Earth is not warming, our entire solar system is. There has been data showing that the surface of other planets in our solar system have all experienced a warming trend. The sun is kicking off some excess radiation from solar flares, no need to get into a panic people.
CNN is Communist Network News. CNN,Boston Globe,Time Magazine, MSNBC, and several other newspapers are in bed with the Dems,Liberal,and the Far Left who would like nothing more but to take our country down.
It really is disturbing when you hear all this stuff coming from network news,and papers that are willing to support the radical White house policies. I feel like I am living a nightmare. All they want to do is drive Americans down. Fox news is # 1 for not following the rest.
where are your documents? where are your facts? where are your sources? i'm listening but there is NOTHING but YOUR opinion....this is nothing but talking...im never watching you again :) Travel well douchebags!
Global warming is a fraud. Plants breath carbon dioxide. Scientist have been deleting data they don't like that shows carbon dioxide follows temperature. They delete information that is due to released to the public. This muslim liar thinks there is global warming c'mon.
2) Plants breathing CO2 has nothing to do with humans and the polar caps. CO2 is a GHG that acts as a blanket and prevents heat from escaping into space.
3) There has been no deleting of critical data:
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Read up before going off about things you have no clue about.
Last thing :) jeep is on it way to put there system in full protection but they are hitting a wall and laws with I dont understand that are stopping it, China has been for some time now has started with urbane city car for all taxi are coming out with use Full Eltric in city limits and in Britain a deliver truck is running off air the movement recharges the electmoter with run the compresser that run the moter, OPEC want these stop under a the enver law and real sci is putting stuff out ther NOW
Can some one please tell what the big deal on global warming, For the planet been doing this for billion of yr's before man and after man gone it will keep cooling down and heating up. Also if the planet is heating do to man can u explain why it colder this yr than the last 7 yr's? If we just are trying to slow down the process, then should we learn how to live in the new climate instead of spending all this cash and time to slow it down?
@jlockuptj At no point in Earth's post-Cambrian history has CO2 jumped 120ppm in 140 years.
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / climate - change - little - ice - age - medieval - warm - period (dot) htm
The reason for global warming in the past is well-accounted for. Increased volcanism, lower O2ppm levels combined with higher CO2ppm levels and higher solar activity. Notice every time CO2 rises temperatures also rise. That's what's going on now. The main source of CO2 now is human activity.
Without man the planet will change anyway so would it make more since to let the planet go it course and we adjust and put the right resources were it needed. If Yellow Stone blow it top with it getting ready to do will send us strait in to a massive Ice Age, Hell in the record book scit found out the Ocean had so much died crap that it took out most life form on the planet for the farted on a global scale, Let bring down these gasses at a slow pace with out hurting jobs.
@jlockuptj The climate has indeed changed before but the CO2 composition has never changed 120ppm in just 140 years like it has since 1800. That kind of thing hasn't happened in billions of years. The climate changes of the past are very well accounted for. Changes in volcanism or the Earth's orbit around the Sun caused it.
There is no other cause for this one, at least since the 50s, other than man. Volcanism is not high enough to cause it and neither is solar activity.
So your concern is economically motivated? You should know that extreme weather from climate change causes trillions a year in damage. But I agree with you, there are ways to get this problem under control without hurting jobs. Hence why I don't think the current carbon trading scheme is good for anyone but big business.
But we should work as quickly as possible because even if we stopped all pollution now heating will continue for another 100 years.
Yes I belive we should get REAL SCI and real sci has arlready help get new fuel and it already started, I country in Europe on their own has alredy built a 400 mile gas station that self supporting and uses that H2o fuel with Im upset for America in most cases take the lead but not on this issue, But Im glad a country has arlready started with out loosing job for thy have faced one out as another went on line and no law to force them and they trained the employee from they old way to the new way
Also under the new World Pollution law "That didnt go into law thk god" Company that have built and are testing a new battery in car that will need no other power source for it recharge it welf as u move, Jeep has a working and is testing a new 4x4 and also A Sci in jap with the help of china has also built a fully elec car and has it doing almost 200 mph and 0 to 60mph in less than 5 sec in a full size car with has 8 wheels, OPEC behind that bill do get them stop
Just because one year is colder than the ones before it doesn't mean that it isn't getting hotter...It's not a steady rise. Like everything else on the Earth, it rises and falls each year. But the TREND is that it is getting hotter. Not each year is hotter than the next, but all the years combined, it's getting hotter.
the youngJerk ommits to cover climetgate, emails proof of fraud intent,or that 30,000 scientist are sueing over the false science being crammed down the world throat
"illuminati, globalists, lucifarians, nwo, and criminal elements etc are code words for Zionists. this "nwo/illuminati/deathcult" bullshit is a stain on the movement and attracts kooks. We are in Iraq because of Zionism, and Israel wrongly linked Anthrax to Iraq and Al Qaeda. This is Israel's war. Not Americas. And it was ZIONIST NEOCONS not a Germanic death cult or some ominous group of lucifarians in the woods. WTF. people need to grow up and start dealing with things in reality.
Obama can not decide without the congress' support.And you know where the Republicans stand on this climate change issue.They would accuse Obama for destroying the economy if he fines USA companies for poluting as they do.
if the US steps up China , India and Brazil will follow ? What world do you live in lol.........the agreement is non binding cause there is no authority to enforce it....unless you enjoy constant war
Well, can we blame Obama? I mean, we're already developed, we're trying to overhaul healthcare. The last think Americans want to do is get off their lazy asses and take steps to reduce energy
Obama works for the banks. Why do you think he's all about saving corporations and banks and is out to destroy small business? Global warming is not manmade, its a natural occurrence. Our government is telling us its manmade so we feel guilty into paying taxes on CO2. Who benefits from taxes? The banks and corporations that funded his campaign. They also own all the corpoate news stations like NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, TIME Magezine, etc so you wont hear about it from them.
Countries in Africa have oil and coal and are not going to be able to use them because of the global warming Farce how can We as Americans force the poorest Nations in the World to use Solar and Wind which is the among most expensive Cap and Trade will not reduce CO2 in any way read the bill!!! Heres what it will do Tax The American people to death, and make Al Gore, President Obama and many public officials that just happen to own big chunks of stock in these "green" companies BILLIONS!!!!!
Al Gore Made his money From Enron and he is the SAME man who says he Invented the Internet let me Repeat that HE CLAIMS THAT HE AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET if anyone believes he is saving the planet they are retarded when so called "green legislation" passes his investments will make him Billions thats the only green he cares about. And as for them being Communists i disagree I believe they are Social Capitalists which is using the ideas of sharing wealth.prosperity 2 Steal Billions from us
The whole GW scam was just a ploy to fund a Communist NWO, that has been exposed! The underlying purpose was population control! They will try again in Mexico City!
I love the Earth too, but lets intregrate these new forms of energy slowly and practically. We do have time despite what Al Gore says. I think he acctually knows Earth is in the era where it naturally warms and is using it for profit. And do you really want to cool the Earth and start an ice age where over half the Earth is covered in ice? And those last for thousands of years. Just consider it for a minute, lets not just blindly follow something that isn't completely proven yet. Thank you.
Just a few things to consider before we destroy indrustries and peoples lives and jack up our energy costs. 1: The earth was 9 degrees warmer when the dinosaurs were alive then it is now. 2: Greenland used to be green and not mostly covered in ice, hence the name. 3: Why do the ice caps on Mars grow and receed at the same times the Earths does? Maybe because the Suns activity is what determines our climate and not us. One more thing, trees love CO2, they are growing 15% faster these days.
CO2 is good for plants and bad for everything else living on the planet. It's bad for the atmosphere in significant amounts because it acts as a blanket and prevents heat the earth receives from the sun from escaping. Thus heating up the globe and melting polar ice caps which causes coastal flooding and extreme weather.
Even in too high amounts it can be bad for plants and cause acidosis. There is no substance in existence that an infinite amount of is non-harmful.
They need to be looking at the "dead sea zones" for that is a very serious pollution situation and over looked. Why? Seriously, research these dead water zones in the oceans!
Was diggin this until the propaganda at the end trying to bandwagon people with speculative popularity ratings. Before that though, nice description of what happened.
Banning derivatives would take well over two decades to restructure the entire global financial infrastructure, unless you wanted to ban them outright and watch a collapse that would make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk. It's a very small percentage of derivatives one should even consider banning (and that's even debatable), many of them hold a valid purpose.
I usually agree with the Young Turks, but on this one I whole-heartdly disagree. What exactly was the president supposed to do? He is not president of the world. There were 192 sovereign states at the conference and they don't have to listen to anything they don't want to.
Yeah, so Obama pulled everyone together, but he should have followed it up with a probe by electrocuting everyone until they agree on a much tougher climate deal.
it is UNBELIEVABLE that people are trying to blame obama for the copenhagen disaster....china and india basically tried to punk america by lying to us and telling us they were about to leave...when in fact they were doing secret meetings behind our back....and obama basically had to track them down and crash the meeting....and then come out with this compromise....to see cenk so arrogantly pleased that europe is blaming obama for this is pathetic and shameful...obama is trying harder than anyone
In a way this deal suits everyone politically. Obama knew any climate deal will get nowhere because of congressional opposition, and that he is making promises that can't be kept.
By having a non binding agreement both parties win because the BASIC countries get to develop unrestricted by climate targets, and Obama's PR team managed to spin the news in a way that reflected positively of his global 'leadership' to the American public.
@Avantime And Cenk wants to call us corporate shills because we support the health care bill. You know what 10 years ago Cenk would have been against cap and trade all together. He just wants to get the left all hot and bothered so he can continue to pitch his show to, so called evil corporations...
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / co2 - lags - temperature (dot) htm
You're trying to argue that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist when every botanist in the world knows about it and can observe it. We can observe it in Venus as well. It's like trying to argue against Gravity.
People who don't even know basic middle school science shouldn't try to take on thousands of professionals with Ph.Ds and decades of experience.
