy56]

Sort of how banning DDT actually impoverished millions of poor people?

[jessekarate08]

gcc stands for geencastle christin church

[poochz1]

In the 70s it was the ice-age, now it's the warming, sorry dude, you've been Al 'Gored'.

[TokiDokiSuki]

poochz1

Does the term "Variable Change" mean anything to you?

Obviously not

There has been more research done since then, and in the 70s the media blew it out of proportion.

Science evolves, your feeble mind does not.

[poochz1]

Yeah, todays science doesn't blow it out of proportion either! LOL..your funny. Speak to me in 25 years, and you'll be repeating yourself. The arrogance of some people today, thinking we're 'oh so much smarter' than the apes of 30 years ago. LOL. It's a political game, open your eyes for crying out loud.

[cattlewrangler]

Would somebody put this fcuking idiot out of his misery.

[dave576m]

Read an actual Scientific Journal. Nobody believes in Global Warming anymore.

In fact "2007" was deemed the year anthropgenic global warming died. Bureacrats still believe in global warming, Scientist do not.

People like this "physics" teacher, are hurting real people in Africa that need power plants, they need fossil fuels.

Fat American teachers like this guy want to sip lattes and think he is superior while real people are suffering. Your the villain not the hero in this story.

[cstrand31]

Perhaps you could share your source material with the rest of the class. I just did some checking for myself and didnt find anything of the sort on either the NAS or AAAS websites.

"In fact 2007 was deemed the year anthropgenic global warming died"

WHO deemed it dead? perhaps a page number from your source material,or maybe a URL?

[barbarossa0067]

LOL... source?

[faszika]

funy stuff i have no bank account, no car, nothign so im not responsible for this shit. and im 28 not a 12 year old =D ive done my part assholes if all of you lived like me we'd be doin good right about now

[poochz1]

28, and don't have a job. Wow, impressed. Tell me, where is your electricity coming from to run your computer? Where was your company made, and what materials are mined to make the parts? Ever read a book? Where's the paper come from? Did you know your plastic keyboard you type on will degrade in THOUSANDS of years? You are hilarious in your innocence, or should I say Ignorance of reality? BTW, Who brings you food to the store? Your water is pumped from? (And who makes the pumps?) etc...

[faszika]

yes im saying i live a modest life and aqcuire far less shit than most. i use less resources comprende? i didn't say i livce in a cave. if everyone used as little stuff as me wed be doing much better is all im sayin

[soniazpapp]

Solar worming not global worming sun magnetic activity

[ted77756]

You are saying Gaussian. Where is the Markov Chain??? Where!!! Are the numbers???

So Manpollo really looks idiotic even though the idea is correct.

This Organic Chem 101 lecture is great.

Get the numbers. Then do the math. From the Solution Matrix give me a graph!!! You got a blackboard up there, but no data.

Humm, apparently you are a theoretical physicist. Things like numbers seem to be applied physic. Hint. Hint. What is the size of electron joke from this person.

[idioma13]

Can someone tell me why 0.0004% CO2 is quoted is this a mean value? what's the standard deviation of this data? and how is it measured? how many sample points are used and what is their distribution. what is done to control other dependent variables at the time of sampling?

[athemilkman]

at 5:33, shouldnt a more accurate measure of water in the atmosphere be <.1%, due to the fact that 99.9% of the atmosphere is made up of N2 O2 and Ar?

[andreasBeaverhausen]

It's a sobering thought that the school(?) science textbooks have changed to show more CO2 in the atmosphere since he started teaching. He's not exactly an old man!

[AdamGCox]

Here's the problem: While it is illustrated that CO2 is being produced at an ever-increasing rate and this could be a cause for concern, in terms of solutions the only thing we are seeing is a reduction of human activity. You must understand that the history of scientific achievement has been to increase the potential population density of man on this planet. We must ASSUME we can stop burning fossil fuels, but in the meantime we must improve the condition of man on this planet. Nuclear power!

[BenjaminGustafsson]

Nuclear power is one dangerous solution.

easier would be to have less ppl using fossil fuels. Take a look at the other series he shares, "The Most IMPORTANT Video You´ll Ever See". That explains the problem from another angle.

