If you understand the mechanism then please let us know. It's spectral absorption band in the infrared is on the net as is that of water. I'll add that the outgoing black body spectrum peaks at 10um (Wien displacement).I'd prefer it in your own words so that I'm sure you understand it. Thankyou.
The public statements say that the world is in crisis, yet it's 'business as usual'. There's no enforcement. Western culture is still run on fossil fuels and most of our manufacturing in the UK is now in China. We're still importing coal here running at a diabolical -20% efficiency in power stations. Now there going to build turbines here on that power. If it doesn't make sense, how are we supposed to understand?
As far as CO2 goes, for the thinking man, it's not sufficient to say it's a greenhouse gas when it's spectrum in the infrared only nibbles at the edge of water vapours absorbance plateau. O2 and O3 both absorb near 10um which is near the outgoing infrared peak. Describe the mechanism that makes CO2 significant.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Colorado researchers to consider Arctic ice tipping point
.
A research effort led by the University of Colorado Boulder, will consider whether areas like the Beaufort Sea and the adjacent Canada Basin have passed a ‘tipping point’ and now are essentially sub-Arctic zones where ice disappears each summer.
Factor in the deliberately induced climate change caused by the Chemtrails and HAARP project that's been going on since that time... mmm wouldn't surprises me.
(Please read article before the DENIER with all the SOCK PUPPET ACCOUNTS censors it)..
.
Flooding is biggest climate risk to UK, report says
.
Flooding will be Britain's biggest climate risk this century, with damage set to cost as much as 12 billion pounds a year by the 2080s if nothing is done to adapt to extreme weather, a report said on Thursday.
"Scientists and environmental policy decision makers across the world want to know what is happening to all the carbon in the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere through fossil fuel and biomass burning, such as forest fires or firewood used as fuel. If carbon dioxide is “food” for plants, maybe more of it in the atmosphere caused plants to grow better."
Biology is driven by green plants metabolising all the available carbon dioxide from the air. Man has increased life on earth but obviously is carbon emissions had no effect on the climate. As Sir David knows!
Average free carbon dioxide in the global air is at two parts per 1,000,000. Local values in cities are too minuscule to affect the weather. Incidentally, there to see warming effect of whether cause by local heat production is all we have ever got! And carbon dioxide has no effect on the weather.
In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment:
"This toxic poisonous desert that remains is destroying the lives of Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem. Britain’s government should be ashamed of the catastrophe taking place in China in the name of green power here in the UK."
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Weaker sun will not delay global warming
.
A weaker sun over the next 90 years is not likely to significantly delay a rise in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases, a report said Monday.
@MrPurplefood There seems to be a funding link between the GM and Hancock Coal: Whilst Smitt and Smeed claim to be financing the GM themselves. A month before first making this claim Smit told the Noosa News that Gina Rinehart, the Chairman of Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL) and its coal subsidiary Hancock Coal, had agreed to fund part of the costs of a tour to Australia of climate sceptic Christopher Monckton.
@TheElasticJesusRez green plants metabolise all available carbon dioxide from the air down to 2ppm: so no rise in free carbon dioxide due to man. ever
@unspammlng1 The only person spamming around here is you. My channel is in no way associated with those that you mentioned. So please don't go around making false accusations without any evidence.
@ItsTheSunStupid Have you seen the latest footage of the Coronal Mass Ejection that took place on the 22nd January? Nasa said the biggest since 2005 the footage is Incredible on time lapse you can actually see the burst of energy released. Makes our planet look rather small and insignificant, at least we know the magnetosphere holds up alright. :)
@DRWELSH1971 Yes I have. The resulting Aurora Borealis gave quite a display in places that don't see them very often here in the UK, although not where I am, unfortunately. The Sun is a powerful beast! Yes, thank goodness for the magnetosphere!
@ItsTheSunStupid Im not spamming any one i am only reposting the comments that are being spammed from the DENIER sock puppet with multiple accounts who is a bad loser.
You say you have nothing to do with this spamming but your channel and the other channels that i have subscribed to on my page are always active on the channels that are being spammed.
There is a denier censoring comments on this video with tons of denier sock puppet accounts, to see the comments he's censoring, hit "see all" and you can read them.
He is showing the public exactly what the losing "side" behaves like
Please type into Google "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2" to see my article on global warming and why the IPCC have grossly exaggerated the predicted warming from CO2.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
The most patronising of comments: the layman telling those who understand the science that there are many more variables involved.
Listen, all those who get their science from Anthony Watts, Monckton, the Daily Mail, the 'American Association of We Hate Paying Tax Cos Rather Than Blaming Dodgy Economists For Initiating A System Where My Wage Is Shit I'd Rather Blame Al Gore,'
...just accept that Geoscientists are Geoscientists b/c they're not on Youtube pretending to be Geoscientists.
TheElasticJesusRez If that comment was directed at me then you didn't read my post correctly. I am not patronizing anybody, nor is anyone else, I am concerned as many are that the world is going into a climate change frenzy over 1 degree celsius. Whilst some of the evidence supports warming in some parts of the world it also supports cooling in others Please stop trying to provoke arguments, Discussions get better results with people like myself becoming more informed. Thanks
My actual statement meant that you can't produce every single variable in nature in a lab for a scale test because there are too many factors in nature we know they are testing all these things every day but it's the complete package that effects the planet not just one or the other? Intimidating people and criticising doesn't produce an outcome it spreads hatred and discourse, Frankly speaking the world has enough of those types already. Best wishes to you, have a nice day :)
And what do you suppose the geoscientists are doing, day in, day out? We have people like Lonnie Thompson working out in the field on glaciers; Richard Alley out in the field in Greenland - ice-cores. Scientists of all nationalities at stations all over the planet.
Implying their work is NOT credible, that PhDs are so stupid to overlook things that we - the everyday Joes can pick up on, is arrogant to say the least.
TheElasticJesusRez I have never said there work is not credible and personally love to read there reports and have alot of respect for the people doing research all around the world and to my understanding many of them put themselves in harmsway to atain the data they get. climbing glaciers or going to antarctica and studying volcanic activity impresses the hell out of me I just think politicians have NO place or NO right to manipulate the data and keep lying to us. cont'
the results of individual studies are of significant importance to us, But what would be more fair to the credability of all the hard working scientists is have an International Televised disscusion on the climate with NO POLITICIANS,NO SHAREHOLDERS ALLOWED to put the normal political spin bullshit into the equation, Never said I KNOW MORE just saying it would be near impossible to recreate every variable in nature in synergy within the confines of a lab, can you understand that?
This speaks volumes about your cynicism, your contempt for a figure that at first glance seems ridiculously benign when in fact it is halfway to the tipping point.
10 degrees is annihalation; stagnant ocean and hydrogen sulfide (Paul Wignall - Permian Extinction Event).
5 degrees is mass exodus to the poles because all temperate regions are desert. 5 degrees is war over resources.
@TheElasticJesusRez Sorry for sounding so cynical but the "Gulf of Tonkin lie told to invade Vietnam,An Impending Ice age ,Nuclear threats during the cold war the WMD threats that didn't exist Y2K,The GFC" caused by corrupt abuse of legislation the list of political lies continues to lose credibilty for the adverage joe, it just strikes me to be another Spin played out by the power brokers of the world,You're obviously passionate about trust you put in Governments,I'm not.
That's where you're wrong. I DO NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT, or should I say 'certain' politicians.
However, Global Warming is a product of science, end of. It has nothing to do with Al Gore, James Inhofe, or any other politician seeking to gain an advantage for Cap n' Trade or the Oil lobbyists.
As for a live televised debate. Bring it on. Hosted by David Frost. I would love to hear the Christy and Muller U Turns from their own mouths.
@TheElasticJesusRez i know who all gore is but not the other person you mentioned I'm in Australia so I would be presuming this person is American, Our gov has unfortunatley introduced the start of a cap and trade system but still allows the sale of coal to high polluting countries and have no intention of stopping while money can be made, I don't think we even need a big debate, an open ended scientific discussion with just scientists and there findings would be good. :)
@DRWELSH1971 Australia huh. Well, as I mentioned on another video you may not "believe" in human-induced climate change, but rest assured it "believes" in you
@Nightversionn we have made an impact on the climate that isn't a dispute for me personally I agree that the higher the population gets, the more pollution we create as we have become a consumer planet. In the past any man women a child of most civilizatioms only had what they needed to survive now we are told if you don't kepp up with technology we'll be left behind, so we fill our homes with power consuming throw away technology that is obsolete with a few years to buy more con,
I still use the same phone from 5 years ago whilst some people WANT the latest apps and update Cell/mobile phone constantly with no need. Look at Germanys fiasco storing spent uranium in a Salt mine 130,000+ barrels of radioactive waste since the 1960's, they didn't store it correctly,it now has to be relocated at huge cost and risk, Fukushima could take 30years to decomission. We are a toxic society no doubt this has impact,Climate change of course, Global warming? I'm Undecided.
@DRWELSH1971 You make some good points, but at the same time devides and cars and the like are becoming more energy efficient. For example a new refrigerator will be better than an older one. And also, yes, the planet is warming. Here is the latest
The global average temperature last year was the ninth-warmest in the modern meteorological record, continuing a trend linked to greenhouse gases that saw nine of the 10 hottest years occurring since the year 2000, NASA scientists said on Thursday.
Nightversionn, I think down the track Hydrogen powered vehicles have to be the way to because even the electric car has a flaw you need to get the thing charged up off the main power grid, which means more power consumption by the consumers from power stations. A young man in sydney went around collecting solidified cooking oil from takeaway stores and made his own eco diesel at a cost of 19 cents per litre and no emmisions, we pay $1.50 adverage per Litrethanks for the link
@DRWELSH1971 Fascinating, I love hearing stories like that. I read a long time ago, long time ago the actress Dianne Lane had a car she converted to vegetable oil or something like that. She drove around Southern California to get the oil that is readily available from places, maybe restaurants. There was a man down there who wanted to start a factory collecting the oil and selling it.
