Global Warming - Carbon Dioxide

[RandomVersion]

Scientists say cut soot, methane to curb warming

AP-An international team of scientists says it has figured out how to slow global warming: Stop focusing so much on carbon dioxide. They say the key is to reduce emissions of two powerful and fast-acting causes of global warming — methane and soot.

Two dozen scientists from around the world ran computer models of 400 different existing pollution control measures and came up with 14 methods that attack methane and soot.

[wbruys]

They give false information here. Graphs end at 1985-1990. They do not draw the last 25 years ,in which there was a huge change in temp.

[FedupwithR]

Global Warming is a fact whatever its cause. We should be working together to minimise the consequences for the biodiversity of which are a part not squabbling and calling names.

[katnils]

This is a short version of what I´m talking about and the argument that should have been dealt with if this video would have been serious in refuting global warming being caused by human activities:

"Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change"

Note that I am still not saying I know the truth or know how much anyone at this point can predict about global warming. I am just saying that the real information about what is here claimed to be refuted is very much left out.

[katnils]

I am not claiming to know whether the consensus among climatologists about human activities being the today main reason to temperature rises is right. But I do find this video insincere for not telling the real story about what climatologists are really saying but instead choose to make straw mans and blurry graphs. It smells lobbying by oil, gas and coal companies.

[katnils]

Why is the graph plotted for a shorter time regarding solar activity than temperature and why are the graphs too blurry to show the years? Does it have something to do with that solar activity and volcanic activity is accepted to explain the temperature up to the mid 70-ties and after that it isn´t considered to explain the temperature rise anymore? From the mid 70-ties the rise in CO2 levels are believed to be the main cause for rise in temperatures. Why does this video forget to mention this?

[SorenK1987]

watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA

[newagewizard]

watch?v=LPNiBVU2QIA

[wiseidiot5763]

Oh no, I'd better cut back on my CO2 emissions. We wouldn't want a completely natural substance in the air for those greedy trees to use to support life.  We need more room in the air for the smug clouds emitted by San Francisco.

[wizmindfire]

@AgnesBojaxhiu2000 If there's one thing I'm sure of, is you didn't watch the video. Solar activity is the driver of warming, and that is a proven fact. Agnes, if you think you're superior to us, please answer the following question: exactly what percentage of CO2 emitted yearly into the atmosphere is from human sources?

Temperature correlations w/ CO2 have proven that CO2 LAGS the temp increases: ie, temp increases CAUSE the Co2 emissions. Do some research.

[daniel61964]

This is a government thing to create more jobs humans breathe out carbon dioxide why not eliminate them????????????

[wizmindfire]

@daniel61964 If anything, the climate change folks want to eliminate jobs, not create them.

[charlienethercoat094]

why aren't they showing the rest of sun temp in the graph, this film could be bias

[Chewu]

well it doesn't really help that we cut down the tree's that turn CO2 into Oxygen...

[irishchrisc]

@Chewu Apparently, algae are the biggest oxygen producers on the planet, not trees.

[Chewu]

@irishchrisc yes, but what i said was that it doesn't really "help" cutting down tree's meaning it's not exactly good for the planet.

[irishchrisc]

@Chewu Maybe, The Earth has many self stabilizing mechanisms. The higher the co2 content in the atmosphere, means the trees will grow faster. I do admit, there is a threshold point of no return, in terms of cutting down trees. I think we are still far from that. No can only hope we change our ways, and not cross that line. things would be OK if they replaced the trees they fell. the sad thing is they are cutting down forests to make room for agrarian use.

[DrBPhD]

The effect of solar activity on temperature has also been known for quite a while. The data shown in this vid underline this effect very well, as they do with the influence of CO2. The "binary" nature of the discussion (temperature increase caused by either CO2 or solar activity with one mechanisms excluding the other) is unscientific. It's about time to attribute temperature changes to BOTH mechanisms.

[DrBPhD]

Solar activity and CO2 BOTH (!) affect global temperatures. The conclusions from the comparison of the global temperature vs time data and the data on CO2 content of the atmosphere vs time (shown at the end of the vid) are lame. If you would spline the temperature vs time data, a fairly good agreement with the data on CO2 content will be obtained. Carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas, it has been known as such for decades and the physical mechanisms behind it are well known.

[wizmindfire]

@DrBPhD That's a well-put argument, but still doesn't address the proportion of CO2 that humans produce. Our overall contribution is relatively small.

[Thisawareness]

Climategate

Briffa

"I believe that the recent warmth

was probably matched about 1000 years ago."