[MasterTxJ]

Fusion could be a safe nuclear solution.

[T0B0KKE]

Yeah, but in 50-100 years from now.

You do realize that not even a single watt was produced by that way, and there isn't going to be for a very long time.

[MasterTxJ]

Yea you're right, but have you heard of the polywell reactor concept by the late Rober W Bussard. Maybe he was on to something. Something that could actually be practical.

[T0B0KKE]

Yeah, I've heard about it of course, I've made my homework :-). But all of that is still beeing developed. Like I said, it shall take at least 30 years so we can see 1 kWh taken from any fusion reactor. What we need is to find a viable source NOW. Obama's clean Coal can be one, but that won't last forever. There has to be other solutions.

[Devourer09]

GNU compiler collection?

[LilBola1]

pretty slick trick !

[cheesechoker]

THIS ISN'T gcc

[rasmus256]

If you are so wise, then tell us what gcc is!

[cheesechoker]

Run ``man gcc'' yourself you lazy git

[mallardhead]

There's NO WAY you are stupid, so what you are doing you are doing by INTENTION... and that makes you CULPABLE. Where is the MOST important PRIORITY problem of deforestation? Nothing you talk about will make any difference if we do not fix the rainforests. ALL YOUR CO2 doom will still happen if we do not fix the rainforests. Deforestation is a NO-BRAINER and you ARE part of the end. Please message me and let me know just WHY you aren't foremost on the case of fixing the forests? Mall

[jazzmessenger8]

you're right. People mistakingly think that global warming is the only thing we have to worry about. Yeah, what about the forests, the hypoxic water, the SHARKS? what about all of the animals that are being driven out of their homes so people can create more farm land to support food AND BIOFUELS?

[mallardhead]

I'm going straight to the root... deforestation is what has accelerated global warming. The "physics teacher" above has left out key factors to the problem of CO2. As a result, it is fossil fuels 'alone," but the problem will continue to accelerate as "the lungs of the earth" continue to be slashed and burned.

Wondering mind above is blind to the truth.

[jazzmessenger8]

deforestation has contributed to it, but you're actually going to deny that the extra seven billion tons of carbon aren't going to do anything? And he NEVER said or implied that emissions were the sole cause of gloabl warming. Emissions are the biggest cause; that's why he focuses on it.

[mallardhead]

IF the rainforests were at 100% the CO2 problem would not be severe. I agree just dumping carbon into the atm is reckless and destructive and must be stopped. BUT it is deforestation that will kill people in spite of emissions. Cut emissions to zero and deforestation still prevents nature from making the needed adjustments in the CO2 already there and locked in the oceans. Increasing plant growth must be a priority.

[jazzmessenger8]

My scientific knowledge isn't very extensive, so I can't argue about that. SO yeah, we definitely need to focus on trees. Just think, what if eveybody in the UNited States that owned a lawn also owned two trees? That would definitely add up, and would not be very expensive. Technically, but unlikely, it could be free.

[mallardhead]

Your yard would have to hold from ten to thirty trees to begin to match whats lost. It would have to be near the equator as well. Lots of people don't have the scientific knowledge to know this, BUT this guy should. I messaged him about it and he gave me the same answer you did, SO he is totally ignorant of what really impacts the levels of CO2: dense rainforests. His solution will not work because the CO2 processors, trees, are almost gone where it counts.

[jazzmessenger8]

I'm not challenging you, but I'm just wondering, why should I believe you? What credibility do you have?

[mallardhead]

I'm no scientist, but have been a science teacher myself. My credibility is simply remembering how the scientists have talked about the deforestation problem as time has passed. Ask a kid in the 60's the buzz was all about the rainforests being the lungs of the planet, recycling atmospheric CO2 into plant food energy and oxygen. As Brazil cut and burned in the 70s the warnings were about impending climate change. That happened in the 90s and is why hurricanes are stronger in the Gulf of Mex.

[OldRocketScientist]

There is an expedition in the arctic now examining whether the real problem of ice cap melting is good old LA style smog. If this is true, then the problem is hydrocarbon emissions not GHGs like CO2. The loss of ice cap changes the Earth's albedo causing warming - a very different mechanism but equally scary. Reducing GHGs is still a good idea if it can be done without huge economic dislocation but we may have to tackle other pollutants as well.

