Global Warming. Part 3 - Man-made or natural? (1of2)

[dareapa1]

When this talks about venus, it fails to include that the Co2 levels on venus are 960,000 parts per million while earth is 300 parts per million...

[tmscad]

Deciduous trees give off O2 (Oxygen) while in the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis can only occur during daylight periods and when the tree is not dormant. During the trees dormancy and at night, trees breath in O2 and breath out CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

Maybe we should cut all the trees down. I think there the real cause. Brother, when are these people going to learn man has nothing or very minor effects on anything on earth.

[x11115]

mars is frigid because of it's distance from the sun. Earth only has life because it is in what they call the goldie locks zone.

[x11115]

6:40 that scientist statement was completely false about mars. from wikipedia: "The atmosphere on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and contains traces of oxygen, water, and methane. "

That means there's a high percentage of co2.

[HybridFreak412]

@x11115 Using wikipedia as a source doesnt prove anything, maybe post the source from the site... then i will believe you. :D Not saying you're wrong, just use a different source like an actual research study.

[x11115]

6:40 At the surface, the atmosphere of Mars contains approximately 95.3 percent CO2 by volume. I think he is incorrect about mars. 

[JuanVoyce]

that is a very dramatic demonstration at 9 of the radiation absorbing properties of CO2

[ethnomagicacious]

The "demonstration" at 9 minutes is completely irrelevant. Since they acknowledge only minutes before that the CO2 makes up very little of the atmosphere, how does showing that 100% CO2 blocks all heat from escaping have anything to do with the GW argument? If you fill the atmosphere with methane - much more predominant than CO2 - very bad things would happen, too. But so what? There's absolutely no way CO2 could ever become the dominant greenhouse gas, no matter what we do. So stupid.

[TRUMPHENT]

@ethnomagicacious CO2 is the dominant forcing GHG. It mixes from top to bottom of the atmosphere. H2O doesn't do that.

The demo at 9 is totally relevant today as it was when this documentary was made some 20 years ago.

[seaplaneguy1]

This video is nonsense. Venus? Mars? Should they be the same temp as Earth? Hell no!!!! Different orbits, water, etc, etc. ^10000 power...Insane video. What a bunch of crap. It fades because of Height to extinction. All Co2 does when added is to lower the height to extinction...now at 375 ppm it is about 10 meters on earth.... Wake up people you are being lied to. CO2 is in saturation!!!!! CO2 is food for plants.

[starrdreams]

@seaplaneguy1 So CO2 is good, yes? More CO2 better for us? :)

[screwopenborders]

I agree with you and one reason venus is so hot is due to its very slow reverse rotation.

[seaplaneguy1]

Keeling is central to this GW hoax. Yah, put it on a mountain top...that was a volcano...ah...sounds like his measurements need to take into account the co2 from the mountain...just saying. There is NO greenhouse effect. It is convective and conductive. 0F? Nonsense... Google Georg Beck 180 years of CO2... Keeling is not right...

[starrdreams]

@seaplaneguy1 If there no greenhouse effect then there would be constant winter on the Earth.

[seaplaneguy1]

What is the height to extinction for CO2 at 375 ppm? Ans. About 10 meters (33 ft). If you double co2 to 750 that height drops to 9.7 m (32 ft). Is ONE FOOT drop going to make much difference? Absolutely NO!!!!!! Wake up.

The reason a greenhouse gets hot is because the glass blocks conduction and convection. Earth is NOT a greenhouse.

The "greenhouse effect" is not correctly named, so it does not exist.

Last, your statement shows you don't understand anything about what is happening.

[starrdreams]

There is simple laboratory experiment proving that CO2 traps heat. You should know that and do not refer to glass and think that climate scientists dumper than you.

[seaplaneguy1]

Starrdreams,

You said ..."no greenhouse...constant winter"

In your mind, adding greenhouse gasses, like water, makes a blanket...false idea.

As I stated, more just lowers the height to extinction, to does NOT trap more.

Think of it like a water filter. Run dirty water in a filter that is low density...clean in 10 ft. Increase filter density....clean in 5 ft...and so on. Very Very high density...clean in 1 inch. As soon as the water is clean, rest of filter not used. Same with co2...

[starrdreams]

Simple experiments shows that CO2 traps heat. More amount CO2 - traps more. But this is not just about amounts of CO2. Rising global temperature causes another processes to start, like melting permafrost in which methane is trapped. And methane is much more powerful greenhouse gaze than CO2. That increases temperature even more etc. - chain reaction. That's all is the problem, not just amounts of CO2.

[seaplaneguy1]

Starrdream,

That is like saying that if the wind blew earth would be in winter all the time. A Greenhouse is convection limiting device....earth obviously is NOT a greenhouse since wind blows....

How does water vapor go from 0.002 lbs moisture per lbs dry air to 0.03 (15 time ratio) at say 85 F (see a typical Psychrometric chart) and the temp does not fry everything? Answer. The height to extinction just drops, and NO extra energy is absorbed....

Filter vs blanket. GHGs are a filter...

[starrdreams]

Greenhouse effect is simple name explaining that heat is trapping.

[johammbass]

Bullshit.

When the earth's temperature increases the outgoing radiation also increases.

Yet another fucking religion.

[starrdreams]

@johammbass Is it confirmed by scientific research?

[acx1n9s]

the earth is in a cooling trend now. it is not warming. But "manmade" co2 levels continue to rise.

The manmade global warming hypothesis is disproven by this simple fact.

Co2 does not control climate.