You, sir, underestimate our ability to fuck things up. We already possess the capacity to reduce this world to a radioactive cinder, or wipe large species of animals off the map. Raising the thermostat a couple degrees is child's play by comparison.
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of bullshit up in the air on the issue, or that I even agree that mankind's contribution to this particular problem warrants intervention, but it's easily within our capacity to do this kind of thing.
@narezul It's snowing because we've had an unusually strong La Nina year. You're mistaking the El Nino/La Nina cycle for global atmospheric temperatures.
Humans are tiny individually but our factories, our vehicles, our energy sources, our processes of creating, etc. put out 300 times more CO2 each year than all the volcanoes in the world. I'm serious. Not to mention the fact that we've chopped down half of the forests (the plants which absorb CO2) in the world.
Humans produce, through respiration (breathing) about 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. If you add the production of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other human industry (26 billiion metric tons) and the respiration of domesticated animals (6 billion metric tons), the total carbon dioxide production that can be blamed on humans, directly or indirectly, is 34 billion metric tons.
Insects, through respiration, produce 48 billion metric tons.
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / Are - humans - too - insignificant - to - affect - global - climate (dot) htm
Human pollution has jumped several times in the past 50 year and it keeps increasing almost exponentially every 5 years. Now combine this with the water vapor being released from atmospheric and oceanic heating, the CH4 being released from human pollution and industrial husbandry and the fact that we've cut down 50% of the world's forests..
"It's a strange world where CO2 -- a gas vital to our survival -- .....is considered a toxic gas"
CO2 has always been toxic to non-plant life. Anyone who didn't know carbon dioxide is toxic is unfamiliar with basic science. You learn this in middle school. There's a reason why the human body EXHALES it is instead of holding onto it. There's a reason why spacecraft and submarines have CO2 scrubbers.
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Carbon _ dioxide # Toxicity
Two things: First, don't misquote ppl -- it's rude and takes something away from the argument.
Second, if you want to quote science, you can't ignore those things that are inconvenient to your argument.
For example, the late Ordovician suffered an ice age while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today. Levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last ounce of ice should have been melted off the planet
2) During the Late Ordovician atmospheric oxygen levels were only 68% of what they are today:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Ordovician
That has a profound effect on atmospheric chemistry and thus temperatures. You omitted this fact (either out of ignorance or on purpose to bolster your argument).
"guesstimations"
There is no "guesstimation" involved. For the past 20 million years CO2 levels have consistently been below 315ppm.
"During the Late Ordovician atmospheric oxygen levels were only 68% of what they are today"
OK, I will concede your point, but did all life end? Was 4000 ppm dangerous to life on earth during this time as stated before?
"For the past 20 million years CO2 levels have consistently been below 315ppm."
What about if you make the timeline longer to about 50 million years? When you stretch the timeline further, it appears we are still at an historically low level of atmospheric CO2.
Actually the vast majority of lifeforms died out every time the environment significantly changed. CO2 levels were much different in the Jurassic than the Triassic and the vast majority of lifeforms died out between the Triassic and Jurassic.
"What about if you make the timeline longer"
It's not a fair comparison because most lifeforms 50 million years ago died out when the climate changed to what it was 20 million years ago.
"an hypothesis that scientists can't even agree on"
97% of climatologists agree with the AGW theory and over 90% of scientists in general do. There's really not much more controversy over AGW than there is over Evolution. Despite the claims of Creationists.
For the record I don't think the carbon tax is the best way to handle this but at the same time AGW doesn't mean we have to have a carbon tax. There are other ways to deal with the problem.
"97% of climatologists agree with the AGW theory and over 90% of scientists in general do"
YOu know as well as I do that this is not set in stone. New evidence comes to light all the time, and since the more recent "climategate" scandal even more scientists have changed their opinions. Google "Global Warming Petition Project" to see where 30K+ scientists would disagree with you.
And even that is skewed, because what constitutes as a "scientist"? The point is, the jury is still out.
While that's true every year the evidence that comes out points toward AGW more and more. Especially as CO2 levels and temperature keep climbing at an accelerated rate. If you read one of my earlier posts I stated that at no point in post-Cambrian history has CO2 ever jumped 120ppm in only 140 years.
As for "Climategate" it hasn't changed scientific opinions:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Climatic _ Research _ Unit _ e - mail _ hacking _ incident
You can't quote wiki as definitive evidence. While it is a VERY useful tool, it is by no means 100% reliable.
And yes, I agree that CO2 is increasing. I do not dispute this fact, nor that humans contribute (at least somewhat). My disagreement is mostly how significant an effect it is having on overall climate.
Since, as you have pointed out, CO2 is not the only factor (oxygen levels, volcanic activity, etc), I dispute that CO2 has such a large role in the current warming trend.
The sources cited in the article are reliable. You can look them up yourself. The vast majority of the 30,000 or so signatories were not scientists. Out of the names on the list only a few hundred were actual scientists. Reliable polls which have been conducted on this issue all show over 94% of climatologists supporting AGW.
"how significant an effect it is having on overall climate"
Do you dispute that in the 60s there was an almost un-contested scientific belief that a "New Ice Age" was coming?
It appears that you and I can not agree on FACTS, which is sad and destructive to any argument. I do not mind disagreeing on opinions, but we should be able to agree on FACTS.
According to facts, earlier models for AGW have not been accurate. According to facts, the overall global temperature has cooled over the last decade WHILE STILL increasing in localized areas.
Again, we are to the point where we can not agree on fact: "This was the hottest decade on record" and "AGW skeptics are never even able to describe what would cause this alleged cooling."
Sure, there are a myriad of reasons, as a matter of fact. Cloud cover, atmospheric pressures, humidities, solar variations, etc, etc, etc.
Unfortunately the facts don't support the case of AGW skeptics because temperatures haven't dropped. They've actually risen at an even higher rate than before.
If you can't accept this that means you have a problem with facts. If you have a problem with facts then you are putting ideology over science.
"If you can't accept this that means you have a problem with facts".
yes, i have a problem with facts. I try to adhere to them. In other words, I review both sides of an argument and draw my own conclusions and not just regurgitate "skepticalscience".
So, in that regard, I do have "a problem with the facts". And quite the opposite, I have no agenda in my conclusions.
Thus, it is the AGW crowd who is "putting ideology over science"
As do I but the side you seem to lean towards has been flat-out wrong several times and other times has omitted convenient recent data that discredits it. Your side requires quite a bit of omitting facts or confusing one phenomena for another. Such as confusing La Nina oceanic temperatures for general global temperatures.
"the AGW crowd who is 'putting ideology over science'"
So far they've been able to back up their conclusions.
"but the side you seem to lean towards has been flat-out wrong several times and ... omitted convenient recent data that discredits it"
Funny, I would make the same claim to you. I suppose it's wherever you get your news. If your main news contact is skeptical science or wiki, then you're right.
"So far they've been able to back up their conclusions. "
Again, we disagree. By earlier models, global temps should be warmer now so... no, haven't back up data and sea levels aren't higher.
@A86 Time will tell who is correct in this matter. It could be that you are absolutely and unequivocally correct and that on our current course, man is doomed... Or... It could be just like the last few scares, such as: The new Ice Age, The hole in the ozone layer, H1N1, Killer Bees, Proliferation of Heterosexual Aids, EMFs, Potato chip causes cancer... In which headlines raged, ppl got scared, scientists patted themselves on the back for their predicitions and... nothing happened
No one said man is doomed. Now you're using strawman arguments. What the science is showing is that coastal areas will continue to flood until eventually it causes trillions of dollars worth in damage to coastal regions and economies of countries from flooding and other extreme weather. It will also wipe out many species of animals and do all sorts of damage to agriculture.
Ok, I concede that you never said "man is doomed". That was my exaggeration and that isn't a correct interpretation of your conclusions.
"Man is doomed" is much shorter than "costal areas will flood... etc etc... damage to agriculture" and was meant to bring the argument into perspective.
However, it didn't do that, and was not intended to mislead the conversation from more real points.
Yes, global warming hurts man and several species of the planet. It doesn't hurt the planet per se. The planet can survive Man. The problem is Man is hurting himself. If the planet became so polluted that we couldn't breathe we would die out but the planet would be fine.
I didn't say "Man is doomed" what I said is that it costs trillions of dollars in damage and losses:
(dot) theregister (dot) co (dot) uk / 2008 / 09 / 22 / global _ warming _ mitigation _ vs _ adaptation/
There was never a global cooling scare. As for the hole in the ozone layer who said it isn't there?
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Ozone _ depletion
H1N1 has nothing to do with climatology. Nor does killer bees or AIDS or potato chips. You're conflating media hysteria with science (and showing your anti-intellectual distrust of science in general). Media hysteria =/= what scientists are saying.
Besides, H1N1 has killed over 3000 people so far in the US.
Yes, there is a hole in the ozone, but you don't hear much about it now. As it turns out, many scientist now believe that the sun and the polarization of the planet have more to do with ozone depletion than man.
And yes there was a "global cooling scare" in the 60s whether you want to believe it or not.
The point wasnt ONLY about climate, but about the absurdity of when someone makes the point "science says X"
Science is dynamic, new data happens, and hypothesis change.
The "global cooling scare" was a creation of the media and a few scientists. The majority of scientists did not believe there would be a global cooling in the 60s.
"Science is dynamic"
Indeed but Science also has consensus. New data is not moving scientists away from the Law of Gravity and new data isn't moving scientists away from AGW. In fact new data keeps reinforcing it.
Majority of well financed ICPP, a political arm of the UN are not a consensus, 2500 Scientists and Non-Scientists.
As to a list of the whom, it's very easy, just Google climate realists (please don't resort to the parroting of, "they are paid off by big oil", it's gotten silly).
You can get a grant to study the Coyote droppings of the San Fernando Valley , a big IF, your request for the grant reads as follows:
Coyote droppings study to determine the adverse effects of AGW.
Yes, the UN, UNESCO, the World Bank, PRIVATE funding goes to ICPP (I see pipi), who's solution to AGW is taxing the world.