Briffa is admitting to the Medieval Warm Period

And reading those emails, there is no consensus on AGW. In addition as recently as 1000 years ago, same temps as today, and we also know there were many other warm & cool periods throughout earth's history

ww w. eastangliaemails. com/emails. php?eid=136&filename=938018124 . txt

[sharinganx12]

Without CO2, we wouldn't have any plants and therefore, no oxygen. Get your facts straight people. Plus, increase CO2 causes rapid plant growth and therefore, alot of oxygen!

[Nightversionn]

ahem.

Global warming deniers,

Quit impersonating people on youtube with 'Nigh tt versionn"

It is considered harassment and predatory behaviour on youtube

Read the Community Guidelines below

[sharinganx12]

No no people, it's not about GLOBAL WARMING, it's about Solar Warming because the sun is getting bigger, it's growing and getting hotter thats why..but at the same time the sun is shrinking inside, and all that hydrogen gas in the sun turns into helium...just think, in 7 billion years maybe Earth won't exist anymore because the Sun will turn into a red giant or supergiant which will consume (possibly Earth) and all the inner planets...

[vincewhitney]

are you 12? Because I am an astrophysicist and I can tell you that your statement is completely incorrect, and that as the sun gets larger it will get cooler. And if you think it will be hotter as it gets closer you are wrong, up to a point. Because intensity goes with the radius squared where as the intensity of the suns rays go down with its radius cubed. Basically as the sun gets larger the earth will get colder, untill it is close enough to envelope the entire celestial hemisphere

[sharinganx12]

So the distance between the Sun and the Earth and the intensity now will equal to that in a billion years? Basically the sun will get cooler as it swells right, while the Earth is at a closer distance to it? It's hard for me to explain but you get my point because so then sun can maintain the same intensity it gives to Earth while it was a dwarf with hot temperature, but now bigger, closer, BUT cooler. I guess that's what you mean? Also the Earth's orbit might expand and Moon becoming a planet

[vincewhitney]

It's the difference between having a small bright bulb and a large dim one. Either way that is not what is causing global warming. Even saying that solar activity is the cause is a stretch. The thing is most people trying to debunk global warming aren't looking at the full picture. Ever heard of the medeveal  warming period

[vincewhitney]

Anyways that period of warming only occurred in the UK, while the earths temperature was still low. It's only when you look at a certain area that you can "disprove" some theories of global warming. And yes C02 increases plant growth, but they have done studies that show if c02 were increased plants would die because they would stop producing certain defensive chemical to ward off bugs. It's a much more complex picture than anyone is painting

[sharinganx12]

Ooh tell me about the medeval warming period. Hey I mean you're older than me and much smarter than me (I'm 15) and you know better. Also I learned from personal experience of the "interwebs" that rocky planets have a main atmosphere of carbon dioxide. If Earth had no more plants, eventually all the atmosphere would convert back to CO2, is that true?

[vincewhitney]

Well i guess c02 is a slightly more stable atomic structure, but i think that there is more to it than that. I know that alot of the oxygen would simply react with things over time, but i don't believe all of it would by a long shot. And remember, most of our air is nitrogen, 70% or so, and oxygen makes up a small amount, maybe 20% if i recall correctly? And co2 is only in trace amounts, something like 300ppm (parts per million

[TRUMPHENT]

This video is full of completely false statements. Volcanos only emit 350 megatons CO2 per year. Manmade C02 is approximately 26 gigatons. Fact found at United States Geologic Survey. This video is pure bunk.

[Spartan396]

That does not make this "bunk". The fact still remains, sunspots correlate more completely with global temperature as compared to CO2 in the atmosphere.

[DonExodus2]

No, that claim is also bullshit.

Funny how the graph stops at 1970. Why? Because after that the correlation disintegrates.

I know it may be radical and absurd to actually read the scientific paper you cite, but doing so would save denialists considerable embarrassment in the future.

You people are almost as bad as those who deny evolution lol

[apollo1268]

Don

The graph stops at 1980. Lets assume you're correct and the correlation disintigrates after this time. Are we then to assume that the previous 370 yrs. of almost perfect correlation means nothing. I don't think so. Also, I would challenge you to find any correlation between CO2 and temps that parallel as closely as sun activity does.

Note: Im referring to Co2 that precedes temp rise, not following it.

[knowyourplanet]

I know, its funny.

What really cracks me up is how people cling onto these false statements. Oh I forget, its not really funny is it?