We can all change things from the ground up certainly.
@DRWELSH1971 I have an old car that I love I was going to convert in such a way, someone told me it wasn't practical, unless you're someone like Diane Lane I guess, with more time. I was told to go electric as in cars. In Hawaii right now they have charging stations up and running and it's quite viable there, yes you are using power, but less. It's better overall.
@Nightversionn good to see someone like Dianne lane (actress in, The outsiders)doing her bit, We have coal here and hydro from snowy river but more needs to be done to eventually steer away from coal fired, but we don't want nuclear station either.So the push for green energy production needs to compliment the environment. Wave turbines are being designed to run off the tides coming in / out,We had plans for a Solar city a few years back someone scrapped the idea,No one knows why?
@DRWELSH1971 but I love your solutions from South American and Thailand, the bulb in the roof. That is so cool, skylights. Gradually we are getting back to living the way we did pre-Industrial Revolution fossil fuels. We can still have energy with green power, yes, for our gadgets, but we can also get back to natural light and living closer to the earth as our ancestors did.
@DRWELSH1971 But yes of course, we live in a wasteful society. I grew up in the US and I understand we waste more than anyone, so I'm personally trying to work on that and move towards green power/technology as much as I can
@Nightversionn In South America parts of Africa and Thailand have started using a recycled 2 litre plastic soft drink bottle filled with water and two caps of bleach or chlorine, they fitted and siliconed the bottle through the tin roof of there hut cost $2.00 free 50 watt light bulb for day time use and give a more natural light to the room, have even thought of doing the same for my garden shed, why use power when nature provides?
James Inhofe is Republican Senator of Oklahoma. He is an outspoken critic of global warming and has used the word 'Hoax' on several occasions.
"I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the Book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk."
If you believe in a heaven then why worry about the damage you do to Earth?
@TheElasticJesusRez Yeh I'm not religious so the Impact to the earth means alot to me and my children, I would like to hope the animals we see today(that are left) will still be around for future generations to appreciate and when I die my body can fertilize another tree. If Adam was created in Gods image then God must have had a physical form at the time and eve created from Adams rib? :s sounds sort of like cloning doesn't it? Have you read any parts on monoatomic gold? lol
I must admit the 'Out of Africa' scenario has a bit more credibility. I've been watching some good stuff lately about Dark energy, the Heat Death of the Universe, and how there might be parallel universes as well as Multiverses. It's all intriguing stuff with some pretty deep questions.
Not least, if all matter is destined to lose its energy, then how the hell did it gets its energy in the first place? Some scientists are now tending away from the Big Bang.
@TheElasticJesusRez The people at CERN seem to be doing a great deal to understand things a bit more, I remember the media reports from the lead up to the Hadron collider being used for the first time and the panick caused "OH NO,they're gonna cause a black hole on earth and the planet will get sucked in or blow up" Ratings, drama and panic,The sad thing is some people are gullable and believe everything the media reports.The big bang or let there be light? same thing, maybe?
Since a few years now, the "models" have proven to be irrelevant. There are now more and more proofs that the sun and the oceans have crucial effects on climate changes and they are natural. When you take a look at the curve during the 2 centuries before 1850 and you look at all the figure, you see very easily that the warming started at the end of 18th century and that the biggest part of the warming (after 400 years of cooling) have occured between 1800 and 1940.
The extreme growth in human population – now counted by an additional billion people every 12 to 13 years ; is mortally taxing the Earth and its resources. Each person has an impact on the planet’s environment. Some people may be less damaging than others, but no individual is without an ecological footprint.each person needs basic resources. As these needs and aspirations are multiplied by a factor of 6.8 billion, the stability of the planet’s ecosphere has been and continue to be compromised.
This is a short version of an excerpt from world population media centre ,I had to shorten it a little to fit. but If we take on board the rate the population is growing and the demand this will place into the future we really need to all start working on getting back to basics as far as "needs as opposed to wants" If we as a species have problems on the planet with 7 billion ,What will it be like with 14 - 20 billion? there just aren't the resources available, even now people starve, it's sad.
Remember the polar bear bear birth? Would you buy a second hand car from this man? It would have to be electric and I would check the battery if I were you.
Have you ever heard of a sucking pdo? have you ever heard of sucking AMSU-A temperature? have you ever heard of sea surface temperature anomalies. If you bother to look you will find that the oceans are cooling and every level of the atmopshere is cooling . We all know that NASA follows Hansen's green agenda. You need to distinguish the truth from lies and propaganda like the above video.
the problem with this world is not that its getting too warm thats an illusion to distract you from the truth.the problem is you and me all of us the only way that the world will revert or get back in good shape is if millions of us die. consumerism is the reason the environment is being destroyed trust me before my car exhaust turns the sky black we will of used up all the food anyway.to change we must educate not tax people incomes don't believe the media make up your own mind first.
@elmontygrande Educate with your propaganda you mean. The graph above shows co2 being produced from the oceans as the Sun warms the Planet. Our Sun is now entering a grand solar minimum so expect climatic conditions to resemble the Dalton minimum. More coal, oil and gas burning will benefit all life on the Planet and put life back into the economy.
@david222444 even if the Sun enters a new grand minimum , wich is not yet sure, and if we asume the sun would stay at that minimum, our current CO² output would only need 7 years to outdo that. and we would again be where we are today. we can only hope the sun will enter a new minimum. it would give us more time to reduce our CO² footprint.
@Aanthanur Do you have any idea where we are today? Today the Planet is cooling abruptly. Co2 is nothing more than an atmospheric trace gas and its increase is a mere product of past warming caused by the Sun.
@david222444 can you show me the data that shows this alleged abrupt cooling pls?
CO² is a greenhouse gas, and yes it is also a byproduct of warming. but in this case it has triggered the initial warming and this warming will lead to even more CO² wich leads to even more warming.
@david222444 i looked yesterday at NASA data, and they showed no suck cooling, yesterday already made that clame and was not able to back it up with anything.
name me the source, is it surface temps, is it atmospheric temps and on wich altitude?
@TheElasticJesusRez Your zeros bore me to tears. At 150 ppm co2 in atmosphere plant life shuts down therefore ! would recommend doubling the atmospheric co2 . Now ask yourself are you an eco dunce? lets try percentages, what about co2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere? I am tired of sharing my sources with brainwashed freaks who do not want them anyway.
go look at the satellite data if is free and easily found, even for eco loons.
@TheElasticJesusRez wow 99.96% + 0.04% =100% . Co2 can cause mayhem is crazy propaganda to scare the public when co2 is in fact a harmless natural gas essential to life on the Planet. I bet the above are glad they are not climatologists as these so called scientists have a lot to answer for. As for Al Bore (climatologist?), Hansen, and( hockey stick} Mann, these are a source of amusement. I look for scientific proof if that means going right wing then so be it if the truth lies there.
@TheElasticJesusRez Well as for court this is happening, I think Gore crap has already been thrown out of uk schools..Since when did you come to the conclusion that 250 ppm was perfect? What is the optimum global temperature for life on the the Planet? and what is the Optimum co2 concentration in the atmosphere for life on the planet?
I didn't. The many bilions of human beings who have ever lived and whose evolutionary progress happened to coincide with a 650,000 - 1 million year average of 250/300 ppm did.
And before you mention Toba or any other freak event let me remind you that temps and CO2 levels have always settled back to 250/300 ppm.
But not anymore. Not if you lot get your way. No wonder people are getting thicker. It's in the air.
@elmontygrande no its not an ilusion at all. but too warm is also not the direct problem, it is what this warmth is doing to Glaciers and the ice on the poles, what it does to sea levels, what it does to weather patterns etc etc. and this means alot of people have to move away from where they are now. That we will lose alot of lang we use to make food.
we jave no food shortafe on this planet atm. we produce far enough food and could even increase it.
@elmontygrande no its not an ilusion at all. but too warm is also not the direct problem, it is what this warmth is doing to Glaciers and the ice on the poles, what it does to sea levels, what it does to weather patterns etc etc. and this means alot of people have to move away from where they are now. That we will lose alot of lang we use to make food.
we jave no food shortafe on this planet atm. we produce far enough food and could even increase it.
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck.'"
The high solar flux has been instrumental in the evolution of Venus's atmosphere. High thermal energies through equipartition providing a mechanism to drive lighter molecules into space, leaving heavier molecules behind. Thus the mass of the atmosphere increases with time and the pressure rises. This reduces the absorption distance of all radiative absorption process irrespective of nature.
The high solar flux has been instrumental in the evolution of Venus's atmosphere. High thermal energies through equipartition providing a mechanism to drive lighter molecules into space, leaving heavier molecules behind. Thus the mass of the atmosphere increases with time and the pressure rises. This reduces the absorption distance of all radiative absorption process irrespective of nature.