Hipsothermal period was much warmer that where there's tundra with permafrost now there was forests. The Polar Bear survived this hot period. BULLSHIT? Fossils show forrests, 8,000 ya, where it's barren tundra today?
I don't get it?
Useless links and I won't look at them, we had a mini ice age and a hotter period in less than 1,500 years, both DRASTIC CHANGES WITH NO AGW.
I'm looking it up and so far I haven't found any solid leaders other than conspiracy theories. Even if that was true that doesn't affect whether or not the science is true. The Laws of Aerodynamics are profitable for airline companies and airplane manufacturers. Does that mean those laws aren't true?
Besides, the carbon tax is not the only solution for global warming and pollution. And more corporations are invested in not cleaning up at all which can also be profitable for companies.
And your science isn't true, it's a theory. The theoretical computer models have been failed. It doesn't mean the theory is wrong, AGW,
I see this whole thing, the money, the industries, the international banks, all in on this conspiracy. It's like President Obama, he came out of no where and BAM, he's on the cover of every magazine of note. It's a huge machine that creates and gets you to believe you want something you don't need.
I looked further into the "conspiracy" apparently it's been hatched by people with a lot of time on their hands. It turns out the elite running the planet have a problem with running off at the mouth and babbling incessantly about world governance, they don't really mean it. New World Order, it's just hype.
Your right, the models have not failed they work just as intended, I take this all back. You are right, I now back the cause of AGW.
You're all over the place. First you say it's an elaborate scheme then you claim they blab in front of everyone (isn't that counter-productive)? Not to mention you have yet to show a single source and most importantly you havet to prove that any data or information is false.
"they work as intended"
If you're so sure that the scientists are wrong then what is "real" data? To say they're wrong you must have an idea of what is "right".
Before the output of CO2? There's always been CO2 in the atmosphere. It's part of why our planet is so relatively warm. And no, temperature rose in proportion to GHGs:
upload (dot) wikimedia (dot) org / wikipedia / commons / f/f 4 / Instrumental _ Temperature _ Record (dot) png
"I don't have the time"
Translation: I'm full of crap.
I haven't proven AGW? So far you've proven no other culprit than humans, all you tried to do was deny the scientific law of the Greenhouse Effect exists.
Of course, H2O is the most abundant but water vapor levels are not rising at a significant rate. H2O doubles the effects of CO2.
"What if it gets colder the next 10 years"
There's nothing to indicate that it would. Some years are colder than others but global warming is a trend. There's a general upward trend even though most years are not the same temperature as the last.
"even if we stopped producing CO2 that the earth would still "heat" up"
CO2 doesn't go away overnight. If we somehow stopped all pollution and didn't pollute for a century the temperature would probably rise for a couple more years, level off for a while and then drop after a couple of decades. It would take about a century to get back down to where it was in the 80s.
The Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age were mostly caused by the Earth's rotation around the Sun. Our rotation brought us at an angle where we received more heating than usual.
Actually that was the original cause of the heating right now. The Little Ice Ag of 1400-1800 ended in 1800 as the Earth shifted into an orbit which heated the surface more. The rise in temperature released more CO2 and a rise in solar activity helped the heating effect along.
The heating would have naturally occurred even if humans had not been polluting. But, the natural heating stopped in the late 20th century and by now the natural heating should have stopped. The reason it hasn't is because humans are now putting out enough GHGs to prevent some heat we receive from the Sun from leaving.
It's basically a matter of humans exaggerating a natural occurrence. That's all.
I still don't understand what you think the mechanism, or what science you cite, for the changes. It stands to reason that less water vapor was in the air during the and the Ice would have reflected the energy back into space. If C02 is more plentiful when it's hot than I reason the opposite is plausible when it's cold.
The Earth is heating, global temperatures are rising yet solar activity is down and the earth is not at an orbital inclination that should be causing much heating. Humans pump out more and more GHGs every year effectively allowing less heat to escape the earth. Not to mention we've cut down half of the world's forests (the very things which absorb CO2). Put 2 and 2 together.
You're right that CO2 levels go down when it gets cold. During the Ice Age CO2 levels were pretty low.
You know what really kills about you? The fact that World Domination has been a goal of people in power throughout all of history. It's just funny to me that you have to have me prove it to you is a riot. LOL.
That would be like me dismissing Climate Change, that would be retarded, and for you to think that no one conspires out of hand sounds retarded.
We can share information or disagree as to the effects of Co2. The politics of a New World Order have a direct effect on this debate.
I'm not saying that politicians and Big Business don't have ulterior motives but what you're saying is silly. AGW being true does not mean we automatically have to have carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are not the only way to deal with pollution. Even if AGW weren't true companies still make a profit from not having to clean up.
"disagree as to the effects of CO2"
There is no room for opinion, it's a matter of science:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Greenhouse _ gas
Ironically while you criticize these organizations you're trying to disprove them using their data which you claim is somehow fake. Lol. But you're still incorrect:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Holocene _ climatic _ optimum
Some areas of the world were warmer but the overall temp was lower. And there was LESS ice than today. Sea levels were higher.
This is the hottest decade in the past 20 million years. BTW it's "IPCC".
OK, so when now where talking, some areas where colder and some where hotter.
So is you have a political wing of the UN, the Global Governance crowd, funding a the IPCC they pick some areas that where hotter for there climate models.
Do you really beieve that in 20 million years that this last decade was the hottest, I mean in 20 million years?
Carbon has never lead heating of the earth, the heat comes first.
If there is some supposed scam why don't you post some links?
"this last decade was the hottest"
Yes:
data (do) giss (dot) nasa (dot) gov/ gistemp / graphs/
"Carbon has never lead lead heating of the earth"
Now you are in effect trying to deny that the Greenhouse Effect exists which is about like trying to deny the Law of Gravity. CO2 has ALWAYS caused heating. Every botanist on the planet knows about it, we observe it here and on Venus. Don't go down this road man, lol.
I want the Mini Ice Age explained, and I want the Medievel warm period explained. You know so much please enlighten me. What caused these very drastic swings. I don't know it all I will admit that, you might be right.
It's already explained. It was explained years (decades) ago:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / Was -there - a - Medieval - Warm - Period (dot) html
Perhaps you should listen to actual scientists instead of political pundits and anti-AGW alarmists on the dole of Big Energy lobbies trying to scare you into believing it's some big conspiracy to tax you.
CO2 isn't the only factor in this. Increases in CO2 build up heat, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean, which creates more water vapor from evaporation. Water vapor itself doubles the heating effect of CO2 which creates more heat which evaporates more water. It's a vicious cycle.
Add on top of that more powerful GHGs we're putting out at higher and higher rates such as CH4. Now compound this with the fact that we've cut down half of the world's forests (which absorb CO2).
I understand the argument for AGW, that is not the discrepancy.
Climate is very dynamic and to blame everything on one variable is misleading.
For example, in 2007 when the arctic ice caps hit their new lows the world screamed "Global warming!" but not much was said when, within a few months, the antarctic ice caps grew to a new 100-year high.
Also, despite modeling, conventional methods of measuring sea levels show that there has been no significant rise in ocean levels in 50+ years.
Increases in CO2 has ALWAYS caused heating. This is no misnomer. If you look at the historical trends every time CO2 levels rise heat always rises. It's called the Greenhouse Effect, it's a very basic scientific principle. Prime example: the planet Venus. Read about its atmosphere.
You can call it "blame" if you want but it's a scientific principle. Is it "blaming" your farts to say that if you hold a flame up to your farts there is a good possibility the flame will get bigger?
From the things you say I can tell you read very one-sided sources because almost all of what you said is either behind the times or flat-out factually incorrect.
""sea levels show that there has been no significant rise"
I don't know who told you that."
*IF* you didn't get all of your facts from skeptical science you would hear more. The proverbial pot calling the kettle black, you read VERY one-sided information.
"You need to update your news. They've (icecaps) melted again"
Yes, and the polar ice-caps have re-frozen. It's a waxing/waning process, and has been so LONG before humans entered the equation.
"Caps freeze even when global temperatures are up"
True. And they melt even when global temps are falling. Again, it's a waxing/waning process. My point was that at the same time that the arctic ice caps were melting at record pace, the antarctic ice caps were growing to new highs, thus the melting arctic caps weren't THAT significant. But the AGW crowd has used it like a club to say "See? Look what technology is doing to the planet!"
Not necessarily. They can also re-freeze when oceanic temperatures are down. Which is what happened in the case of the Antarctic caps. Global temperatures didn't drop, the waters around them temporarily got colder.
"But the AGW crowd has used it"
Because the melting is largely due to high atmospheric temperatures which keep going up. The temporary re-freezing wasn't due to a drop in the general atmospheric temperature trend.
The world was hotter, way hotter for 10,000 years, the Polar bears survived.
Ocean temperatures take 200 to 400 years to change, it's a lot of water.
No the temperature has not kept going up for the last ten years. But the fact that vines will grow in the Northern England will happen again in inescapable.
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Oregon _ Petition
This was signed back in 1997 12 years ago. The vast majority of the signatories are college kids with grad degrees, business consultants, economists, self-proclaimed "experts" and a few scientists in unrelated fields. Very few actual scientists and even fewer are scientists from climate-related fields.
"My weatherman can't even tell me for sure if it will rain tomorrow, you want me to believe predictions for 50+ yrs from now?"
Studying geological climate is far, far different from meteorology. Meteorologists study short-term phenomena and measure the atmosphere. Climatologists study long-term (hundreds of thousands and millions of years) phenomena and have ice cores and rock samples which contain records dating back billions of years.
"Studying geological climate is far, far different from meteorology."
Clearly, but you don't dispute that earlier models of AGW have been wrong, do you?
According to previous models from the 80's and 90's, it should be significantly hotter than it is today. You can tell me all about volcanic and/or solar activityand its effect but the facts are that these models have been WRONG.
So, historic models are wrong for 20+ years and now you give me new data and expect me to believe them. Why?
The short answer is that things keep getting worse at a sharply increasing rate in short amounts of time. Water vapor doubles the impact of CO2 and CH4 is an even more powerful GHG than CO2. Cutting down forests reduces the earth's ability to compensate.