Dustball earth here I come!

In 2003 the PENTAGON issued a study, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security". Id read that if I was a skeptic!!!

[TRUMPHENT]

I just reread "An Abrupt Climate Change". It's amazing that it ever emerged from the Rumsfeld Pentagon in the first place. The big fear seems to be reduced carrying capacities around the world that will lead to confrontation.

[enomarekim]

People seem to forget high school chemistry. When water is cold, it stores more dissolved co2, when it is warmed, it releases more co2. This is what happens to the ocean when earths temperature goes up or down, and is also why there is a 500 year lag between temp increase and co2 increase, because the ocean takes that long to heat up. wake up, temp drives co2, not the other way around, there is absolutley no evidence that a trace element has ever or ever will determine temperature on earth.

[x11115]

not true.. more disinformation. co2 has a radiative forcing factor that attributes to increasing the average global temperature. see my videos. co2 is emitted into the atmosphere by using crude oil and other sources of energy.

heat is being trapped by co2 (a major global warming gas with many more times radiative forcing than water vapor and other gases).

your high school chemistry fails you.

[enomarekim]

there is such a small amount, that even with co2's ability to absorb radiation, there is no evidence that it is a major factor behind climate change. in fact, warmer temperatures cause co2 levels to go up, while colder temperatures cause them to go down. this is the relationship between co2 and global temperature, not what Al gore would have you to believe.

[katnils]

@enomarekim And you ignore that climatologists are not saying that rising CO2 levels have initiated global warming in the past just for the reason you mention here. But the rise in CO2 levels due to global warming have probably helped maintain the warm weather. No one is saying that CO2 isn´t a greenhouse gas. And since when did CO2 become an element or a trace element?

The situation today is different since we have increased the CO2 level instead of rising temperatures increasing it.

[pauloz386]

The global warming scare campaign is designed to stifle developing countries, so western countries will remain the power brokers of the world. It's another form of war, rather than use violent weapons they will use the high cost of "carbon" as the weapon of choice. I just wish more people would wake up to this.

[IDFBunny]

I think it's the opposite. The Great Clobal Warming Swindle was invented by anti-capitalists to hobble industrial (read rich) scocieties.

[pauloz386]

I see where your coming from, but actually it's the poor that have more to lose, the poor generally live further from employment(travel = oil), the poor don't always have utility power thus relying on fuel and oil. The poor may not already own accommodation, buildings require c02 hungry materials = more expense. Rich can save by buying expensive solar panels, and as their housing have already been built their past carbon footprint is history. Basically the poor will loose more.

[MC0Mijado]

People need to stop trying to found THE cause, there is no cause but a bunch of small things that work together to produce a bigger result. We need to see the picture from a little far and bigger perspective to try to understand what is happening.

[AenemaToolFan]

the sunspot graph has been conveniently manipulated (more fraud). what they conveniently omit is that the sun goes through 11 year cycles. therefore, it's not possible for 30 straight year warming to occur as a result of it, although it may contribute <50%. but even this theory is unlikely, and all but thouroughly debunked considering solar output is on the DECLINE

co2 levels better match temp records of the past. another error of omission.

[skamerjosh]

not trying to diss you, I'm just wondering where you get your info from. cuz im doing a paper on this

[enomarekim]

In the past, Earths temperature has driven co2 levels, due the the oceans ability to store dissolved co2 when it is cold, and its tendency to release dissolved co2 when it heats up. It is probably not co2 that has caused the recent increase in temperature, but if it is not caused by the increase in sunspots, then another force must be at work.

[enomarekim]

Then again, the solar output decline you refer to might be because the increase in sunspots is blocking out some of the visible light produced by the sun. You must remember that the data presented shows that an INCREASE in sunspots precedes the increase in temperature, not the decrease.

[AenemaToolFan]

the temperature fell for explainable reasons as well. given the data we have, again, the temperature drop is explainable (particularly if you consider the whole aerosol / so2 fiasco)

temperature and co2 tend to mimic each other, leading scientist to believe one influences the other and vice versa.

[AenemaToolFan]

volcanic activity on the decline (an error of omission; misleading)

cows do not produce nearly as much co2 as humans (downright lie)

most of the warming occured from the 70's to 00's. look it up. (another downright lie). also, unlike recent warming, most of the warming at the beginning of the century could be explained by natural factors (and their measurements)

[omarspence]

Aside from a MSc. in Aquatic Sciences, quite pissed off with the garbage i have been reading from people with some agenda or another putting this stuff out under the guise of science, while being faced withthe prospect of seeing half my country under water.