[jazzmessenger8]

CO2 is a hydrocarbon emission.

[OldRocketScientist]

A few quibbles: 1) If the carbon in coal and oil came from the atmosphere by way of plants the CO2 concentration must have been much higher 300M years ago yet plants and animals thrived - what was the climate like? 2) CO2 concentration seems to follow global (ocean) temperature as would be expected not vice versa 3) Methane should not be dismissed - it is a much more potent GHG than CO2. Since it comes from agriculture not industry, those who are anti-industry tend to ignore the huge CH4 issue.

[TempestStormwind]

1) Worldwide jungle and swamp, with significantly higher oceans. We can tell this from the fossil record.

2) The 'lag' you refer to is addressed in later videos. It's actually easily explained.

3) He mentions methane later in this very video. Although it's a stronger GHG by volume, we're not emitting as much, and when you calculate the relevant forcings based on emissions, CO2 currently dwarfs CH4. There are "tipping points" (discussed in Scare Tactics) that may result in CH4 increasing, though.

[OldRocketScientist]

on 3) You are focused on industry emission. I was in England when the UN report came out and their news said that CH4 from growing numbers of cattle and excess fertilization was of similar impact to CO2. The more PC US TV ignored that aspect. It was enough of a worry in the UK that they are studying how to change the digestive process in cattle by changing the intestinal bacteria. Highlights the need for study and global solutions not just "perceived wisdom" like what led to corn ethanol.

[technologysucks]

When you said "the fossil feul age" what are you referring to if not the start of the 300 million year cycle?

Sorry, I found it unclear

[TempestStormwind]

When we started using fossil fuels, which is roughly the last 200 years.

[TheRealArchAngel]

I personally prefer "The Oil Age" in succesion to "Stone Age","Bronze Age",etc. "Fossil Fuel" is misleading as Oil and Coal are from deep earth and have more in common with dimonds and lava rock then Dinosaur bones and decaying plant matter. In fact "fossils" are bone impressions filled with sedimentry rock and not the bones magically turning into it's present form (let alone Coal or Oil in any way shape or form)

[TempestStormwind]

...did you honestly say oil and coal don't come from biological sources? Or that fossils are only impressions? This is GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE, and you don't know it?

You have no interest in actually looking up some of the most basic facts behind this, instead adopting positions that are so out there not even the most crazed denialist would support them.

Clearly, you are only here to support your beliefs, not to understand the problem.

Please become extinct.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"did you honestly say oil and coal don't come from biological sources?"

Yes. Oil wells are "refilling" they wanted to know how the fuck that was happening.

"Or that fossils are only impressions?"

Yes. Sedimentary rock fills and mineralized bones

"This is GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE"

From 1952,Maybe. New Ideas,new Science,New Technology,duh

"Please become extinct."

Your the "Dinosaur",inflexible to new ideas or findings,so sure of your antiquated and spoon fed, uncreative thought, positions.

[TheRealArchAngel]

competent physicists,chemists,chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century. Way to much oil and coal for it to be "dead Dinosaurs". Also Oil and Coal's age can be determined in the lab and older deposits are in the billions of years old while newer ones are a few hundred thousand years old. And again, "spent" wells are re-filling, though not fast enough to reopen.

[antsmasherjack]

I like to see your sources. You didn't throughly explain how oil doesn't come from fossilized dinosaurs and plants.

[wetyewruyrtsutrdhjfg]

So........."spent" oil wells magically fill back up by themselves? Amazing!

[Otsegoflesh]

Not sure if this has anything to do with global warming, but doesn't the Oxygen that come from plants through photosynthesis as waste actually come from water and not Carbon Dioxide? Your drawings seem a little misleading.

[TempestStormwind]

I'm not certain myself; I'll have to look it up. I suspect not (I seem to remember the oxygen from water being used for something else in plants, but I could be wrong.)

However, even assuming you're right and the O2 all comes from the water and not the CO2, that wouldn't make the diagram misleading. The plant still gives off O2 -- and, most importantly, it takes the CO2 out of the air. The carbon, not the oxygen, is what we're most interested in.

I'll get back to you once I know for sure.