Humans have been breathing for millennia but it never really significantly affected the earth and CO2ppm stayed comfortably below 300ppm for the vast majority of human existence.
A86, There are MANY times in which CO2 levels have been higher than they are now and the earth HASNT been warmer. As a matter of fact, the earth is ALWAYS warming and cooling... even before us big bad evil humans came along.
The last time the CO2 levels were this high was 20 million years ago when there was several times more volcanism than today:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / climate - change - little - ice - age -medieval -warm-period (dot) htm
Scientists know why CO2 levels were higher at certain points in the past. This time there is no other explanation other than humans. At no point in post-Cambrian history has COppm jumped 120ppm in just 140 years. Read before calling yourself "criticizing" scientists.
look guy i dont wanna accuse you of being not too bright or being a liar but if you had actually read what i said youd see that those are stupid statements ive heard, i dont believe them, i was repeating them in a mocking fashion, do you understand...? i mean seriously do you people just decide not to read the end? can you be so dumb? and then stick to your guns after being corrected.... you silly chimps deserve to be gassed and denied healthcare all day long so hey it works out
lmao i get a little harsh cause it dragged out for no reason 2 times when it shouldnt have even started and its fine i dont need an apology not gonna fix the story of my life is it
Dangerous levels of CO2 are not reached till up around 5-10,000 ppm, and some sources suggest that CO2 levels are not dangerous till 15,000 ppm
Life evolved over the past 600 million years at the more healthy average level of 1500 ppm.
And when CO2 was at 7000 ppm there was no dangerous global warming. When it was at 4,400 ppm during the Late Ordovician Period, Earth was as cold as it is now.
In the 60's the big scare was that "a new ice age is coming!"
@dsteve040 You're talking about levels that are dangerous in an enclosed space. 5,000ppm CO2 in EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE is enough to send the global temperatures up over 10 degrees Celsius which would completely melt the polar caps and flood all coastal regions.
And the average CO2ppm for the past 40 million years has been below 300ppm.
"And when CO2 was at 7000 ppm there was no global warming"
The last time it was that high was during the Jurassic. Temperatures were MUCH HIGHER. It's official, you have no clue what you're talking about.
"Earth was as cold as it is now"
Incorrect:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Ordovician
Global temperature was 2 degrees Celsius about what it is now. The reason it wasn't any higher than that was because O2ppm was only 68% of what it is today.
WILL YOU GO TO HEAVEN? Here is a quick test, have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen something? Jesus said if you look at a person with lust(sexual thought), you commit adultery in the heart. If you have done these things, you are heading for Hell. That is not Gods will. God sent Jesus to take the punishment on the cross for our sins, so that if you repent(turn away from sin) and trust in Jesus as your lord and savior, God will forgive every sin you ever committed and grant you Heaven.
The most environmentally progressive countries should simply go ahead. Investing in the green technologies of the future now will yield enormous benefits. The others will follow. It will be an inevitable process.
Only 4 nations emit more than 50%, only 20 nations more than 80% of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. These are the countries that need to change most. Finding solutions w/ 20 participants will still be extremely difficult, but much more doable than w/ 200.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
since when is Co2 considered to be "pollution"?
further, I like it when the climate change lunatics point out that the glaciers are melting! LMFAO!!
a glacier is the end result of a great earth warming that melted the ice cap, thousands of feet thick, that covered the entire N.America thousands of yrs ago! glaciers have been melting for a very long time, long before the idiot Al Gore came around!!
Whilst it's true that Global Warming existed prior to humans, we are causing the majority of it at this point.
Since the 70s Mars' has had an increase of of about half a degree in temperature, whereas Earth has had SIX times as much of an increase in the same time span. Granted we're closer to the sun, but we're nowhere near as close to it for it to not be our fault at all.
Even if we look at it in an optimistic manner we'd have caused at least 60% of it.
YES! kill the earth and all the trees and animals becuse 1) you dont care and polution is a hoax or 2) you think God will save us!!!.... I really hope that the human race dies in a giant wild fire =/ we dont deserve what we have been given.
tyt, telling it like it is.
gatskillz 1 year ago
Comment removed
gatskillz 1 year ago
Earth is not warming, our entire solar system is. There has been data showing that the surface of other planets in our solar system have all experienced a warming trend. The sun is kicking off some excess radiation from solar flares, no need to get into a panic people.
Rooster55199 1 year ago
@Rooster55199 Still a good idea to develop alternate fuel. Carbon taxes are worthless, though.
Xerxes4242 1 year ago
He pulled everyone together on a fake issue. Great job.
TheArmy19D 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CNN is Communist Network News. CNN,Boston Globe,Time Magazine, MSNBC, and several other newspapers are in bed with the Dems,Liberal,and the Far Left who would like nothing more but to take our country down.
It really is disturbing when you hear all this stuff coming from network news,and papers that are willing to support the radical White house policies. I feel like I am living a nightmare. All they want to do is drive Americans down. Fox news is # 1 for not following the rest.
ohmybentley 2 years ago
whats a turk?
chucktaylor974 2 years ago
where are your documents? where are your facts? where are your sources? i'm listening but there is NOTHING but YOUR opinion....this is nothing but talking...im never watching you again :) Travel well douchebags!
Poonard 2 years ago
TYT keeps it real
DrakeMagnum 2 years ago
The TYT Army is TOO STRONG!
Fandanglius 2 years ago
Global warming is a fraud. Plants breath carbon dioxide. Scientist have been deleting data they don't like that shows carbon dioxide follows temperature. They delete information that is due to released to the public. This muslim liar thinks there is global warming c'mon.
Graham6762 2 years ago
1) Half of the world's forests are gone.
2) Plants breathing CO2 has nothing to do with humans and the polar caps. CO2 is a GHG that acts as a blanket and prevents heat from escaping into space.
3) There has been no deleting of critical data:
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Read up before going off about things you have no clue about.
A86 2 years ago
my favorite TYT quote, "Keep it real".
Fayejealousy 2 years ago
save the planet!
BalshaGajin 2 years ago
Last thing :) jeep is on it way to put there system in full protection but they are hitting a wall and laws with I dont understand that are stopping it, China has been for some time now has started with urbane city car for all taxi are coming out with use Full Eltric in city limits and in Britain a deliver truck is running off air the movement recharges the electmoter with run the compresser that run the moter, OPEC want these stop under a the enver law and real sci is putting stuff out ther NOW
jlockuptj 2 years ago
Can some one please tell what the big deal on global warming, For the planet been doing this for billion of yr's before man and after man gone it will keep cooling down and heating up. Also if the planet is heating do to man can u explain why it colder this yr than the last 7 yr's? If we just are trying to slow down the process, then should we learn how to live in the new climate instead of spending all this cash and time to slow it down?
jlockuptj 2 years ago
@jlockuptj At no point in Earth's post-Cambrian history has CO2 jumped 120ppm in 140 years.
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / climate - change - little - ice - age - medieval - warm - period (dot) htm
The reason for global warming in the past is well-accounted for. Increased volcanism, lower O2ppm levels combined with higher CO2ppm levels and higher solar activity. Notice every time CO2 rises temperatures also rise. That's what's going on now. The main source of CO2 now is human activity.
A86 2 years ago 2
Without man the planet will change anyway so would it make more since to let the planet go it course and we adjust and put the right resources were it needed. If Yellow Stone blow it top with it getting ready to do will send us strait in to a massive Ice Age, Hell in the record book scit found out the Ocean had so much died crap that it took out most life form on the planet for the farted on a global scale, Let bring down these gasses at a slow pace with out hurting jobs.
jlockuptj 2 years ago
@jlockuptj The climate has indeed changed before but the CO2 composition has never changed 120ppm in just 140 years like it has since 1800. That kind of thing hasn't happened in billions of years. The climate changes of the past are very well accounted for. Changes in volcanism or the Earth's orbit around the Sun caused it.
There is no other cause for this one, at least since the 50s, other than man. Volcanism is not high enough to cause it and neither is solar activity.
A86 2 years ago
"with out hurting jobs"
So your concern is economically motivated? You should know that extreme weather from climate change causes trillions a year in damage. But I agree with you, there are ways to get this problem under control without hurting jobs. Hence why I don't think the current carbon trading scheme is good for anyone but big business.
But we should work as quickly as possible because even if we stopped all pollution now heating will continue for another 100 years.
A86 2 years ago
Yes I belive we should get REAL SCI and real sci has arlready help get new fuel and it already started, I country in Europe on their own has alredy built a 400 mile gas station that self supporting and uses that H2o fuel with Im upset for America in most cases take the lead but not on this issue, But Im glad a country has arlready started with out loosing job for thy have faced one out as another went on line and no law to force them and they trained the employee from they old way to the new way
jlockuptj 2 years ago
Also under the new World Pollution law "That didnt go into law thk god" Company that have built and are testing a new battery in car that will need no other power source for it recharge it welf as u move, Jeep has a working and is testing a new 4x4 and also A Sci in jap with the help of china has also built a fully elec car and has it doing almost 200 mph and 0 to 60mph in less than 5 sec in a full size car with has 8 wheels, OPEC behind that bill do get them stop
jlockuptj 2 years ago
Just because one year is colder than the ones before it doesn't mean that it isn't getting hotter...It's not a steady rise. Like everything else on the Earth, it rises and falls each year. But the TREND is that it is getting hotter. Not each year is hotter than the next, but all the years combined, it's getting hotter.
urweirdsaysi 2 years ago
Will that sound right for it does this every 7 to 9 yrs. So can u please answer the of my question,
jlockuptj 2 years ago
the youngJerk ommits to cover climetgate, emails proof of fraud intent,or that 30,000 scientist are sueing over the false science being crammed down the world throat
SurfinServer 2 years ago
@SurfinServer
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
A86 2 years ago 2
This guy still thinks the Copenhagen summit is about pollutions.
nxn8690 2 years ago
Obama better worry about North Korean or Iranian nukes coming through that questionable hole in the ozone.
stonerbudkap 2 years ago
Copenhagen doesn't like the Bongo Meister!