Mmm. I accept that at some point the atmosphere of Venus would have passed through an evolution, and during that stage it would have had 'many players' as well as CO2 contributing to fill in the gaps in CO2's IR absorption spectrum. As we do on Earth. With Venus it's the 4000Wm2 and enough gravity to contain hot gases that's always problematic. Swap it's orbit with that of Mars, at 400Wm2. I recon that would redress some of the imbalance
I don't even believe Venus has a 'greenhouse' effect in the literal sense. In an horticultural greenhouse 5600K black body peak flux is accepted, absorbed, re-radiated at around 10um peak infrared. Absorbed by the glass which heats to this level and radiates back. Venus is covered in dense, white, high opacity cloud. What is the transmission band and width? The clouds are DEFINATELY rich in sulfor dioxide and water, or it wouldn't have sulfurous acids as rain. Surely the clouds dictate the clim
@g1geo1g a quick question, Surely the sulfuric acid type cloud cover would have to be caused by the planet Venus being highly active with it's volcanoes and lava flows and in turn the planets temp stays at 800 f approx , regardless of the solar effects? :)
Even NASA, who we trust to look out for us and report justly and in an unbiased fashion are very selective about information. On their website, under climate change; causes, they show a picture of Mars, and a false colour picture of Venus (reddened). We are 'told' Mars is freezing and Venus is excessively hot. The greenhouse effect, CO2, and the lack of methane and water explain Mars. For Venus they just need the greenhouse effect and copious amounts of of CO2. They offer no other clues. Bit mi
Even NASA, who we trust to look out for us and report justly and in an unbiased fashion are very selective about information. On their website, under climate change; causes, they show a picture of Mars, and a false colour picture of Venus (reddened). We are 'told' Mars is freezing and Venus is excessively hot. The greenhouse effect, CO2, and the lack of methane and water explain Mars. For Venus they just need the greenhouse effect and copious amounts of of CO2. They offer no other clues. Bit mi
Aanthanur, and DRWELSH1971, enjoyed reading the ding dong. In an ideal world Aanthanur I would love to share your beliefs in those who we trust to decide our futures. Unfortunately, life has taught me that, like DRWELSH1971, there are too many things that just don't quite ring true, so I do my own sorting of what I believe to be true or false. If it doesn't make sense I don't like it. I don't follow blind acceptance, there nearly always is a hidden agenda.
Aanthanur, and DRWELSH1971, enjoyed reading the ding dong. In an ideal world Aanthanur I would love to share your beliefs in those who we trust to decide our futures. Unfortunately, life has taught me that, like DRWELSH1971, there are too many things that just don't quite ring true, so I do my own sorting of what I believe to be true or false. If it doesn't make sense I don't like it. I don't follow blind acceptance, there nearly always is a hidden agenda.
The Definition of Scientific Theory; Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory. everything I have discussed matches this definition. Happy
when i hear the quotes "critical and box-office success" and "The film also earned $49 million at the box office worldwide, becoming the sixth-highest-grossing documentary film to date in the United States" i tend to think that your wrong. oh right, well if they looked beyond then they would see the medieval warm and period in 1300 ad and the period 1100 bc were temps were drastically warmer. no amount of corruption can hide that evidence.
The current warming is nothing new. The Nordic Bronze Age was characterised by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC. The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming, for example grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time.
@Aanthanur and the radical change around 650 BC which brought in a deteriorating, wetter and colder climate? For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present.
precisly, he is a politician, not a scientist - but i'm sorry, wasn't he the one that made that movie that sent the world into a mass panic - oh yes that guy. actually didn't he make over 100 million dollars from it, yes that movie he made - ahh, it all makes sense now. but hey, lets not look at 4000 years of data, lets limit it to 150 - because that fits the models (and makes the money). Good day.
@MrPurplefood "didn't he make over 100 million dollars from it" No he didn't: "Tipper and I (Al Gore) are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming." Scientists hagve looked at millions of years of data and have concluded that "Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing".
@MrPurplefood no the movie didn't send the world into panic at all.
and you maybe think because that movie was a big hit in your country it must have been al over the world. actually no.
And i don't take my knowledge from him, i take it from science. and they do not look just at the last 120 years, scinece looks at the whole Holocene and beyond.
@aanthaner the "distortions" are the FACT that Co2 warms the sea then the atmosphere, the cycle takes about 200 years, go to a second hand book shop and find a pre 90's geology book, a modern one will be tainted.
Al Gore's graph shows an instant rise when the man model is overlayed but the earth just doesn't work that way.
I am trying to get some satilite pics of the arctic at the moment.
This is all about tax, not the planet, Al Gore will make billions when carbon trading is a reality, google
@funnyasfuc you've hit the nail on the head evrything in AGW theory contradicts what children and teenagers were taught throughout the world in schools growing up until the late 90's that the planet can and will react and adjust to all problems it faces, I have said before we are caretakers whilst we are here but it doesn't mean the habitat will always support human life either. because nature has it's own agenda, We can't control everything. But sadly some think they can!
@DRWELSH1971 the planet will have no problem at all. he can take it, humans and our curenty way of live will be impacted, the planet does not care one bit.
Aanthanur, Finally a comment I can agree on, It is our current lifestyles that have effect on nature not just Co2 of which is a natural byproduct, but ALL toxic byproducts and pollution produced by man including fossil fuels deforestation and the extinction of many species in a very short time. Ships running aground and pooring large quantities of fuel and oil to the oceans along with raw sewage being pumped and dumped world wide. It's much bigger than just Co2
@DRWELSH1971 in contrast , CO² is the biggest problem we have currently. mainly because it acts global. while most polutions are more localized, and other problems have been tackled decades ago, like aerosols.
@Aanthanur What People need to realise is Co2 is a natural by product of life regardless of how many cars are on the road because whilst humans keep breeding the way they do, increases are inevitable. Co2 is essential to life on the planet and I don't mean humans, I mean animals that don't wreck everything they come in contact with we can't undo technological advance to curb co2 output, but we can change the way we treat the planet and start showing respect to nature.
So the temperature immediatly rises when a human factor is entered into the model.
Interesting science????????????????? I guess it is the recongnised mechanic now, a convienent distortion one might say.
The evil control freaks who are pushing this rubbish are murdering liars who will exterminate whole nations and eliminate freedom.
The genius of it, is that they are using peoples good intentions as a vehicle to push the distored facts. I dont at all feel ill will to people who are helping this
Flowerpoweryou, 4 days ago. Anyway if we agree on something like ~0.6W/m2 less uv, and ~0.6W/m2 more visible and infrared that's something. Plug 5year 'corrections' into an iterative decadal model and it does affect the outcome. In 10years there is 94,600,000J less gone into ever m2 column of the ozone layer and 94,600,000J more gone into every m2 column of the stratosphere and surface. It sets new equilibrium points. The fact that it occurs during the 'cooling' phase of TSI, means no cooling
"Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless."
.
"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken
I've read at least three university abstracts that have used SIM corrections and found that it produces similar stratospheric temps and similar ozone chemistry to those measured ACTUALLY by other satellites, where the 'solar constant' method requires 'alternative mechanisms' to compensate. SIM is the 'solar accountant!'
@g1geo1g The issue remains that 600mW/m2 or 0.6W/m2 additional signal in one regime balanced by a similar drop elsewhere will have little effect if nay on climate.
Usually when there is a valid scientific argument counter to the scientific consensus it is presented in a scientific journal or institution, followed by an independent assessment of the data (PEER REVIEWED). If these findings are repeatable, the science is altered to express these new findings.
Climate Change science is settled until other studies provide evidence to the contrary.
Nor is the blatant jigging of the 'peer review' system where the 'team' regularly pressured reviewers to get their opinions over, throwing dissenting authors papers out for no other reason that they did not support the 'cause' !!!
Those emails show what went on behind the scenes in a supposedly anonymous review procedure and if you think that is OK and the indication of settled science then more shame on you.
@Aanthanur anybody who disagrees with the consensus is shot down in flames, ignored, belittled ,degraded, humiliated and labelled as a skeptic or a climate change denier or even worse being likened to holocaust deniers. Maybe you need to all broaden your minds and realize many variables affect our planet and not just one thing that concensus tells us.Check out google earth time line for mc murdo and the snow has melted a bit but sheet ice has now formed over water. I win ;P
@DRWELSH1971 when those that disagree with the concencus would provide evidence that would support them, there would be no problem, but as with evolution deniers, the AGW deniers have no alternative hypothesis that would support their rejection of a well established scinetific theory.
@Aanthanur the problem is many real scientists did and still do disagree with consensus on AGW and they have written hundreds of reports but they are being ignored and that is not how the process should work in peer reveiwed literature not just thrown out or ignored, As a member of the public we rely on these reports being accurate and unbiased and when money changes hand a theory then becomes an Industry and that is what has happened. AGW is still a theory like any other regardless
@DRWELSH1971 there is a concencus of far above 90% in climatology. just because some people outside the field think the climatologists got it all wrong while not even being able to provide evidence for the claim, why should they expect to have their stuff pass peer review? peer review is there so not every crackpot is able to just make up stuff and claim whatever he like wittout evidence.
and btw, look up the definition of a scinetific theory, Nothing is above a theory in science.
@Aanthanur scinetific theory hahaha sorry obviously a typo many people commenting on hear have posted climate scientists letter and links who don't agree, My comment about the ice sheet spreading out is in regard to my own unproffesional, unbiased, unpaid personal veiw that if the poles melt the fresh water will form ice sheets above the more dense salt water as it will freeze quicker than salt water at temps below 0 celsius spreading out from the Antarctica. I know what a theory is.
to add to that you are saying 90% of scientists are certain AGW is caused by co2alone , frankly I don't believe that, because part of that 90% you talk about are not scientists at all ,they are politicians with there finger in the pie and making alot of strategic investments around the whole issue and at the end of this in years to come people will know they have been lied to and robbed at the same time by people who represent "the greater good" supposedly to save the planet.
@DRWELSH1971 no actually the figure is 97% persent, and that comes from a study looking at published papers and their conclusions. not one single politican or whatever, only published papers.
@Aanthanur your qouting figure that have been ACCEPTED on the AGW band wagon, NASA put out a report from there Satelite data saying more Co2 is escaping into space than first thought and the Climate models of the IPCC are alarmist, don,t bother flagging this as spam it's fact and I will keep repeating this fact until it gets through and I am sure NASA are better funded than you.
@DRWELSH1971 yes Nasa did publish that, and i have no problem believing them, but it does in no way refute the AGW theory. amazing how deniers have no problem accepting NASA when they say something that fits the deniers bias, but refuse to accept them saying that AGW is in fact happening now.