[theinquisitor]

The light energy is used to separate water molecules into oxygen gas and hydrogen ions, and the CO2 and hydrogen ions are used to make sugars (C3H6O3). So the oxygen gas that is released does come from the water, but oxygen molecules from either source are identical so the effect is the same. The chemical equations for both reactions are in the wikpedia entry on photosynthesis, section "1.1 In plants"

[TheRealArchAngel]

Finally found this Video Yeah...whoops right off the bat you are confusing the way air absorbs heat with radio waves...lol. Air absorbs heat via the Green house gas like a "blanket"..as in the heat is absorbed into the air on the day side as it comes it and is redistributed via air currents from rotation and heat displacement

[TheRealArchAngel]

You got the "composition of Air" but the problem is that mix is like a Smoohie and just releasing CO2 by burning Fossil fuels doesn't increase the percentage of Co2 in ghg of the Blanket of Air, just as Methane from Methane Hydrate does not mix into the GHG in Air any more then throwing a Gold bar will make the air a % gold bar or throeing you in the air wont make the Air a % of wonderingmind42...lol

[CornflakesStudios]

its six grade science

[TheRealArchAngel]

Yep. and I took 7th-12th grade science classes and graduated in Science, went to college a Science Major and got an Associates and Bachelors in the Sciences, was part of Carl Sagan's Sociaty for a while but declined to join AAAS and NAS as pieces of paper mean nothing (well,maybe an alternative fuel source). I work in alternaative fuels so some people find it odd that I say GW being human's fault is bullshit,but we need to clean up the Co2 emmisions...lol

[dforce27]

Search this out.. Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

[TempestStormwind]

And why should we give this more credibility than the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that form the foundation of this claim, which is further supported by explicit statements from literally every single scientific organization on the planet?

See How It All Ends: Risk Management on evaluation of sources.

[TheRealArchAngel]

FUCK. Have you ever head of Carl Sagan's Baloney detection kit? By you keep on diverting proof and credibility to the hippie and tree huggers with the gall to call themselves "scientist" with their Biased reports and "thumping" on their reports designed to prove Humans are at fault before they were even written YOU are falling prey to Baloney. (Attacking me instead of trying to convince me there is anything other then Correlative data in the reports makes 3 "baloney").

[dforce27]

You need to hit the gym!!!

[chulie87]

your awsome I hope you got a raise

[TheRealArchAngel]

If he wanted to be rich he wouldn't have chosen to be a teacher...lol. It a job you do for the love of it with the biggest reward being seeing the children's face light up and their eyes gleen when they get what you are teaching them

[skeptic9999]

One last comment, most people say all or most or leading, it would be nice if you want us to consider becoming non-sceptics to provide names and websites/articles where they present their data. I want to see carbon measurements vs temperatures from 10 or so sites per continent. I have been to greenie sites where they list temps and it seems like they have been going down in the last 5-10yrs.

What it all comes down to is we are between ice ages.

[TempestStormwind]

Then ignore the greenie sites (and the denial sites, for that matter) and go straight for the data.

Temperature:

NASA/GISS: tinyurl com/yv3a9x (graphs) and tinyurl com/37oe7c (individual station data)

HadCRU: tinyurl com/2xskf7 (independent from GISS and using a different baseline)

Carbon: tinyurl com/2n27cn (IPCC 2007 report - check the papers it cites.)

Also, re: 1998 "cooling": tinyurl com/2vmez6

[hggh22]

Take a look at dwarfurl(dot)com/d15dc/ for more graphs.

Have you ever heard of global dimming?

dwarfurl(dot)com/34b57

[hggh22]

Take a look at dwarfurl(dot)com/d15dc/ for more graphs.

Have you ever heard of global dimming?

dwarfurl(dot)com/34b57

[hggh22]

Take a look at dwarfurl(dot)com/d15dc/ for more graphs.