StinkingHombre 2 years ago
hussein got a pop cycle up the ass . globel warming my ass
7216sp 2 years ago
Obama is a lying piece of shit.
thirdcoastguy 2 years ago
Want the truth, read the Bible
vasiliosrigos 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama is a WAR CRIMINAL and a LIAR... Youtube: THE NEW WORLD ORDER, SKULL and BONES AND JOHN PERKINS....
everett26 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shut the fuck up, obama is GOD.
bugabuse 2 years ago
@bugabuse
Obama = Bush 2.0
0xTRX007 2 years ago
@everett26
"illuminati, globalists, lucifarians, nwo, and criminal elements etc are code words for Zionists. this "nwo/illuminati/deathcult" bullshit is a stain on the movement and attracts kooks. We are in Iraq because of Zionism, and Israel wrongly linked Anthrax to Iraq and Al Qaeda. This is Israel's war. Not Americas. And it was ZIONIST NEOCONS not a Germanic death cult or some ominous group of lucifarians in the woods. WTF. people need to grow up and start dealing with things in reality.
0xTRX007 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Traitor Obama and his anti-American wife Michelle need to be ousted from the Shit House in D.C.
thirdcoastguy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OH NO, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!
stonerbudkap 2 years ago
"a compromise that does almost nothing"
"a tiny step forward"
contradiction
"we gonna step up and do these changes"
Obama can not decide without the congress' support.And you know where the Republicans stand on this climate change issue.They would accuse Obama for destroying the economy if he fines USA companies for poluting as they do.
canadaworldmusic 2 years ago
if the US steps up China , India and Brazil will follow ? What world do you live in lol.........the agreement is non binding cause there is no authority to enforce it....unless you enjoy constant war
linkin622 2 years ago
Merry Christmas
Love Liberty & Peace*))
campaign4liberty 2 years ago
Well, can we blame Obama? I mean, we're already developed, we're trying to overhaul healthcare. The last think Americans want to do is get off their lazy asses and take steps to reduce energy
dionusos2 2 years ago
@dionusos2
No-the last things we want is more job loses.
blank404 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama sucks, Gore sucks even more.
thirdcoastguy 2 years ago
Obama works for the banks. Why do you think he's all about saving corporations and banks and is out to destroy small business? Global warming is not manmade, its a natural occurrence. Our government is telling us its manmade so we feel guilty into paying taxes on CO2. Who benefits from taxes? The banks and corporations that funded his campaign. They also own all the corpoate news stations like NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, TIME Magezine, etc so you wont hear about it from them.
MyGrassroots 2 years ago
Countries in Africa have oil and coal and are not going to be able to use them because of the global warming Farce how can We as Americans force the poorest Nations in the World to use Solar and Wind which is the among most expensive Cap and Trade will not reduce CO2 in any way read the bill!!! Heres what it will do Tax The American people to death, and make Al Gore, President Obama and many public officials that just happen to own big chunks of stock in these "green" companies BILLIONS!!!!!
iamsean90 2 years ago
I guess you Al Gore fans like being lied too! That is exactly what he and Obama are Commie liars!
Wildkkat1 2 years ago
Al Gore Made his money From Enron and he is the SAME man who says he Invented the Internet let me Repeat that HE CLAIMS THAT HE AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET if anyone believes he is saving the planet they are retarded when so called "green legislation" passes his investments will make him Billions thats the only green he cares about. And as for them being Communists i disagree I believe they are Social Capitalists which is using the ideas of sharing wealth.prosperity 2 Steal Billions from us
iamsean90 2 years ago
The whole GW scam was just a ploy to fund a Communist NWO, that has been exposed! The underlying purpose was population control! They will try again in Mexico City!
Wildkkat1 2 years ago
I feel so sorry for you conspiracy theorists. This NWO stuff went from funny and interesting to sad and pathetic.
igodstheoryi 2 years ago 5
I love the Earth too, but lets intregrate these new forms of energy slowly and practically. We do have time despite what Al Gore says. I think he acctually knows Earth is in the era where it naturally warms and is using it for profit. And do you really want to cool the Earth and start an ice age where over half the Earth is covered in ice? And those last for thousands of years. Just consider it for a minute, lets not just blindly follow something that isn't completely proven yet. Thank you.
LOSERisKING 2 years ago
Just a few things to consider before we destroy indrustries and peoples lives and jack up our energy costs. 1: The earth was 9 degrees warmer when the dinosaurs were alive then it is now. 2: Greenland used to be green and not mostly covered in ice, hence the name. 3: Why do the ice caps on Mars grow and receed at the same times the Earths does? Maybe because the Suns activity is what determines our climate and not us. One more thing, trees love CO2, they are growing 15% faster these days.
LOSERisKING 2 years ago
CO2 is good for plants and bad for everything else living on the planet. It's bad for the atmosphere in significant amounts because it acts as a blanket and prevents heat the earth receives from the sun from escaping. Thus heating up the globe and melting polar ice caps which causes coastal flooding and extreme weather.
Even in too high amounts it can be bad for plants and cause acidosis. There is no substance in existence that an infinite amount of is non-harmful.
A86 2 years ago 5
They need to be looking at the "dead sea zones" for that is a very serious pollution situation and over looked. Why? Seriously, research these dead water zones in the oceans!
Lizi99 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Global warming is a complete scam!!!! Climate-Gate
GershonH 2 years ago
How about you shut the fuck up? People can think on their own.
imtwocats 2 years ago 4
tyt are awesome
dmix09 2 years ago 2
Was diggin this until the propaganda at the end trying to bandwagon people with speculative popularity ratings. Before that though, nice description of what happened.
Ableem05 2 years ago
um, banning derivatives?
Banning derivatives would take well over two decades to restructure the entire global financial infrastructure, unless you wanted to ban them outright and watch a collapse that would make the Great Depression look like a cakewalk. It's a very small percentage of derivatives one should even consider banning (and that's even debatable), many of them hold a valid purpose.
ASRIBEIRIO 2 years ago
I usually agree with the Young Turks, but on this one I whole-heartdly disagree. What exactly was the president supposed to do? He is not president of the world. There were 192 sovereign states at the conference and they don't have to listen to anything they don't want to.
etalem 2 years ago
wow... don't you just love those non-binding agreements...? awesome...
AdderallApocalypse 2 years ago
Yeah, so Obama pulled everyone together, but he should have followed it up with a probe by electrocuting everyone until they agree on a much tougher climate deal.
frankystein12 2 years ago
it is UNBELIEVABLE that people are trying to blame obama for the copenhagen disaster....china and india basically tried to punk america by lying to us and telling us they were about to leave...when in fact they were doing secret meetings behind our back....and obama basically had to track them down and crash the meeting....and then come out with this compromise....to see cenk so arrogantly pleased that europe is blaming obama for this is pathetic and shameful...obama is trying harder than anyone
jshooper 2 years ago
Obama is a FAILLLL!!!!
hash1212 2 years ago 2
One notes he views the redistribution of wealth to the third world as bribery.
franksnow79 2 years ago
In a way this deal suits everyone politically. Obama knew any climate deal will get nowhere because of congressional opposition, and that he is making promises that can't be kept.
By having a non binding agreement both parties win because the BASIC countries get to develop unrestricted by climate targets, and Obama's PR team managed to spin the news in a way that reflected positively of his global 'leadership' to the American public.
Avantime 2 years ago
@Avantime And Cenk wants to call us corporate shills because we support the health care bill. You know what 10 years ago Cenk would have been against cap and trade all together. He just wants to get the left all hot and bothered so he can continue to pitch his show to, so called evil corporations...
lmcdowall 2 years ago
CO2 doesnt drive temperature, its the opposite. CO2 lags temp by 800 yrs
zeitgeisthero 2 years ago
It works both ways:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / co2 - lags - temperature (dot) htm
You're trying to argue that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't exist when every botanist in the world knows about it and can observe it. We can observe it in Venus as well. It's like trying to argue against Gravity.
People who don't even know basic middle school science shouldn't try to take on thousands of professionals with Ph.Ds and decades of experience.
A86 2 years ago 7
yeah but its snowing so how can you say the globe is warming huh?
see now all the pollution is just cleaned out by the rain
humans are so tiny just such a small part of this planet its awfully arrogant of us to think we can have an effect on earth
ignorance comes with confidence and a journeyman level of knowledge in all fields
narezul 2 years ago
You, sir, underestimate our ability to fuck things up. We already possess the capacity to reduce this world to a radioactive cinder, or wipe large species of animals off the map. Raising the thermostat a couple degrees is child's play by comparison.
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of bullshit up in the air on the issue, or that I even agree that mankind's contribution to this particular problem warrants intervention, but it's easily within our capacity to do this kind of thing.
imorriso1 2 years ago 4
lol i dont. im just saying some of the silly shit ive heard , hence the bottom bit
narezul 2 years ago
@narezul Lol, you know nothing.
lmcdowall 2 years ago 3
lmao youre all retarded you missed the tone of my comment and the closer. you and anyone else who thumbs downed me is hilariously stupid
narezul 2 years ago
@narezul It's snowing because we've had an unusually strong La Nina year. You're mistaking the El Nino/La Nina cycle for global atmospheric temperatures.
Humans are tiny individually but our factories, our vehicles, our energy sources, our processes of creating, etc. put out 300 times more CO2 each year than all the volcanoes in the world. I'm serious. Not to mention the fact that we've chopped down half of the forests (the plants which absorb CO2) in the world.
A86 2 years ago
Humans produce, through respiration (breathing) about 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. If you add the production of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other human industry (26 billiion metric tons) and the respiration of domesticated animals (6 billion metric tons), the total carbon dioxide production that can be blamed on humans, directly or indirectly, is 34 billion metric tons.