[starrdreams]

If cooling, then only for a short time, as it was before. But climatechange is not about 2 or 5 or 10 years of cooling.

[starrdreams]

@acx1n9s Look at the bigger scale and you will find that it is not cooling at all.

[lewisduncan93]

NATURAL!!!

[starrdreams]

Sure. Plus man made.

[jojorider2]

How much is natural and how much is man-made?

And if man wasn't here, then what would be the natural drivers of climate change?

[acx1n9s]

prove the manmade part please.

[TheRealArchAngel]

**Each year More co2 was exhaled then inhaled by the Biosphere. The Keeling Curve approve to prove what many has suspected,the humans were changing the composition of the Atmosphere**

What the fuck?

I'm sorry but dead plants don't reinhale Co2 and sometimes hybernating plants die

Swatches of rainforset burned for crops likewise don't reasorb Co2.

Did Keeling ever compare the yearly loss of rain forest and plant life to graph...or the relative tempature of the planet and Ocean Co2 banks?

[Merany1]

The "science" here is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[starrdreams]

How do you "know"?

[TheRealArchAngel]

**The "science" here is wrong, wrong, wrong.

starrdreams (4 months ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply How do you "know"?**

In my case I am aware of the corruption in Svante's Theoryof Greeen House Gases.

1) Infared radation and heat are not interchangable. your tv remote control emmits infared radiation to turn on and off the tv but it does not heat up the air between the t.v. and remore nor the t.v

Likewise a heated object will emmit ir rays but will also emmit xrays if made hotter

[TheRealArchAngel]

**Likewise a heated object will emmit ir rays but will also emmit xrays if made hotter**

Infared radiation is the result of an object's molucules being ajitated,it isn't the result of infared radiation.

2) Air is trasparent to sunlight, and the Heat in the atmosphere is transfered to the atmosphere from the heated earth surface, not from sunlight aggitating the molucules of the air or "green house gases" whos combined IR,UV abosortion rate wouldn't get air above absolute freezing

[TheRealArchAngel]

3) The main conductorof heat in the Troposphere is water vapor measures in humidity level. It is why if you are in a desert that is 114f degrees during the day and the humidity is 80% you are in for a muggy night if the humidity stays at 80%. but if the humidity drops to zero then the Desert air can't hold the day's heat and the Desert will go freezing at night

[TheRealArchAngel]

**if the humidity drops to zero then the Desert air can't hold the day's heat and the Desert will go freezing at night**

Of course any given tempature in an area in the troposphere is bases on humidity,and since hot air rises and cold air falls this along with hot and cold air from "next door" makes wind, which along with the evaporation and precipitation cycles makes weather,measured over time makes localized Climate.

4) a Glocbal Climate does not exist but on Paper. It's from averaging

[TheRealArchAngel]

**4) a Glocbal Climate does not exist but on Paper. It's from averaging**

You take 1500 or so weather stations accros the US and enter data from them them into a data base.

The data base is "averaged" over a period of time to get the US's average climate cycle

Do this with international weather stations and you get a average world Climate.

BUt Note that the "laws of averages" inclued a little clause called a "Margin of Error"

This margin of Error is plus or minus 20 degrees for the World

[TheRealArchAngel]

*This margin of Error is plus or minus 20 degrees for the World*

What does that mean in layman's terms?

It means people screaming the world is 4f degrees hotter is right

It also means people screaming it's 10 degrees colder is right

Why?

Cause local climate cycles do swing that extreme so it being 70 degrees here in Hawaii as I type this is normal though it's 10 degrees colder then the 90's and 5 degrees colder then the 80's

Likewise there are places with "heat waves" now

it's all normal

[mia5620702200]

ok...i understand everything..but the last sentence he said...explain plz =/

[TheRealArchAngel]

**ok...i understand everything..but the last sentence he said.explain plz**

He's saying that a Gallon of gas can turn, quite magically, into co2 despite imperfect combustion actually making varbon monoxide,Sulfer dioxide,nitrous oxide,unburnt gas,& soot without a catalyst converter in the system or that the .021 of Co2 that is made out of a catalyst converter in the filtration system can get pass the filters that turns it into a solid and then fly into the air despite it is 5x heaver then air

[TheRealArchAngel]

**can get pass the filters that turns it into a solid and then fly into the air despite it is 5x heaver then air**

To clarify, Co2 is 5x heavier then Air and is only able to get airborne via the evaporation/precipitation cycle where it rides on water vapor mostly out of the Ocean where the bulk of airborne Co2 comes from.

It's why dividing the 13 billion tons claimed to be released by humand x 150 years divided into the 5000 trillion ton atmosphere will never meet the 315-380ppm gain

[TheRealArchAngel]

**It's why dividing the 13 billion tons claimed to be released by humand x 150 years divided into the 5000 trillion ton atmosphere will never meet the 315-380ppm gain**

Or you talking about that hokey experiment actually showing why Co2 is used in blast freezing inthe Icecream industry?

Co2 is also wothr about $10 a pound so claiming humans could make 21 gallons of co2 from a gallon of gas must have the soda pop and icecream industry in a fit cause they can't seem to recreate that belief

[starrdreams]

If you remove all CO2 from atmosphere, what happens?

[TheRealArchAngel]

**If you remove all CO2 from atmosphere, what happens?**

The world's plants will die from starvation until enough of them die to feed the survivors.

Nature always finds a way, but in the "mass die off" of plants human food crops would be the most suseptable to starvation which will lead to a global famine

[starrdreams]

How about temperature?