@Aanthanur Nasa addmitted they were wrong why cant you, You have to look at it from My point of veiw as a member of the world community Nasa has a great reputation for being leaders in science space and technological advance for the last 60 years maybe more,true. they are well respected in the public eye, I don't know who DR phd from Sweden is or anything about what he does in the field or whether he sits on his butt in a lab or doing equations, so I look to Ones I know for facts.
@DRWELSH1971 NASA is honest , so am i, you are the one that is not. and look NASA knows AGW to be true and is delivering evidence en masse, like others scinetific institutions around the world. that climate models are not perfect is very well known and actually the models come with error bars, so they are very honest about their uncertainties.
@Aanthanur sorry dude I'm not the dishonest one here voting for yourself is sad. I just like to read everybodies point of view hypothesis and theories or evidence if they can present it in an un insulting way, I have not attacked your education or self and have clearly pointed out AGW theory is not the whole picture and more needs to be done to find out what other catilysts could or might change the climate, Because I can tell you I'm not losing any sleep over a 0.5 degree temp swing
@DRWELSH1971 well i didn't vote for myself. i didnt even notice someone voted on my coments.
could might maybe etc. yes might be we find something but atm the AGW theory is able to explain every observed phenomena. that is actually why it is a theory. bye bye
@Aanthanur Nasa knows AGW to be true ? No it's a theory and that is why they do daily updates and are still investigating it, Truth is Factual ,Theories are formed from Hypotheticals when data and evidence may support said theory. But it is me who should have paid attention in school ;p
@Aanthanur go vote for yourself ! I am aware a theory is always a theory but it still needs some factual base to support it. I have stated on these posts I don't have a degree or a PHD and don't proffess to be an expert of any kind I am just simply trying to learn more and share views ,You keep trying to shoot me down, because I don't hold your view, what you don't know is I don't Care what others think, I have nothing to prove, I have everything i could ever want or need :P
@Aanthanur I'm glad we agree on that and also as I have said if any other evidence can be presented that might contradict the initial findings then it is only good science to re evaluate the conclusion and look at any other variables that might have been over looked, true? well there are other variables not localized, ,The sun, Volcanism, atmospheric pressures cosmic events, magnetism and pole shift the impacts of all must be checked before we draw the line in the sand on co2
@DRWELSH1971 every single thing you mentioned is known and has been looked at by scinetist. From Sun output to cosmic radiation, from pole shifts to aerosol nucleation over to cow farts. freaking everything. and it turns out, its the CO², nothing else can explain the observed phenomena. but you know what? they are still looking, CERN will continue looking into aerosol nucleation, SOHO will keep looking at the sun output etc etc.
@Aanthanur well then at least they are doing there job, these things are still contributing factors , not just one or the other but all of them together, If only one thing is tested at a time the results will be inconclusive test them all together and you would get a more definitive result. eg: you could not replicate every environmental factor in a scale model in a lab true, there are far too many things goin on. but the planet and nature work in synergy, except for humans.
@DRWELSH1971 Do you really think scinetist don't know what they have to do to get proper results? most things are looked at simultaniusly and recorded. Satelites dont take vacation usualy, SOHO is looking at and recording the sun, other Satelites are continuisly looking at atmosperic temperatures at different altitudes. Waether stations around the globe are non stop recording data.
@Aanthanur No i do understand that they are collecting data from all of these things but am pointing out the whole package is far too complex to duplicate all variables together in a lab and yes the ice core and soil samples are a great indicator from what i have seen on documentaries but obviously the planet is reacting in different ways depending on where we live, for you warmer, for us cooler. The science behind it is great to see but the politial spin isn't.
@DRWELSH1971 and in the same time we are still geting more ice cores, to increase our knowledge in historical climate changes and learn more about our climate. this is done non stop every single work day around the world.
@DRWELSH1971 you find one thing that has been found out and refined our understanding of AGW , but you take it as if it would falsify the theory, well it doesn't and also NASA supports that, take a look at their homepage.
@DRWELSH1971 oh after reading your post again, no that is not what Nasa said, Nasa said that more heat is reradiated into space than expected, not that we lose more CO² into space.
NASA satellite data from years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed
@DRWELSH1971 yeha i have red the article from Remote Sensing, and what you call far more, is actually sligthly more. and several Climate models were already within that range anyway, And NASA still supports the theory of AGW, and delivers new evidence supporting it on a daily basis.
@AanthanurNo, not slightly more you must have read the IPCC version,this quote was copied word for word with no altering from the original press release in 2011. go back through my posts about a month ago you will find it there too! anyway I am pretty much done with discussing anything with you , So i shall sit back a read from now on, It takes a bigger idiot to keep the argument going than the one who stared it.
@DRWELSH1971 what the heck are you brabelling, it was never mentioned in any IPCC report.
and would you have read the publication from one of the peers that was also published in Remote Sensing you would know why. ww w mdpi com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
@Aanthanur I think the word you are looking for is babbleing, I read the report on the Nasa site when it was first released. I was kidding about the IPCC editing it, we call that sarcasm. sorry I just don't trust the UN or any government trying to make money from this theory without a "real commitment" to developing and utilising better technologies, Instead they are just looking for another trading mechanism using and invisible odourless natural byproduct of life.
@DRWELSH1971 well i can agree of not trusting politicsters. and im no fan of crap and trade. and also that even if there is some commitment like in my country, it is not real commitment in my book. i expect more, especially now that my fellow idiot countrymen are all craping their pants because of fukushima and want to fase out Nuclear energy. But our Co² percapita is actually not that worse. and we are working pretty well on efficiency. every country should do so.
If you understand the mechanism then please let us know. It's spectral absorption band in the infrared is on the net as is that of water. I'll add that the outgoing black body spectrum peaks at 10um (Wien displacement).I'd prefer it in your own words so that I'm sure you understand it. Thankyou.
g1geo1g 3 hours ago
The public statements say that the world is in crisis, yet it's 'business as usual'. There's no enforcement. Western culture is still run on fossil fuels and most of our manufacturing in the UK is now in China. We're still importing coal here running at a diabolical -20% efficiency in power stations. Now there going to build turbines here on that power. If it doesn't make sense, how are we supposed to understand?
g1geo1g 4 hours ago
As far as CO2 goes, for the thinking man, it's not sufficient to say it's a greenhouse gas when it's spectrum in the infrared only nibbles at the edge of water vapours absorbance plateau. O2 and O3 both absorb near 10um which is near the outgoing infrared peak. Describe the mechanism that makes CO2 significant.
g1geo1g 4 hours ago
@g1geo1g co2 is driving the warming of the atmosphere, that is a well known fact
Nightversionn 3 hours ago
Biology metabolises carbon dioxide to support life on earth
JonThm 8 hours ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Colorado researchers to consider Arctic ice tipping point
.
A research effort led by the University of Colorado Boulder, will consider whether areas like the Beaufort Sea and the adjacent Canada Basin have passed a ‘tipping point’ and now are essentially sub-Arctic zones where ice disappears each summer.
.
Summit County Citizens Voice, Colorado
26 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 day ago
Factor in the deliberately induced climate change caused by the Chemtrails and HAARP project that's been going on since that time... mmm wouldn't surprises me.
XXTheRealMcCoyXX 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the DENIER with all the SOCK PUPPET ACCOUNTS censors it)..
.
Flooding is biggest climate risk to UK, report says
.
Flooding will be Britain's biggest climate risk this century, with damage set to cost as much as 12 billion pounds a year by the 2080s if nothing is done to adapt to extreme weather, a report said on Thursday.
.
Reuters
26 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 day ago
"Scientists and environmental policy decision makers across the world want to know what is happening to all the carbon in the carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere through fossil fuel and biomass burning, such as forest fires or firewood used as fuel. If carbon dioxide is “food” for plants, maybe more of it in the atmosphere caused plants to grow better."
PrairleDogged 1 day ago
@PrairLeDogged So says the Exxon hired troll
Co2 is wonderful!
Smoking doesn't in any way cause cancer!
We luuuuv our profits and will say and do anything for money
Nightversionn 1 day ago
@Nightversion'n'
No so says NASA ~ are you stupid?
PrairleDogged 1 day ago
Biology is driven by green plants metabolising all the available carbon dioxide from the air. Man has increased life on earth but obviously is carbon emissions had no effect on the climate. As Sir David knows!
JonThm 1 day ago
Average free carbon dioxide in the global air is at two parts per 1,000,000. Local values in cities are too minuscule to affect the weather. Incidentally, there to see warming effect of whether cause by local heat production is all we have ever got! And carbon dioxide has no effect on the weather.
JonThm 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have a look at channel "What is Climate Change?" an see how Nightversionn comments are being spammed off the page.
unspammlng1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment:
"This toxic poisonous desert that remains is destroying the lives of Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem. Britain’s government should be ashamed of the catastrophe taking place in China in the name of green power here in the UK."
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Weaker sun will not delay global warming
.
A weaker sun over the next 90 years is not likely to significantly delay a rise in global temperature caused by greenhouse gases, a report said Monday.
.
Reuters
24 January 2012
Dayversionn 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrPurplefood There seems to be a funding link between the GM and Hancock Coal: Whilst Smitt and Smeed claim to be financing the GM themselves. A month before first making this claim Smit told the Noosa News that Gina Rinehart, the Chairman of Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL) and its coal subsidiary Hancock Coal, had agreed to fund part of the costs of a tour to Australia of climate sceptic Christopher Monckton.
Surprise, surprise!
RasPesher
wipemyrrs 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LordMonckton78.is a SPAMMER.
unspammlng1 3 days ago
Biology is fusion driven
JonThm 4 days ago
@JonThm
And here was I thinking it had something to do with a man dressed up as Batman, jumping off a wardrobe, and shouting "Here I come."