Insects, through respiration, produce 48 billion metric tons.
dsteve040 2 years ago
@dsteve040 You're not considering scale:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / Are - humans - too - insignificant - to - affect - global - climate (dot) htm
Human pollution has jumped several times in the past 50 year and it keeps increasing almost exponentially every 5 years. Now combine this with the water vapor being released from atmospheric and oceanic heating, the CH4 being released from human pollution and industrial husbandry and the fact that we've cut down 50% of the world's forests..
A86 2 years ago 3
It's a strange world where CO2 -- a gas vital to our survival -- a gas that could be better described as "plant food" is considered a toxic gas.
As a matter of fact, right now, at 390 ppm, our atmosphere (historically speaking) is under-CO2 impoverished.
...but facts are irrelevant, right? "The science is settled" and all of that, right?
dsteve040 2 years ago
"It's a strange world where CO2 -- a gas vital to our survival -- .....is considered a toxic gas"
CO2 has always been toxic to non-plant life. Anyone who didn't know carbon dioxide is toxic is unfamiliar with basic science. You learn this in middle school. There's a reason why the human body EXHALES it is instead of holding onto it. There's a reason why spacecraft and submarines have CO2 scrubbers.
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Carbon _ dioxide # Toxicity
A86 2 years ago
A86,
Two things: First, don't misquote ppl -- it's rude and takes something away from the argument.
Second, if you want to quote science, you can't ignore those things that are inconvenient to your argument.
For example, the late Ordovician suffered an ice age while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today. Levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last ounce of ice should have been melted off the planet
dsteve040 2 years ago
1) How did I misquote you?
2) During the Late Ordovician atmospheric oxygen levels were only 68% of what they are today:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Ordovician
That has a profound effect on atmospheric chemistry and thus temperatures. You omitted this fact (either out of ignorance or on purpose to bolster your argument).
"guesstimations"
There is no "guesstimation" involved. For the past 20 million years CO2 levels have consistently been below 315ppm.
A86 2 years ago
"During the Late Ordovician atmospheric oxygen levels were only 68% of what they are today"
OK, I will concede your point, but did all life end? Was 4000 ppm dangerous to life on earth during this time as stated before?
"For the past 20 million years CO2 levels have consistently been below 315ppm."
What about if you make the timeline longer to about 50 million years? When you stretch the timeline further, it appears we are still at an historically low level of atmospheric CO2.
dsteve040 2 years ago
"but did all life end?"
Actually the vast majority of lifeforms died out every time the environment significantly changed. CO2 levels were much different in the Jurassic than the Triassic and the vast majority of lifeforms died out between the Triassic and Jurassic.
"What about if you make the timeline longer"
It's not a fair comparison because most lifeforms 50 million years ago died out when the climate changed to what it was 20 million years ago.
A86 2 years ago
Don't misunderstand my intentions. We only get one planet Earth, and I am not suggesting we wreck it and/or use up all of our natural resources.
My point is that we should not restructure the entire world economy based on an hypothesis that scientists can't even agree on.
Especially when early modeling of climate change has proven to be so innacurate.
My weatherman can't even tell me for sure if it will rain tomorrow, and you want me to believe predictions for 50+ yrs from now?
dsteve040 2 years ago
"an hypothesis that scientists can't even agree on"
97% of climatologists agree with the AGW theory and over 90% of scientists in general do. There's really not much more controversy over AGW than there is over Evolution. Despite the claims of Creationists.
For the record I don't think the carbon tax is the best way to handle this but at the same time AGW doesn't mean we have to have a carbon tax. There are other ways to deal with the problem.
A86 2 years ago
"97% of climatologists agree with the AGW theory and over 90% of scientists in general do"
YOu know as well as I do that this is not set in stone. New evidence comes to light all the time, and since the more recent "climategate" scandal even more scientists have changed their opinions. Google "Global Warming Petition Project" to see where 30K+ scientists would disagree with you.
And even that is skewed, because what constitutes as a "scientist"? The point is, the jury is still out.
dsteve040 2 years ago
While that's true every year the evidence that comes out points toward AGW more and more. Especially as CO2 levels and temperature keep climbing at an accelerated rate. If you read one of my earlier posts I stated that at no point in post-Cambrian history has CO2 ever jumped 120ppm in only 140 years.
As for "Climategate" it hasn't changed scientific opinions:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Climatic _ Research _ Unit _ e - mail _ hacking _ incident
A86 2 years ago
A86,
You can't quote wiki as definitive evidence. While it is a VERY useful tool, it is by no means 100% reliable.
And yes, I agree that CO2 is increasing. I do not dispute this fact, nor that humans contribute (at least somewhat). My disagreement is mostly how significant an effect it is having on overall climate.
Since, as you have pointed out, CO2 is not the only factor (oxygen levels, volcanic activity, etc), I dispute that CO2 has such a large role in the current warming trend.
dsteve040 2 years ago
The sources cited in the article are reliable. You can look them up yourself. The vast majority of the 30,000 or so signatories were not scientists. Out of the names on the list only a few hundred were actual scientists. Reliable polls which have been conducted on this issue all show over 94% of climatologists supporting AGW.
"how significant an effect it is having on overall climate"
It's a simple case of the Greenhouse Effect.
A86 2 years ago
A86,
Do you dispute that in the 60s there was an almost un-contested scientific belief that a "New Ice Age" was coming?
It appears that you and I can not agree on FACTS, which is sad and destructive to any argument. I do not mind disagreeing on opinions, but we should be able to agree on FACTS.
According to facts, earlier models for AGW have not been accurate. According to facts, the overall global temperature has cooled over the last decade WHILE STILL increasing in localized areas.
dsteve040 2 years ago
Yes I do actually. That wasn't what most scientists were saying:
(dot) huppi (dot) com / kangaroo / L - doomsday (dot) htm
"According to facts, earlier models for AGW have not been accurate"
Give an example.
A86 2 years ago
"the overall global temperature has cooled'
No it hasn't:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / global - cooling (dot) htm
You're mistaking La Nina for general global temperatures. This was the hottest decade on record:
abcnews (dot) go (dot) com / Technology / Decade /climate - 2009 - caps - hottest - decade - record / story ? id = 9283733
AGW skeptics are never even able to describe what would cause this alleged cooling.
A86 2 years ago
Again, we are to the point where we can not agree on fact: "This was the hottest decade on record" and "AGW skeptics are never even able to describe what would cause this alleged cooling."
Sure, there are a myriad of reasons, as a matter of fact. Cloud cover, atmospheric pressures, humidities, solar variations, etc, etc, etc.
dsteve040 2 years ago
Unfortunately the facts don't support the case of AGW skeptics because temperatures haven't dropped. They've actually risen at an even higher rate than before.
If you can't accept this that means you have a problem with facts. If you have a problem with facts then you are putting ideology over science.
A86 2 years ago
@A86
"If you can't accept this that means you have a problem with facts".
yes, i have a problem with facts. I try to adhere to them. In other words, I review both sides of an argument and draw my own conclusions and not just regurgitate "skepticalscience".
So, in that regard, I do have "a problem with the facts". And quite the opposite, I have no agenda in my conclusions.
Thus, it is the AGW crowd who is "putting ideology over science"
dsteve040 2 years ago
"I review both sides of an argument"
As do I but the side you seem to lean towards has been flat-out wrong several times and other times has omitted convenient recent data that discredits it. Your side requires quite a bit of omitting facts or confusing one phenomena for another. Such as confusing La Nina oceanic temperatures for general global temperatures.
"the AGW crowd who is 'putting ideology over science'"
So far they've been able to back up their conclusions.
A86 2 years ago
"but the side you seem to lean towards has been flat-out wrong several times and ... omitted convenient recent data that discredits it"
Funny, I would make the same claim to you. I suppose it's wherever you get your news. If your main news contact is skeptical science or wiki, then you're right.
"So far they've been able to back up their conclusions. "
Again, we disagree. By earlier models, global temps should be warmer now so... no, haven't back up data and sea levels aren't higher.
dsteve040 2 years ago
"Funny, I would make the same claim to you"
What data have I omitted?
"By earlier models"
I already addressed this:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / climate - models (dot) htm
The models have been pretty consistent. And sea levels have indeed gone up:
ipcc - wg1 (dot) ucar (dot) edu / wg1 / Report / AR4WG1 _ Print _ Ch05 (dot) pdf [PDF File]
You purposely ignore these facts because they don't bode well for your argument. You're being intellectually dishonest.
A86 2 years ago
dsteve040 2 years ago
"man is doomed"
No one said man is doomed. Now you're using strawman arguments. What the science is showing is that coastal areas will continue to flood until eventually it causes trillions of dollars worth in damage to coastal regions and economies of countries from flooding and other extreme weather. It will also wipe out many species of animals and do all sorts of damage to agriculture.
A86 2 years ago
Ok, I concede that you never said "man is doomed". That was my exaggeration and that isn't a correct interpretation of your conclusions.
"Man is doomed" is much shorter than "costal areas will flood... etc etc... damage to agriculture" and was meant to bring the argument into perspective.
However, it didn't do that, and was not intended to mislead the conversation from more real points.
dsteve040 2 years ago
Yes, global warming hurts man and several species of the planet. It doesn't hurt the planet per se. The planet can survive Man. The problem is Man is hurting himself. If the planet became so polluted that we couldn't breathe we would die out but the planet would be fine.
I didn't say "Man is doomed" what I said is that it costs trillions of dollars in damage and losses:
(dot) theregister (dot) co (dot) uk / 2008 / 09 / 22 / global _ warming _ mitigation _ vs _ adaptation/
A86 2 years ago
There was never a global cooling scare. As for the hole in the ozone layer who said it isn't there?
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Ozone _ depletion
H1N1 has nothing to do with climatology. Nor does killer bees or AIDS or potato chips. You're conflating media hysteria with science (and showing your anti-intellectual distrust of science in general). Media hysteria =/= what scientists are saying.
Besides, H1N1 has killed over 3000 people so far in the US.
A86 2 years ago
Yes, there is a hole in the ozone, but you don't hear much about it now. As it turns out, many scientist now believe that the sun and the polarization of the planet have more to do with ozone depletion than man.