And what kind of screen name is that?

you talk about intelligence?

[myndenway]

The irony is that everything in this video is an inconvenient truth. LOL. Talk about Gore exhibiting the psychological phenomenon of projection.

CO2 increases trail temperature increases by hundreds of years. First the temperature rises or falls, then the CO2 follows it. That is what common sense says and the ice cores do show.

[omarspence]

absolute bullshit indeed. solar activity my ass

[londubh2007]

What a mindless piece of pseudoscientific bullshit. Humans are affecting the climate and it is getting warmer because of us. Next they'll be telling us peanut butter is proof of intelligent design.

[omarspence]

Absolutely right, i agree with you

[wizmindfire]

@londubh2007 You're a zealot, and unscientific. You didn't watch the video or study the evidence: what's shocking is you consider yourself educated on the matter... but refuse to consider the evidence with an open mind. Solar activity is the prime driver of climate change: warming is happening. Humans have little to nothing to do with it, and that's scientific, data-evidenced fact.

[londubh2007]

@wizmindfire I watched enough it to know it's pure crap in my scientific non-zeoloty opinion. Perhaps you should take a chemistry and physics course so you will understand the basics of carbon dioxide. I suggest you also watch Climate Crock of the Week videos on YouTube. It will reduce your ignorance. And that's a scientific, data-evidenced fact.

[revv83]

Although quite simplistic, this documentary offers more thruth then Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth".

At least , that's my view as geologist and environmental scientist about it. Everybody tends to believe the politicians and the scientist sponsored by these politicians...

[omarspence]

you call yourself an environmental scientist? you dumb fuck

you are a pseudoscientist just like the idiot that wrote this garbage

[wizmindfire]

@omarspence Not one substantive argument... just insults and hatred, which is all your side seems capable of.

[jessie1312]

interesting that the sunspot activity correlation graph ends at 1980- prior to the period of time that has seen major warming and carbon emissions....hmmmm....good one Martin Durkin.

[Kekio85]

Nice to see how you relate politics with everything, but you know, as I do, that levels of CO2 have never been so high, even going back thousands of years. So, can you really defend that we don't affect the atmosphere?And, if we do, can you really assert that the fine natural balance of the world wouldn't be modified without affections to the climate?And, anyway it's my belief that pollution is not healthy at all. Why don't you live close to a petrol station?..

[wizmindfire]

@Kekio85 FALSE. CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past. If you can find a link to refute that, ice core sample data that states unequivocally that current CO2 concentrations are higher than ever, I will apologize and send money to Greenpeace.

[nina07crist]

the video is awesome...where is part 5...part 6....until the end of the movie?

[AgnesBojaxhiu2000]

the rushie neocon forces of tyranny and darkness will tell you all sorts of tales ... but just remember science and mathematics ... and how temperature is mathematically correlated to atmospheric levels of co2 and not h20 or methane or even the sun ... which has been found to be getting cooler and cooler during the last 20 years ...but as usual ... because of their misinformation mission .. the rushie neocon will lead down the road into the darkness

[mauiluver]

None of my fellow geologists agree with you. Politics has nothing to do with this. So called "global warming scare" is only a device for Marxists to fight the modern free enterpise, industrial economy.

[iiopen]

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.

-- IPCC

[wizmindfire]

@iiopen This is the same IPCC that declated the Himalayan glaciers would cease to exist by 2035. And yet, they're advancing. Do some research and stop buying into IPCC's political cause.

[omarspence]

How is doing the same things while using less energy to do them marxism?

[wizmindfire]

Energy conservation is an excellent goal. Reduction of waste is an excellent goal. Crippling the economy to do those things is not. The political scientists on the UN's IPCC would love nothing more than to see the USA become weak.... thus the number of poli sci PhD's who are signatories to the IPCC report, and the dearth of astrophysicists. 

[IDFBunny]

But CO2 DOES NOT correlate to temperatures. Earth temperatures have been declining for the last 10 years and too a dramatic drop this last year.

[x11115]

yes it does. you don't know how to interpret the information. there are spikes in temps in one direction or another but co2 is the major factor why temps increase. the co2 has a very high radiative forcing that makes for higher temps. it may take a decade to see the effect but it is a clear correlation. i have videos on this with accurate charts. this is disinformation because the biggest violators are the USA, China, and Russia among others. radiative forcing and the destruction of trees.

[DonExodus2]

lol...

Watch watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M