TheElasticJesusRez 4 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez green plants metabolise all available carbon dioxide from the air down to 2ppm: so no rise in free carbon dioxide due to man. ever
JonThm 3 days ago
@JonThm
Explain FREE CO2.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MrPurplefood also known as,PrairleDogged,MockNobes,checkyoursources,Itsthesunstupid,MikkkkyB,ClimateScam,LordMonckton78.
Shame on you.
unspammlng1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MrPurplefood also known as,PrairleDogged,MockNobes,checkyoursources,Itsthesunstupid,MikkkkyB,ClimateScam,LordMonckton78.
Shame on you.
unspammlng1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unspammlng1 The only person spamming around here is you. My channel is in no way associated with those that you mentioned. So please don't go around making false accusations without any evidence.
ItsTheSunStupid 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItsTheSunStupid Have you seen the latest footage of the Coronal Mass Ejection that took place on the 22nd January? Nasa said the biggest since 2005 the footage is Incredible on time lapse you can actually see the burst of energy released. Makes our planet look rather small and insignificant, at least we know the magnetosphere holds up alright. :)
DRWELSH1971 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DRWELSH1971 Yes I have. The resulting Aurora Borealis gave quite a display in places that don't see them very often here in the UK, although not where I am, unfortunately. The Sun is a powerful beast! Yes, thank goodness for the magnetosphere!
ItsTheSunStupid 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItsTheSunStupid Im not spamming any one i am only reposting the comments that are being spammed from the DENIER sock puppet with multiple accounts who is a bad loser.
You say you have nothing to do with this spamming but your channel and the other channels that i have subscribed to on my page are always active on the channels that are being spammed.
So you tell me am i mistaken.
unspammlng1 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItsTheSunStupid One would only have to "What is Climate Change?" page to see who is doing the spamming Sunshine an its not me.YOU ARE.
unspammlng1 2 days ago
Comment removed
unspammlng1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a denier censoring comments on this video with tons of denier sock puppet accounts, to see the comments he's censoring, hit "see all" and you can read them.
He is showing the public exactly what the losing "side" behaves like
Nightversionn
unspammlng1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please type into Google "Digging into the core: The cold truth about CO2" to see my article on global warming and why the IPCC have grossly exaggerated the predicted warming from CO2.
CHIPSTERO7 5 days ago
Word@Nightversionn
taKenzZzZz 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 6 days ago
The most patronising of comments: the layman telling those who understand the science that there are many more variables involved.
Listen, all those who get their science from Anthony Watts, Monckton, the Daily Mail, the 'American Association of We Hate Paying Tax Cos Rather Than Blaming Dodgy Economists For Initiating A System Where My Wage Is Shit I'd Rather Blame Al Gore,'
...just accept that Geoscientists are Geoscientists b/c they're not on Youtube pretending to be Geoscientists.
TheElasticJesusRez 6 days ago
TheElasticJesusRez If that comment was directed at me then you didn't read my post correctly. I am not patronizing anybody, nor is anyone else, I am concerned as many are that the world is going into a climate change frenzy over 1 degree celsius. Whilst some of the evidence supports warming in some parts of the world it also supports cooling in others Please stop trying to provoke arguments, Discussions get better results with people like myself becoming more informed. Thanks
DRWELSH1971 6 days ago
My actual statement meant that you can't produce every single variable in nature in a lab for a scale test because there are too many factors in nature we know they are testing all these things every day but it's the complete package that effects the planet not just one or the other? Intimidating people and criticising doesn't produce an outcome it spreads hatred and discourse, Frankly speaking the world has enough of those types already. Best wishes to you, have a nice day :)
DRWELSH1971 6 days ago
@DRWELSH1971
And what do you suppose the geoscientists are doing, day in, day out? We have people like Lonnie Thompson working out in the field on glaciers; Richard Alley out in the field in Greenland - ice-cores. Scientists of all nationalities at stations all over the planet.
Implying their work is NOT credible, that PhDs are so stupid to overlook things that we - the everyday Joes can pick up on, is arrogant to say the least.
TheElasticJesusRez 5 days ago
TheElasticJesusRez I have never said there work is not credible and personally love to read there reports and have alot of respect for the people doing research all around the world and to my understanding many of them put themselves in harmsway to atain the data they get. climbing glaciers or going to antarctica and studying volcanic activity impresses the hell out of me I just think politicians have NO place or NO right to manipulate the data and keep lying to us. cont'
DRWELSH1971 5 days ago
the results of individual studies are of significant importance to us, But what would be more fair to the credability of all the hard working scientists is have an International Televised disscusion on the climate with NO POLITICIANS,NO SHAREHOLDERS ALLOWED to put the normal political spin bullshit into the equation, Never said I KNOW MORE just saying it would be near impossible to recreate every variable in nature in synergy within the confines of a lab, can you understand that?
DRWELSH1971 5 days ago
@DRWELSH1971
As for 'frenzy over one degree.'
This speaks volumes about your cynicism, your contempt for a figure that at first glance seems ridiculously benign when in fact it is halfway to the tipping point.
10 degrees is annihalation; stagnant ocean and hydrogen sulfide (Paul Wignall - Permian Extinction Event).
5 degrees is mass exodus to the poles because all temperate regions are desert. 5 degrees is war over resources.
1 degree - halfway to the Pos FeedBack Loop.
TheElasticJesusRez 5 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Sorry for sounding so cynical but the "Gulf of Tonkin lie told to invade Vietnam,An Impending Ice age ,Nuclear threats during the cold war the WMD threats that didn't exist Y2K,The GFC" caused by corrupt abuse of legislation the list of political lies continues to lose credibilty for the adverage joe, it just strikes me to be another Spin played out by the power brokers of the world,You're obviously passionate about trust you put in Governments,I'm not.
DRWELSH1971 5 days ago
@DRWELSH1971
That's where you're wrong. I DO NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT, or should I say 'certain' politicians.
However, Global Warming is a product of science, end of. It has nothing to do with Al Gore, James Inhofe, or any other politician seeking to gain an advantage for Cap n' Trade or the Oil lobbyists.
As for a live televised debate. Bring it on. Hosted by David Frost. I would love to hear the Christy and Muller U Turns from their own mouths.
TheElasticJesusRez 5 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez i know who all gore is but not the other person you mentioned I'm in Australia so I would be presuming this person is American, Our gov has unfortunatley introduced the start of a cap and trade system but still allows the sale of coal to high polluting countries and have no intention of stopping while money can be made, I don't think we even need a big debate, an open ended scientific discussion with just scientists and there findings would be good. :)
DRWELSH1971 5 days ago
@DRWELSH1971 Australia huh. Well, as I mentioned on another video you may not "believe" in human-induced climate change, but rest assured it "believes" in you
Nightversionn 5 days ago
@Nightversionn
Wonderful turn of phrase.
TheElasticJesusRez 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheElasticJesusRez
Ahhh is a wedding imminent ?
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@Nightversionn we have made an impact on the climate that isn't a dispute for me personally I agree that the higher the population gets, the more pollution we create as we have become a consumer planet. In the past any man women a child of most civilizatioms only had what they needed to survive now we are told if you don't kepp up with technology we'll be left behind, so we fill our homes with power consuming throw away technology that is obsolete with a few years to buy more con,
DRWELSH1971 5 days ago
I still use the same phone from 5 years ago whilst some people WANT the latest apps and update Cell/mobile phone constantly with no need. Look at Germanys fiasco storing spent uranium in a Salt mine 130,000+ barrels of radioactive waste since the 1960's, they didn't store it correctly,it now has to be relocated at huge cost and risk, Fukushima could take 30years to decomission. We are a toxic society no doubt this has impact,Climate change of course, Global warming? I'm Undecided.
DRWELSH1971 5 days ago
@DRWELSH1971 You make some good points, but at the same time devides and cars and the like are becoming more energy efficient. For example a new refrigerator will be better than an older one. And also, yes, the planet is warming. Here is the latest
Nightversionn 4 days ago
2011 was ninth-warmest year since 1880: NASA
.
The global average temperature last year was the ninth-warmest in the modern meteorological record, continuing a trend linked to greenhouse gases that saw nine of the 10 hottest years occurring since the year 2000, NASA scientists said on Thursday.
Nightversionn 4 days ago
Nightversionn, I think down the track Hydrogen powered vehicles have to be the way to because even the electric car has a flaw you need to get the thing charged up off the main power grid, which means more power consumption by the consumers from power stations. A young man in sydney went around collecting solidified cooking oil from takeaway stores and made his own eco diesel at a cost of 19 cents per litre and no emmisions, we pay $1.50 adverage per Litrethanks for the link
DRWELSH1971 4 days ago
@DRWELSH1971 Fascinating, I love hearing stories like that. I read a long time ago, long time ago the actress Dianne Lane had a car she converted to vegetable oil or something like that. She drove around Southern California to get the oil that is readily available from places, maybe restaurants. There was a man down there who wanted to start a factory collecting the oil and selling it.
We can all change things from the ground up certainly.
Nightversionn 3 days ago
@DRWELSH1971 I have an old car that I love I was going to convert in such a way, someone told me it wasn't practical, unless you're someone like Diane Lane I guess, with more time. I was told to go electric as in cars. In Hawaii right now they have charging stations up and running and it's quite viable there, yes you are using power, but less. It's better overall.
Nightversionn 3 days ago
@Nightversionn good to see someone like Dianne lane (actress in, The outsiders)doing her bit, We have coal here and hydro from snowy river but more needs to be done to eventually steer away from coal fired, but we don't want nuclear station either.So the push for green energy production needs to compliment the environment. Wave turbines are being designed to run off the tides coming in / out,We had plans for a Solar city a few years back someone scrapped the idea,No one knows why?