And yes there was a "global cooling scare" in the 60s whether you want to believe it or not.
The point wasnt ONLY about climate, but about the absurdity of when someone makes the point "science says X"
Science is dynamic, new data happens, and hypothesis change.
dsteve040 2 years ago
"many scientist"
Such as whom?
The "global cooling scare" was a creation of the media and a few scientists. The majority of scientists did not believe there would be a global cooling in the 60s.
"Science is dynamic"
Indeed but Science also has consensus. New data is not moving scientists away from the Law of Gravity and new data isn't moving scientists away from AGW. In fact new data keeps reinforcing it.
A86 2 years ago
Majority of well financed ICPP, a political arm of the UN are not a consensus, 2500 Scientists and Non-Scientists.
As to a list of the whom, it's very easy, just Google climate realists (please don't resort to the parroting of, "they are paid off by big oil", it's gotten silly).
You can get a grant to study the Coyote droppings of the San Fernando Valley , a big IF, your request for the grant reads as follows:
Coyote droppings study to determine the adverse effects of AGW.
$cam.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
The IPCC (you apparently don't even know the name) is not funded by the UN. I suggest you get your facts straight:
news (dot) mongabay (dot) com / 2009 / 0122-climate (dot) html
And what you claimed about 10,000 years ago is bullshit:
geochange (dot) er (dot)usgs (dot) gov /sw / impacts / hydrology / paleohydro / fig2 (dot) gif
A86 2 years ago
Yes, the UN, UNESCO, the World Bank, PRIVATE funding goes to ICPP (I see pipi), who's solution to AGW is taxing the world.
Hipsothermal period was much warmer that where there's tundra with permafrost now there was forests. The Polar Bear survived this hot period. BULLSHIT? Fossils show forrests, 8,000 ya, where it's barren tundra today?
I don't get it?
Useless links and I won't look at them, we had a mini ice age and a hotter period in less than 1,500 years, both DRASTIC CHANGES WITH NO AGW.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
I'm looking it up and so far I haven't found any solid leaders other than conspiracy theories. Even if that was true that doesn't affect whether or not the science is true. The Laws of Aerodynamics are profitable for airline companies and airplane manufacturers. Does that mean those laws aren't true?
Besides, the carbon tax is not the only solution for global warming and pollution. And more corporations are invested in not cleaning up at all which can also be profitable for companies.
A86 2 years ago
"Conspiracy Theory" it's out in the open, lol.
And your science isn't true, it's a theory. The theoretical computer models have been failed. It doesn't mean the theory is wrong, AGW,
I see this whole thing, the money, the industries, the international banks, all in on this conspiracy. It's like President Obama, he came out of no where and BAM, he's on the cover of every magazine of note. It's a huge machine that creates and gets you to believe you want something you don't need.
Green chick.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
"it's out in the open"
Links?
"theoretical computer models have failed"
They have? That's news to scientists:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / climate - models (dot) htm
A86 2 years ago
I looked further into the "conspiracy" apparently it's been hatched by people with a lot of time on their hands. It turns out the elite running the planet have a problem with running off at the mouth and babbling incessantly about world governance, they don't really mean it. New World Order, it's just hype.
Your right, the models have not failed they work just as intended, I take this all back. You are right, I now back the cause of AGW.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
You're all over the place. First you say it's an elaborate scheme then you claim they blab in front of everyone (isn't that counter-productive)? Not to mention you have yet to show a single source and most importantly you havet to prove that any data or information is false.
"they work as intended"
If you're so sure that the scientists are wrong then what is "real" data? To say they're wrong you must have an idea of what is "right".
A86 2 years ago
Politics, it's all about politics.
The poster boy of Ecology, David de Rothshield, said it was regrettable that Global Government was not activated at Copenhagen.
It's huge money, it's consolidation of power to run the world, it's politics.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
"it's all about politics"
It's all about you proving, scientifically, that AGW is false. You claim it's fake so prove it with data.
A86 2 years ago
Most of the Temperature rise was before the gross output of Co2, that's a fact.
I can "prove" to you anything I want with me using numbers subjectively, I don't have the time.
BTW, you haven't proven AGW.
Global Warming is just another fad they marketed by pulling on your emotional strings and bombarding you with media. That debate is over.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
Before the output of CO2? There's always been CO2 in the atmosphere. It's part of why our planet is so relatively warm. And no, temperature rose in proportion to GHGs:
upload (dot) wikimedia (dot) org / wikipedia / commons / f/f 4 / Instrumental _ Temperature _ Record (dot) png
"I don't have the time"
Translation: I'm full of crap.
I haven't proven AGW? So far you've proven no other culprit than humans, all you tried to do was deny the scientific law of the Greenhouse Effect exists.
A86 2 years ago
Yes, H2O being the most abundant.
Hey, What if it gets colder the next 10 years?
Is it true that even if we stopped producing CO2 that the earth would still "heat" up?
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
Of course, H2O is the most abundant but water vapor levels are not rising at a significant rate. H2O doubles the effects of CO2.
"What if it gets colder the next 10 years"
There's nothing to indicate that it would. Some years are colder than others but global warming is a trend. There's a general upward trend even though most years are not the same temperature as the last.
A86 2 years ago
"even if we stopped producing CO2 that the earth would still "heat" up"
CO2 doesn't go away overnight. If we somehow stopped all pollution and didn't pollute for a century the temperature would probably rise for a couple more years, level off for a while and then drop after a couple of decades. It would take about a century to get back down to where it was in the 80s.
A86 2 years ago
Ok, good answer, I believe it.
Medievel Warm period, cause and why it cooled?
Mini Ice age, why did it warm up?
Did CO2 cause the ice to retreat 10,000 years ago?
If CO2 causes temperature to rise how is this possible if the Oceans do not expell CO2 if they are cold.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
The Medieval Warm Period and the Mini Ice Age were mostly caused by the Earth's rotation around the Sun. Our rotation brought us at an angle where we received more heating than usual.
Actually that was the original cause of the heating right now. The Little Ice Ag of 1400-1800 ended in 1800 as the Earth shifted into an orbit which heated the surface more. The rise in temperature released more CO2 and a rise in solar activity helped the heating effect along.
A86 2 years ago
The heating would have naturally occurred even if humans had not been polluting. But, the natural heating stopped in the late 20th century and by now the natural heating should have stopped. The reason it hasn't is because humans are now putting out enough GHGs to prevent some heat we receive from the Sun from leaving.
It's basically a matter of humans exaggerating a natural occurrence. That's all.
A86 2 years ago
I still don't understand what you think the mechanism, or what science you cite, for the changes. It stands to reason that less water vapor was in the air during the and the Ice would have reflected the energy back into space. If C02 is more plentiful when it's hot than I reason the opposite is plausible when it's cold.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
The Earth is heating, global temperatures are rising yet solar activity is down and the earth is not at an orbital inclination that should be causing much heating. Humans pump out more and more GHGs every year effectively allowing less heat to escape the earth. Not to mention we've cut down half of the world's forests (the very things which absorb CO2). Put 2 and 2 together.
You're right that CO2 levels go down when it gets cold. During the Ice Age CO2 levels were pretty low.
A86 2 years ago
You know what really kills about you? The fact that World Domination has been a goal of people in power throughout all of history. It's just funny to me that you have to have me prove it to you is a riot. LOL.
That would be like me dismissing Climate Change, that would be retarded, and for you to think that no one conspires out of hand sounds retarded.
We can share information or disagree as to the effects of Co2. The politics of a New World Order have a direct effect on this debate.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
I'm not saying that politicians and Big Business don't have ulterior motives but what you're saying is silly. AGW being true does not mean we automatically have to have carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are not the only way to deal with pollution. Even if AGW weren't true companies still make a profit from not having to clean up.
"disagree as to the effects of CO2"
There is no room for opinion, it's a matter of science:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Greenhouse _ gas
A86 2 years ago
*solid leads, I meant.
"was much warmer"
Ironically while you criticize these organizations you're trying to disprove them using their data which you claim is somehow fake. Lol. But you're still incorrect:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Holocene _ climatic _ optimum
Some areas of the world were warmer but the overall temp was lower. And there was LESS ice than today. Sea levels were higher.
This is the hottest decade in the past 20 million years. BTW it's "IPCC".
A86 2 years ago
I SEE PP, piss.
OK, so when now where talking, some areas where colder and some where hotter.
So is you have a political wing of the UN, the Global Governance crowd, funding a the IPCC they pick some areas that where hotter for there climate models.
Do you really beieve that in 20 million years that this last decade was the hottest, I mean in 20 million years?
Carbon has never lead heating of the earth, the heat comes first.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
If there is some supposed scam why don't you post some links?
"this last decade was the hottest"
Yes:
data (do) giss (dot) nasa (dot) gov/ gistemp / graphs/
"Carbon has never lead lead heating of the earth"
Now you are in effect trying to deny that the Greenhouse Effect exists which is about like trying to deny the Law of Gravity. CO2 has ALWAYS caused heating. Every botanist on the planet knows about it, we observe it here and on Venus. Don't go down this road man, lol.
A86 2 years ago
You know what I want from the alarmist crowd?
I want the Mini Ice Age explained, and I want the Medievel warm period explained. You know so much please enlighten me. What caused these very drastic swings. I don't know it all I will admit that, you might be right.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
"the Mini Ice Age explained"
It's already explained. It was explained years (decades) ago:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / Was -there - a - Medieval - Warm - Period (dot) html
Perhaps you should listen to actual scientists instead of political pundits and anti-AGW alarmists on the dole of Big Energy lobbies trying to scare you into believing it's some big conspiracy to tax you.
A86 2 years ago
CO2 isn't the only factor in this. Increases in CO2 build up heat, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean, which creates more water vapor from evaporation. Water vapor itself doubles the heating effect of CO2 which creates more heat which evaporates more water. It's a vicious cycle.
Add on top of that more powerful GHGs we're putting out at higher and higher rates such as CH4. Now compound this with the fact that we've cut down half of the world's forests (which absorb CO2).