Have you ever heard of global dimming?

dwarfurl(dot)com/34b57

[TheRealArchAngel]

Data is data. CO2 always expands in Warmer temperature & condenses in Colder temperature so both modern data & historic data back to 4.0 billion years ago will show warmer temperatures correlating with higher Co2 in the permafrost and sediments (though not necessarily in the Circulatory cycle or GHG composition). Also note that a air reading of Co2 cannot tell GHG CO2 from circulatory or stagnant Co2, so CO2% in a air sample on mount Everest will differ from one at the base of Kilauea volcano

[TheRealArchAngel]

I don't question the data, just the speculation that the Collative data between Temperature and CO2 levels mean that Co2 levels is the Cause of heat increase instead of just being correlated data. Air traps heat from the heater in the room because of it's composition that includes it's "Green house gasses". If you turn on the heater to 70 degrees and check the air temperature with a independent thermometer and it's like 73 Degrees it is likely margin of error +/- 3 degree & not added CO2...lol

[skeptic9999]

The figures in your video have the same mistake, how can water if water is between 0.9% and .04% you bust 100% :)

Also it is .036% for co2.

[skeptic9999]

from my calculations from a greenie web site, depending on water the total gas in our atmosphere is somewhere between 99.998554% and 103.998554%, now I think just the clouds over the US has more than .002% h2o. No wonder we are in the situation we are in :)

[skeptic9999]

All in all your videos are well done. However I detect too much urgency in most of them, if the facts convinced you maybe just present them, and trust us to consider the facts. But the hard part is going beyond bias and representing both sides well, unless you have already made up your mind also :)

[maxamigo888]

The EARTH gives off a little pollution to make things like silly hats ... like I need

to wear to be cool... For all my students!!!

Text Books? HELLO !?!?!?

Nice hat ! Where are you from agian ?

NO RESPONSE ??????........??????

NOW WE GET IT IT... THE GOOD OLD U.S.A. !!!!

[TempestStormwind]

Unless you have spent 100% of your income on all-American products, without a single thing from overseas, and all of it goes towards being a perfect sailor, then you have no moral high ground to claim.

I'm also not quite sure I follow your argument. You're attacking the guy giving the argument, while his point stands unchallenged. Is that what you wanted to do?

[maxamigo888]

Please tell us how and where the silly HAT was made... Science Teacher...

A big Ship brought it here !!!

TRUST ME - I AM A SAILOR !!!!!

Guess what the waste product is.....LMFAO

[Edukator99]

I almost skipped this because I thought I knew enough but what do you know...I didn't.

Question: If methane is not as much of a concern what's with all the reports I've heard recently about methane being a bigger contributor to global warming?

[TempestStormwind]

Factually correct molecule-by-molecule: A single CH4 molecule traps more heat than a CO2 modecule. WATER (H2O) is even stronger, molecule per molecule (but it doesn't build up in the atmosphere over time)

The problem is volume. Let's evaluate heat-trapping as money, call one bit of H2O as a quarter, CH4 as a dime, and CO2 as pennies. If we constantly add 10 dimes and 1000 pennies per day, the net impact of the PENNIES (CO2) exceeds all of the others.

And CO2's the one we're monkeying with.

[chech1965]

And methane has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere than CO2. Methane is roughly 12 years (give-r-take) while CO2 remains for 500 years.

[Edukator99]

I was a little disturbed to see this claim being made in the media lately...specifally by some pro-vegetarian groups. I wish I could remember them but I can't and I don't have the magazine any more. I can't be accused of anti-vegetarian bias because I became one for exactly this reason. I believe they said that methane had over taken CO2 as the main cause of Global Warming...which I thought to be false...though I don't know.

[gwdrake]

Alert (please delete immediately): on the mechanics pt 2 pg, I was scanning down through your various videos and encountered one entitled something like "girl touching herself." I'd get it off there as fast as possible

[rollen01]

I know you don't want people to think exactly like you but you've made more sense then any other person I know. You don't contridict yourself and look at both sides. I'm spreading your videos around like hot cakes I hope that before its to late i'll be able to grow old enough to have my own family and live in a world where I don't have to worry about them getting poisoned or living in fear from the country next door.

[HollywoodOz]

This is awesome. I know a LOT about this stuff, but you taught me a bunch.

[pyromaster123]

Thank you for posting this! It was quite informational and I really hope it reaches more people because I think we need to make some serious changes.

[Saintlyghost]

We can only hope he gets a job on TV where he can reach a more people

[cyberdemon107]

YAY!

go new bill nye the science guy