DRWELSH1971 3 days ago
@DRWELSH1971 but I love your solutions from South American and Thailand, the bulb in the roof. That is so cool, skylights. Gradually we are getting back to living the way we did pre-Industrial Revolution fossil fuels. We can still have energy with green power, yes, for our gadgets, but we can also get back to natural light and living closer to the earth as our ancestors did.
Nightversionn 3 days ago
@DRWELSH1971 But yes of course, we live in a wasteful society. I grew up in the US and I understand we waste more than anyone, so I'm personally trying to work on that and move towards green power/technology as much as I can
Nightversionn 4 days ago
@Nightversionn In South America parts of Africa and Thailand have started using a recycled 2 litre plastic soft drink bottle filled with water and two caps of bleach or chlorine, they fitted and siliconed the bottle through the tin roof of there hut cost $2.00 free 50 watt light bulb for day time use and give a more natural light to the room, have even thought of doing the same for my garden shed, why use power when nature provides?
DRWELSH1971 4 days ago
@DRWELSH1971
James Inhofe is Republican Senator of Oklahoma. He is an outspoken critic of global warming and has used the word 'Hoax' on several occasions.
"I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the Book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk."
If you believe in a heaven then why worry about the damage you do to Earth?
TEJ.
TheElasticJesusRez 5 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Yeh I'm not religious so the Impact to the earth means alot to me and my children, I would like to hope the animals we see today(that are left) will still be around for future generations to appreciate and when I die my body can fertilize another tree. If Adam was created in Gods image then God must have had a physical form at the time and eve created from Adams rib? :s sounds sort of like cloning doesn't it? Have you read any parts on monoatomic gold? lol
DRWELSH1971 4 days ago
@DRWELSH1971
I must admit the 'Out of Africa' scenario has a bit more credibility. I've been watching some good stuff lately about Dark energy, the Heat Death of the Universe, and how there might be parallel universes as well as Multiverses. It's all intriguing stuff with some pretty deep questions.
Not least, if all matter is destined to lose its energy, then how the hell did it gets its energy in the first place? Some scientists are now tending away from the Big Bang.
Mind blowing.
TheElasticJesusRez 4 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez The people at CERN seem to be doing a great deal to understand things a bit more, I remember the media reports from the lead up to the Hadron collider being used for the first time and the panick caused "OH NO,they're gonna cause a black hole on earth and the planet will get sucked in or blow up" Ratings, drama and panic,The sad thing is some people are gullable and believe everything the media reports.The big bang or let there be light? same thing, maybe?
DRWELSH1971 3 days ago
Life in deep oceans does nuclear fusion from water. The most important Energy System in nature
JonThm 6 days ago
Since a few years now, the "models" have proven to be irrelevant. There are now more and more proofs that the sun and the oceans have crucial effects on climate changes and they are natural. When you take a look at the curve during the 2 centuries before 1850 and you look at all the figure, you see very easily that the warming started at the end of 18th century and that the biggest part of the warming (after 400 years of cooling) have occured between 1800 and 1940.
heimdal6666 6 days ago
The extreme growth in human population – now counted by an additional billion people every 12 to 13 years ; is mortally taxing the Earth and its resources. Each person has an impact on the planet’s environment. Some people may be less damaging than others, but no individual is without an ecological footprint.each person needs basic resources. As these needs and aspirations are multiplied by a factor of 6.8 billion, the stability of the planet’s ecosphere has been and continue to be compromised.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
This is a short version of an excerpt from world population media centre ,I had to shorten it a little to fit. but If we take on board the rate the population is growing and the demand this will place into the future we really need to all start working on getting back to basics as far as "needs as opposed to wants" If we as a species have problems on the planet with 7 billion ,What will it be like with 14 - 20 billion? there just aren't the resources available, even now people starve, it's sad.
DRWELSH1971 6 days ago
Comment removed
UtubeSpamdetector 1 week ago
Tell the fools that marine algae probably have more influence on the climate than humans do.
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444
Tell the fools that marine algae and rainforest have decreased by 30% -at least -over the past 50 years.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 week ago
@TheElasticJesusRez No doubt it is all our fault for being alive on the planet. Go give yourself fifty lashes, you will feel better.
david222444 1 week ago
Remember the polar bear bear birth? Would you buy a second hand car from this man? It would have to be electric and I would check the battery if I were you.
david222444 1 week ago
Have you ever heard of a sucking pdo? have you ever heard of sucking AMSU-A temperature? have you ever heard of sea surface temperature anomalies. If you bother to look you will find that the oceans are cooling and every level of the atmopshere is cooling . We all know that NASA follows Hansen's green agenda. You need to distinguish the truth from lies and propaganda like the above video.
david222444 1 week ago
the problem with this world is not that its getting too warm thats an illusion to distract you from the truth.the problem is you and me all of us the only way that the world will revert or get back in good shape is if millions of us die. consumerism is the reason the environment is being destroyed trust me before my car exhaust turns the sky black we will of used up all the food anyway.to change we must educate not tax people incomes don't believe the media make up your own mind first.
elmontygrande 1 week ago
@elmontygrande Educate with your propaganda you mean. The graph above shows co2 being produced from the oceans as the Sun warms the Planet. Our Sun is now entering a grand solar minimum so expect climatic conditions to resemble the Dalton minimum. More coal, oil and gas burning will benefit all life on the Planet and put life back into the economy.
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444 even if the Sun enters a new grand minimum , wich is not yet sure, and if we asume the sun would stay at that minimum, our current CO² output would only need 7 years to outdo that. and we would again be where we are today. we can only hope the sun will enter a new minimum. it would give us more time to reduce our CO² footprint.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur Do you have any idea where we are today? Today the Planet is cooling abruptly. Co2 is nothing more than an atmospheric trace gas and its increase is a mere product of past warming caused by the Sun.
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444 can you show me the data that shows this alleged abrupt cooling pls?
CO² is a greenhouse gas, and yes it is also a byproduct of warming. but in this case it has triggered the initial warming and this warming will lead to even more CO² wich leads to even more warming.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur It is not alleged this is real and happening. The greenhouse effect is alleged. now go search satellite data it is easy to find.
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444 i looked yesterday at NASA data, and they showed no suck cooling, yesterday already made that clame and was not able to back it up with anything.
name me the source, is it surface temps, is it atmospheric temps and on wich altitude?
i know the data, and what you claim is nonsense.
data.giss nasa gov/gistemp/
what is your source.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@david222444
"Today the Planet is cooling abruptly."
State your sources.
As for your implication that CO2 is insignificant.
At 365 ppm of CO2 in the air, a cubic meter (or 40 moles of air) contains 0.015 moles of CO2.
1 mole = 6.022 x 10^23.
6 x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 0.015 =
900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 CO2 molecules per cubic meter @ 365 ppm.
However, the figure is now 10 short of 400 ppm.
Now ask yourself how many cubic metres of air in atmosphere.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 week ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Your zeros bore me to tears. At 150 ppm co2 in atmosphere plant life shuts down therefore ! would recommend doubling the atmospheric co2 . Now ask yourself are you an eco dunce? lets try percentages, what about co2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere? I am tired of sharing my sources with brainwashed freaks who do not want them anyway.
go look at the satellite data if is free and easily found, even for eco loons.
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444
And your stupid politically non-advanced right-wing motivations bore me to tears.
That .04% is VERY relevant since its what that .04% can do to the other percentages.
There are many molecular compounds that can cause mayhem in the smallest of measures and CO2 happens to be one of them.
As for sources I hate to tell you Anthony Watts, Nigel Lawson and Monckton are not climatologists, even with your rose tinted UKIP specs on.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 week ago
@TheElasticJesusRez wow 99.96% + 0.04% =100% . Co2 can cause mayhem is crazy propaganda to scare the public when co2 is in fact a harmless natural gas essential to life on the Planet. I bet the above are glad they are not climatologists as these so called scientists have a lot to answer for. As for Al Bore (climatologist?), Hansen, and( hockey stick} Mann, these are a source of amusement. I look for scientific proof if that means going right wing then so be it if the truth lies there.
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444
"crazy propaganda to scare the public when co2 is in fact a harmless natural gas essential to life on the Planet."
Yes, in small doses, like the 250 ppm it had been for the 650,000+ years before the industrial revolution.
As for implying there is wrongdoing then take the scientists to court.
I'm serious. IF YOU THINK THERE IS CORRUPTION AFOOT THEN TAKE THE SCIENTISTS TO COURT.
I can't wait. Exxon-funded Monckton and way Davy v NASA/NOAA etc.
Bring it on.
Fool.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 week ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Well as for court this is happening, I think Gore crap has already been thrown out of uk schools..Since when did you come to the conclusion that 250 ppm was perfect? What is the optimum global temperature for life on the the Planet? and what is the Optimum co2 concentration in the atmosphere for life on the planet?
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444
"...the conclusion that 250 ppm was perfect?"
I didn't. The many bilions of human beings who have ever lived and whose evolutionary progress happened to coincide with a 650,000 - 1 million year average of 250/300 ppm did.
And before you mention Toba or any other freak event let me remind you that temps and CO2 levels have always settled back to 250/300 ppm.
But not anymore. Not if you lot get your way. No wonder people are getting thicker. It's in the air.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 week ago
@elmontygrande no its not an ilusion at all. but too warm is also not the direct problem, it is what this warmth is doing to Glaciers and the ice on the poles, what it does to sea levels, what it does to weather patterns etc etc. and this means alot of people have to move away from where they are now. That we will lose alot of lang we use to make food.
we jave no food shortafe on this planet atm. we produce far enough food and could even increase it.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elmontygrande no its not an ilusion at all. but too warm is also not the direct problem, it is what this warmth is doing to Glaciers and the ice on the poles, what it does to sea levels, what it does to weather patterns etc etc. and this means alot of people have to move away from where they are now. That we will lose alot of lang we use to make food.
we jave no food shortafe on this planet atm. we produce far enough food and could even increase it.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck.'"