A86 2 years ago
I understand the argument for AGW, that is not the discrepancy.
Climate is very dynamic and to blame everything on one variable is misleading.
For example, in 2007 when the arctic ice caps hit their new lows the world screamed "Global warming!" but not much was said when, within a few months, the antarctic ice caps grew to a new 100-year high.
Also, despite modeling, conventional methods of measuring sea levels show that there has been no significant rise in ocean levels in 50+ years.
dsteve040 2 years ago
Increases in CO2 has ALWAYS caused heating. This is no misnomer. If you look at the historical trends every time CO2 levels rise heat always rises. It's called the Greenhouse Effect, it's a very basic scientific principle. Prime example: the planet Venus. Read about its atmosphere.
You can call it "blame" if you want but it's a scientific principle. Is it "blaming" your farts to say that if you hold a flame up to your farts there is a good possibility the flame will get bigger?
A86 2 years ago
"the antarctic ice caps grew to a new 100-year high"
You need to update your news. They've melted again:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / antarctica -gaining - ice (dot) htm
From the things you say I can tell you read very one-sided sources because almost all of what you said is either behind the times or flat-out factually incorrect.
A86 2 years ago
"sea levels show that there has been no significant rise"
I don't know who told you that.
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / sea - level - rise (dot) htm
A86 2 years ago
@A86
""sea levels show that there has been no significant rise"
I don't know who told you that."
*IF* you didn't get all of your facts from skeptical science you would hear more. The proverbial pot calling the kettle black, you read VERY one-sided information.
"You need to update your news. They've (icecaps) melted again"
Yes, and the polar ice-caps have re-frozen. It's a waxing/waning process, and has been so LONG before humans entered the equation.
dsteve040 2 years ago
Skeptical Science is only reporting what basically all scientific organizations are reporting:
ipcc - wg1 (dot) ucar (dot) edu / wg1 / Report / AR4WG1 _ Print _ Ch05 (dot) pdf [PDF]
You can see that if you check the sources cited in the article.
It's a waxing/waning process"
Caps freeze even when global temperatures are up. You're not looking at trends:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / antarctica - gaining - ice (dot) htm
The caps have not melted that much at any point in human history.
A86 2 years ago
"Caps freeze even when global temperatures are up"
True. And they melt even when global temps are falling. Again, it's a waxing/waning process. My point was that at the same time that the arctic ice caps were melting at record pace, the antarctic ice caps were growing to new highs, thus the melting arctic caps weren't THAT significant. But the AGW crowd has used it like a club to say "See? Look what technology is doing to the planet!"
dsteve040 2 years ago
Not necessarily. They can also re-freeze when oceanic temperatures are down. Which is what happened in the case of the Antarctic caps. Global temperatures didn't drop, the waters around them temporarily got colder.
"But the AGW crowd has used it"
Because the melting is largely due to high atmospheric temperatures which keep going up. The temporary re-freezing wasn't due to a drop in the general atmospheric temperature trend.
A86 2 years ago
The world was hotter, way hotter for 10,000 years, the Polar bears survived.
Ocean temperatures take 200 to 400 years to change, it's a lot of water.
No the temperature has not kept going up for the last ten years. But the fact that vines will grow in the Northern England will happen again in inescapable.
Climate Changes...
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
The "Global Warming Petition" is a fraud itself:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Oregon _ Petition
This was signed back in 1997 12 years ago. The vast majority of the signatories are college kids with grad degrees, business consultants, economists, self-proclaimed "experts" and a few scientists in unrelated fields. Very few actual scientists and even fewer are scientists from climate-related fields.
A86 2 years ago
"My weatherman can't even tell me for sure if it will rain tomorrow, you want me to believe predictions for 50+ yrs from now?"
Studying geological climate is far, far different from meteorology. Meteorologists study short-term phenomena and measure the atmosphere. Climatologists study long-term (hundreds of thousands and millions of years) phenomena and have ice cores and rock samples which contain records dating back billions of years.
A86 2 years ago
"Studying geological climate is far, far different from meteorology."
Clearly, but you don't dispute that earlier models of AGW have been wrong, do you?
According to previous models from the 80's and 90's, it should be significantly hotter than it is today. You can tell me all about volcanic and/or solar activityand its effect but the facts are that these models have been WRONG.
So, historic models are wrong for 20+ years and now you give me new data and expect me to believe them. Why?
dsteve040 2 years ago
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / climate - models (dot) htm
So far the models have been pretty reliable.
A86 2 years ago
The short answer is that things keep getting worse at a sharply increasing rate in short amounts of time. Water vapor doubles the impact of CO2 and CH4 is an even more powerful GHG than CO2. Cutting down forests reduces the earth's ability to compensate.
Humans have been breathing for millennia but it never really significantly affected the earth and CO2ppm stayed comfortably below 300ppm for the vast majority of human existence.
A86 2 years ago 3
A86, There are MANY times in which CO2 levels have been higher than they are now and the earth HASNT been warmer. As a matter of fact, the earth is ALWAYS warming and cooling... even before us big bad evil humans came along.
dsteve040 2 years ago
The last time the CO2 levels were this high was 20 million years ago when there was several times more volcanism than today:
(dot) skepticalscience (dot) com / climate - change - little - ice - age -medieval -warm-period (dot) htm
Scientists know why CO2 levels were higher at certain points in the past. This time there is no other explanation other than humans. At no point in post-Cambrian history has COppm jumped 120ppm in just 140 years. Read before calling yourself "criticizing" scientists.
A86 2 years ago
lol jesus, reread my comments carefully and then take care goodbye
narezul 2 years ago
@narezul We read your comments. They were just flat-out wrong. That's the problem.
A86 2 years ago 2
look guy i dont wanna accuse you of being not too bright or being a liar but if you had actually read what i said youd see that those are stupid statements ive heard, i dont believe them, i was repeating them in a mocking fashion, do you understand...? i mean seriously do you people just decide not to read the end? can you be so dumb? and then stick to your guns after being corrected.... you silly chimps deserve to be gassed and denied healthcare all day long so hey it works out
narezul 2 years ago
@narezul I was going to apologize before those last couple of sentences. Forget it.
A86 2 years ago
lmao i get a little harsh cause it dragged out for no reason 2 times when it shouldnt have even started and its fine i dont need an apology not gonna fix the story of my life is it
narezul 2 years ago
A86,
Dangerous levels of CO2 are not reached till up around 5-10,000 ppm, and some sources suggest that CO2 levels are not dangerous till 15,000 ppm
Life evolved over the past 600 million years at the more healthy average level of 1500 ppm.
And when CO2 was at 7000 ppm there was no dangerous global warming. When it was at 4,400 ppm during the Late Ordovician Period, Earth was as cold as it is now.
In the 60's the big scare was that "a new ice age is coming!"
Pseudo-science with an agenda.
dsteve040 2 years ago
@dsteve040 You're talking about levels that are dangerous in an enclosed space. 5,000ppm CO2 in EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE is enough to send the global temperatures up over 10 degrees Celsius which would completely melt the polar caps and flood all coastal regions.
And the average CO2ppm for the past 40 million years has been below 300ppm.
A86 2 years ago 2
"And when CO2 was at 7000 ppm there was no global warming"
The last time it was that high was during the Jurassic. Temperatures were MUCH HIGHER. It's official, you have no clue what you're talking about.
"Earth was as cold as it is now"
Incorrect:
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Ordovician
Global temperature was 2 degrees Celsius about what it is now. The reason it wasn't any higher than that was because O2ppm was only 68% of what it is today.
A86 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
WILL YOU GO TO HEAVEN? Here is a quick test, have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen something? Jesus said if you look at a person with lust(sexual thought), you commit adultery in the heart. If you have done these things, you are heading for Hell. That is not Gods will. God sent Jesus to take the punishment on the cross for our sins, so that if you repent(turn away from sin) and trust in Jesus as your lord and savior, God will forgive every sin you ever committed and grant you Heaven.
WW78TH 2 years ago
I guess everyone forgot that befor Obama we had NO deal at all legally binding or not. This is a step in the right direction.
lmcdowall 2 years ago
Obama is not solely to blame.
The EU very terrible at gaining any influence, in the negotiations.
And China were shortsighted, as they preferred to seem strong, rather than think in the long term and do something about this enormous problem.
qanazir 2 years ago 3
The most environmentally progressive countries should simply go ahead. Investing in the green technologies of the future now will yield enormous benefits. The others will follow. It will be an inevitable process.
GreenNewDeal 2 years ago 3
Only 4 nations emit more than 50%, only 20 nations more than 80% of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. These are the countries that need to change most. Finding solutions w/ 20 participants will still be extremely difficult, but much more doable than w/ 200.
GreenNewDeal 2 years ago 2
It's hypocritical to blame Obama - why was it his sole responsibility to cut the Gordian knot? All others are to blame, too (to varying degrees).
GreenNewDeal 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
since when is Co2 considered to be "pollution"?
further, I like it when the climate change lunatics point out that the glaciers are melting! LMFAO!!
a glacier is the end result of a great earth warming that melted the ice cap, thousands of feet thick, that covered the entire N.America thousands of yrs ago! glaciers have been melting for a very long time, long before the idiot Al Gore came around!!
genie0390 2 years ago
@genie0390
Whilst it's true that Global Warming existed prior to humans, we are causing the majority of it at this point.
Since the 70s Mars' has had an increase of of about half a degree in temperature, whereas Earth has had SIX times as much of an increase in the same time span. Granted we're closer to the sun, but we're nowhere near as close to it for it to not be our fault at all.
Even if we look at it in an optimistic manner we'd have caused at least 60% of it.
Saaduk92 2 years ago 2
We can blame the rest on beavers!
ooMONKEYoo 2 years ago
YES! kill the earth and all the trees and animals becuse 1) you dont care and polution is a hoax or 2) you think God will save us!!!.... I really hope that the human race dies in a giant wild fire =/ we dont deserve what we have been given.
stopcallingmegothic 2 years ago
the world would be better off without the human race
flakovaldez 2 years ago 2