-- Robert Heinlein
PrairleDogged 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The high solar flux has been instrumental in the evolution of Venus's atmosphere. High thermal energies through equipartition providing a mechanism to drive lighter molecules into space, leaving heavier molecules behind. Thus the mass of the atmosphere increases with time and the pressure rises. This reduces the absorption distance of all radiative absorption process irrespective of nature.
g1geo1g 1 week ago
The high solar flux has been instrumental in the evolution of Venus's atmosphere. High thermal energies through equipartition providing a mechanism to drive lighter molecules into space, leaving heavier molecules behind. Thus the mass of the atmosphere increases with time and the pressure rises. This reduces the absorption distance of all radiative absorption process irrespective of nature.
g1geo1g 1 week ago
Mmm. I accept that at some point the atmosphere of Venus would have passed through an evolution, and during that stage it would have had 'many players' as well as CO2 contributing to fill in the gaps in CO2's IR absorption spectrum. As we do on Earth. With Venus it's the 4000Wm2 and enough gravity to contain hot gases that's always problematic. Swap it's orbit with that of Mars, at 400Wm2. I recon that would redress some of the imbalance
g1geo1g 1 week ago
I don't even believe Venus has a 'greenhouse' effect in the literal sense. In an horticultural greenhouse 5600K black body peak flux is accepted, absorbed, re-radiated at around 10um peak infrared. Absorbed by the glass which heats to this level and radiates back. Venus is covered in dense, white, high opacity cloud. What is the transmission band and width? The clouds are DEFINATELY rich in sulfor dioxide and water, or it wouldn't have sulfurous acids as rain. Surely the clouds dictate the clim
g1geo1g 1 week ago
@g1geo1g a quick question, Surely the sulfuric acid type cloud cover would have to be caused by the planet Venus being highly active with it's volcanoes and lava flows and in turn the planets temp stays at 800 f approx , regardless of the solar effects? :)
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
Even NASA, who we trust to look out for us and report justly and in an unbiased fashion are very selective about information. On their website, under climate change; causes, they show a picture of Mars, and a false colour picture of Venus (reddened). We are 'told' Mars is freezing and Venus is excessively hot. The greenhouse effect, CO2, and the lack of methane and water explain Mars. For Venus they just need the greenhouse effect and copious amounts of of CO2. They offer no other clues. Bit mi
g1geo1g 1 week ago
Even NASA, who we trust to look out for us and report justly and in an unbiased fashion are very selective about information. On their website, under climate change; causes, they show a picture of Mars, and a false colour picture of Venus (reddened). We are 'told' Mars is freezing and Venus is excessively hot. The greenhouse effect, CO2, and the lack of methane and water explain Mars. For Venus they just need the greenhouse effect and copious amounts of of CO2. They offer no other clues. Bit mi
g1geo1g 1 week ago
Aanthanur, and DRWELSH1971, enjoyed reading the ding dong. In an ideal world Aanthanur I would love to share your beliefs in those who we trust to decide our futures. Unfortunately, life has taught me that, like DRWELSH1971, there are too many things that just don't quite ring true, so I do my own sorting of what I believe to be true or false. If it doesn't make sense I don't like it. I don't follow blind acceptance, there nearly always is a hidden agenda.
g1geo1g 1 week ago
Aanthanur, and DRWELSH1971, enjoyed reading the ding dong. In an ideal world Aanthanur I would love to share your beliefs in those who we trust to decide our futures. Unfortunately, life has taught me that, like DRWELSH1971, there are too many things that just don't quite ring true, so I do my own sorting of what I believe to be true or false. If it doesn't make sense I don't like it. I don't follow blind acceptance, there nearly always is a hidden agenda.
g1geo1g 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Can I have some money to study squirrels in the New Forest?"
"No, get lost."
Five days later,
"Can I have some money to study the effects of climate change on squirrels in the New Forest?"
"Yeah, course you can buddy, how much do you want?"
g1geo1g 1 week ago
"Can I borrow some money to study squirrels in the New Forest?"
"No, get lost"
Five days later,
"can I borrow some money to study the effects of climate change on squirrels in the New Forest?"
"Yeah, course you can buddy, how much do you want?"
g1geo1g 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems (Orr 2005, Fabry 2008, Kroeker 2010)
Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle (Turley 2005)
Increased mortalities of sea urchins (Miles 2007)
Threat to fish populations (Munday 2010)
checkyoursources 1 week ago
The Definition of Scientific Theory; Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory. everything I have discussed matches this definition. Happy
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@Aanthanur
when i hear the quotes "critical and box-office success" and "The film also earned $49 million at the box office worldwide, becoming the sixth-highest-grossing documentary film to date in the United States" i tend to think that your wrong. oh right, well if they looked beyond then they would see the medieval warm and period in 1300 ad and the period 1100 bc were temps were drastically warmer. no amount of corruption can hide that evidence.
MrPurplefood 1 week ago
The current warming is nothing new. The Nordic Bronze Age was characterised by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC. The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming, for example grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time.
ItsTheSunStupid 1 week ago
@ItsTheSunStupid a climate change that took 800 years? how is that comparable to our very rapid warming we have today?
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur and the radical change around 650 BC which brought in a deteriorating, wetter and colder climate? For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present.
ItsTheSunStupid 1 week ago
@ItsTheSunStupid wich scinetific studies would you suggest me to read about that?
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur
precisly, he is a politician, not a scientist - but i'm sorry, wasn't he the one that made that movie that sent the world into a mass panic - oh yes that guy. actually didn't he make over 100 million dollars from it, yes that movie he made - ahh, it all makes sense now. but hey, lets not look at 4000 years of data, lets limit it to 150 - because that fits the models (and makes the money). Good day.
MrPurplefood 1 week ago
@MrPurplefood "didn't he make over 100 million dollars from it" No he didn't: "Tipper and I (Al Gore) are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming." Scientists hagve looked at millions of years of data and have concluded that "Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing".
checkyoursources 1 week ago
@MrPurplefood no the movie didn't send the world into panic at all.
and you maybe think because that movie was a big hit in your country it must have been al over the world. actually no.
And i don't take my knowledge from him, i take it from science. and they do not look just at the last 120 years, scinece looks at the whole Holocene and beyond.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aanthaner the "distortions" are the FACT that Co2 warms the sea then the atmosphere, the cycle takes about 200 years, go to a second hand book shop and find a pre 90's geology book, a modern one will be tainted.
Al Gore's graph shows an instant rise when the man model is overlayed but the earth just doesn't work that way.
I am trying to get some satilite pics of the arctic at the moment.
This is all about tax, not the planet, Al Gore will make billions when carbon trading is a reality, google
funnyasfuc 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funnyasfuc you've hit the nail on the head evrything in AGW theory contradicts what children and teenagers were taught throughout the world in schools growing up until the late 90's that the planet can and will react and adjust to all problems it faces, I have said before we are caretakers whilst we are here but it doesn't mean the habitat will always support human life either. because nature has it's own agenda, We can't control everything. But sadly some think they can!
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 the planet will have no problem at all. he can take it, humans and our curenty way of live will be impacted, the planet does not care one bit.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
Aanthanur, Finally a comment I can agree on, It is our current lifestyles that have effect on nature not just Co2 of which is a natural byproduct, but ALL toxic byproducts and pollution produced by man including fossil fuels deforestation and the extinction of many species in a very short time. Ships running aground and pooring large quantities of fuel and oil to the oceans along with raw sewage being pumped and dumped world wide. It's much bigger than just Co2
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 in contrast , CO² is the biggest problem we have currently. mainly because it acts global. while most polutions are more localized, and other problems have been tackled decades ago, like aerosols.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur What People need to realise is Co2 is a natural by product of life regardless of how many cars are on the road because whilst humans keep breeding the way they do, increases are inevitable. Co2 is essential to life on the planet and I don't mean humans, I mean animals that don't wreck everything they come in contact with we can't undo technological advance to curb co2 output, but we can change the way we treat the planet and start showing respect to nature.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@funnyasfuc Al Gore? he is a freaking politican nto a scientist. come back once you know what you are talking about
Aanthanur 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So the temperature immediatly rises when a human factor is entered into the model.
Interesting science????????????????? I guess it is the recongnised mechanic now, a convienent distortion one might say.
The evil control freaks who are pushing this rubbish are murdering liars who will exterminate whole nations and eliminate freedom.
The genius of it, is that they are using peoples good intentions as a vehicle to push the distored facts. I dont at all feel ill will to people who are helping this
funnyasfuc 1 week ago
@funnyasfuc what distrotet facts are brabbling about?
Aanthanur 1 week ago
Flowerpoweryou, 4 days ago. Anyway if we agree on something like ~0.6W/m2 less uv, and ~0.6W/m2 more visible and infrared that's something. Plug 5year 'corrections' into an iterative decadal model and it does affect the outcome. In 10years there is 94,600,000J less gone into ever m2 column of the ozone layer and 94,600,000J more gone into every m2 column of the stratosphere and surface. It sets new equilibrium points. The fact that it occurs during the 'cooling' phase of TSI, means no cooling
g1geo1g 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless."
.
"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken
PrairleDogged 1 week ago
I've read at least three university abstracts that have used SIM corrections and found that it produces similar stratospheric temps and similar ozone chemistry to those measured ACTUALLY by other satellites, where the 'solar constant' method requires 'alternative mechanisms' to compensate. SIM is the 'solar accountant!'
g1geo1g 1 week ago
@g1geo1g The issue remains that 600mW/m2 or 0.6W/m2 additional signal in one regime balanced by a similar drop elsewhere will have little effect if nay on climate.
flowerpoweryou 1 week ago
@itsthesunstupid
like.
MrPurplefood 1 week ago
@MrPurplefood thanks.
ItsTheSunStupid 1 week ago
The IPCC's favourite catchphrase "The science is settled". Throw any argument at them and see how many times they use it.
ItsTheSunStupid 1 week ago
@ItsTheSunStupid
Usually when there is a valid scientific argument counter to the scientific consensus it is presented in a scientific journal or institution, followed by an independent assessment of the data (PEER REVIEWED). If these findings are repeatable, the science is altered to express these new findings.
Climate Change science is settled until other studies provide evidence to the contrary.
SCIENCE IS NOT AN OPINION
watchingneil 1 week ago
@watchingneil
Nor is the blatant jigging of the 'peer review' system where the 'team' regularly pressured reviewers to get their opinions over, throwing dissenting authors papers out for no other reason that they did not support the 'cause' !!!
Those emails show what went on behind the scenes in a supposedly anonymous review procedure and if you think that is OK and the indication of settled science then more shame on you.
PrairleDogged 1 week ago
@PrairleDogged You are a idiot.
flowerpoweryou 1 week ago
@flowerpoweryou
Thank you brother ~ peace and love.
PrairleDogged 1 week ago
@flowerpoweryou I'm sure it's "Your an Idiot!" or to be more specific "You are an idiot!" just thought i'd mention it. Shallom :)
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@watchingneil As explained by PrairleDogged - The bottom line is that the peer review system is corrupt!
ItsTheSunStupid 1 week ago
@ItsTheSunStupid no its not. nor do climate scientists dominate the many many respected scinetific journals around the world.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aanthanur anybody who disagrees with the consensus is shot down in flames, ignored, belittled ,degraded, humiliated and labelled as a skeptic or a climate change denier or even worse being likened to holocaust deniers. Maybe you need to all broaden your minds and realize many variables affect our planet and not just one thing that concensus tells us.Check out google earth time line for mc murdo and the snow has melted a bit but sheet ice has now formed over water. I win ;P
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 when those that disagree with the concencus would provide evidence that would support them, there would be no problem, but as with evolution deniers, the AGW deniers have no alternative hypothesis that would support their rejection of a well established scinetific theory.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aanthanur the problem is many real scientists did and still do disagree with consensus on AGW and they have written hundreds of reports but they are being ignored and that is not how the process should work in peer reveiwed literature not just thrown out or ignored, As a member of the public we rely on these reports being accurate and unbiased and when money changes hand a theory then becomes an Industry and that is what has happened. AGW is still a theory like any other regardless
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DRWELSH1971 there is a concencus of far above 90% in climatology. just because some people outside the field think the climatologists got it all wrong while not even being able to provide evidence for the claim, why should they expect to have their stuff pass peer review? peer review is there so not every crackpot is able to just make up stuff and claim whatever he like wittout evidence.
and btw, look up the definition of a scinetific theory, Nothing is above a theory in science.
Aanthanur 1 week ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aanthanur scinetific theory hahaha sorry obviously a typo many people commenting on hear have posted climate scientists letter and links who don't agree, My comment about the ice sheet spreading out is in regard to my own unproffesional, unbiased, unpaid personal veiw that if the poles melt the fresh water will form ice sheets above the more dense salt water as it will freeze quicker than salt water at temps below 0 celsius spreading out from the Antarctica. I know what a theory is.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to add to that you are saying 90% of scientists are certain AGW is caused by co2alone , frankly I don't believe that, because part of that 90% you talk about are not scientists at all ,they are politicians with there finger in the pie and making alot of strategic investments around the whole issue and at the end of this in years to come people will know they have been lied to and robbed at the same time by people who represent "the greater good" supposedly to save the planet.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 no actually the figure is 97% persent, and that comes from a study looking at published papers and their conclusions. not one single politican or whatever, only published papers.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur your qouting figure that have been ACCEPTED on the AGW band wagon, NASA put out a report from there Satelite data saying more Co2 is escaping into space than first thought and the Climate models of the IPCC are alarmist, don,t bother flagging this as spam it's fact and I will keep repeating this fact until it gets through and I am sure NASA are better funded than you.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 yes Nasa did publish that, and i have no problem believing them, but it does in no way refute the AGW theory. amazing how deniers have no problem accepting NASA when they say something that fits the deniers bias, but refuse to accept them saying that AGW is in fact happening now.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur Nasa addmitted they were wrong why cant you, You have to look at it from My point of veiw as a member of the world community Nasa has a great reputation for being leaders in science space and technological advance for the last 60 years maybe more,true. they are well respected in the public eye, I don't know who DR phd from Sweden is or anything about what he does in the field or whether he sits on his butt in a lab or doing equations, so I look to Ones I know for facts.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 NASA is honest , so am i, you are the one that is not. and look NASA knows AGW to be true and is delivering evidence en masse, like others scinetific institutions around the world. that climate models are not perfect is very well known and actually the models come with error bars, so they are very honest about their uncertainties.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur sorry dude I'm not the dishonest one here voting for yourself is sad. I just like to read everybodies point of view hypothesis and theories or evidence if they can present it in an un insulting way, I have not attacked your education or self and have clearly pointed out AGW theory is not the whole picture and more needs to be done to find out what other catilysts could or might change the climate, Because I can tell you I'm not losing any sleep over a 0.5 degree temp swing
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 well i didn't vote for myself. i didnt even notice someone voted on my coments.
could might maybe etc. yes might be we find something but atm the AGW theory is able to explain every observed phenomena. that is actually why it is a theory. bye bye
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur Nasa knows AGW to be true ? No it's a theory and that is why they do daily updates and are still investigating it, Truth is Factual ,Theories are formed from Hypotheticals when data and evidence may support said theory. But it is me who should have paid attention in school ;p
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 LOL a theory will always stay a theory, there is nothing above it.
you really should lookup the definition of scientific theory, you are embarrassing yourself here.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur * untill it is falsified offcourse if ever.
gravity is a theory , so is elctromagnetism.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur go vote for yourself ! I am aware a theory is always a theory but it still needs some factual base to support it. I have stated on these posts I don't have a degree or a PHD and don't proffess to be an expert of any kind I am just simply trying to learn more and share views ,You keep trying to shoot me down, because I don't hold your view, what you don't know is I don't Care what others think, I have nothing to prove, I have everything i could ever want or need :P
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 "it still needs some factual base to support it." It has, that is why it is a theory and not a hypothesis.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur I'm glad we agree on that and also as I have said if any other evidence can be presented that might contradict the initial findings then it is only good science to re evaluate the conclusion and look at any other variables that might have been over looked, true? well there are other variables not localized, ,The sun, Volcanism, atmospheric pressures cosmic events, magnetism and pole shift the impacts of all must be checked before we draw the line in the sand on co2
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 every single thing you mentioned is known and has been looked at by scinetist. From Sun output to cosmic radiation, from pole shifts to aerosol nucleation over to cow farts. freaking everything. and it turns out, its the CO², nothing else can explain the observed phenomena. but you know what? they are still looking, CERN will continue looking into aerosol nucleation, SOHO will keep looking at the sun output etc etc.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur well then at least they are doing there job, these things are still contributing factors , not just one or the other but all of them together, If only one thing is tested at a time the results will be inconclusive test them all together and you would get a more definitive result. eg: you could not replicate every environmental factor in a scale model in a lab true, there are far too many things goin on. but the planet and nature work in synergy, except for humans.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 Do you really think scinetist don't know what they have to do to get proper results? most things are looked at simultaniusly and recorded. Satelites dont take vacation usualy, SOHO is looking at and recording the sun, other Satelites are continuisly looking at atmosperic temperatures at different altitudes. Waether stations around the globe are non stop recording data.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur No i do understand that they are collecting data from all of these things but am pointing out the whole package is far too complex to duplicate all variables together in a lab and yes the ice core and soil samples are a great indicator from what i have seen on documentaries but obviously the planet is reacting in different ways depending on where we live, for you warmer, for us cooler. The science behind it is great to see but the politial spin isn't.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 and in the same time we are still geting more ice cores, to increase our knowledge in historical climate changes and learn more about our climate. this is done non stop every single work day around the world.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 you find one thing that has been found out and refined our understanding of AGW , but you take it as if it would falsify the theory, well it doesn't and also NASA supports that, take a look at their homepage.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 oh after reading your post again, no that is not what Nasa said, Nasa said that more heat is reradiated into space than expected, not that we lose more CO² into space.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
NASA satellite data from years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 yeha i have red the article from Remote Sensing, and what you call far more, is actually sligthly more. and several Climate models were already within that range anyway, And NASA still supports the theory of AGW, and delivers new evidence supporting it on a daily basis.
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@AanthanurNo, not slightly more you must have read the IPCC version,this quote was copied word for word with no altering from the original press release in 2011. go back through my posts about a month ago you will find it there too! anyway I am pretty much done with discussing anything with you , So i shall sit back a read from now on, It takes a bigger idiot to keep the argument going than the one who stared it.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 what the heck are you brabelling, it was never mentioned in any IPCC report.
and would you have read the publication from one of the peers that was also published in Remote Sensing you would know why. ww w mdpi com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf
Aanthanur 1 week ago
@Aanthanur I think the word you are looking for is babbleing, I read the report on the Nasa site when it was first released. I was kidding about the IPCC editing it, we call that sarcasm. sorry I just don't trust the UN or any government trying to make money from this theory without a "real commitment" to developing and utilising better technologies, Instead they are just looking for another trading mechanism using and invisible odourless natural byproduct of life.
DRWELSH1971 1 week ago
@DRWELSH1971 well i can agree of not trusting politicsters. and im no fan of crap and trade. and also that even if there is some commitment like in my country, it is not real commitment in my book. i expect more, especially now that my fellow idiot countrymen are all craping their pants because of fukushima and want to fase out Nuclear energy. But our Co² percapita is actually not that worse. and we are working pretty well on efficiency. every country should do so.
Aanthanur