Co2 is a harmless gas with nothing at all to do with Global warming. The cycles have changed Global cooling will now be the norm for the next few decades.
@kellygiz As long as it is not about some silly climate model trying ti prove some non existant warming trend.. At present we have the Sun entering a Grand minimum, the Pacific is cooling , a strong La nina building again, volcanic acticity is increasing,the magneosphere is weakening allowing more cosmic rays into the atmosphere,we have every level of the atmosphere cooling, and freezing winters. What have you got? a measly trace gas which is a product of past warming by the highly active Sun.
@david222444 But the trend does exist. And it is supported my measurements, not models. And we have spent decades ruling out all the other possible explanations. Every level of the atmosphere is not cooling. Neither are the oceans. Volcanic activity is not increasing. And CO2 is not just a product of warming, it is a positive feedback. And this trace gas is adding 1.66 watts/square meter, we know this for a fact.
@kellygiz Why do you theorise "no change of state"?
Even the pro-AGW Solar bods like "drkstrong" say the Sun is still exceptionally quiet. The Solar prediction guys are also predicting it's going to stay quiet 'til 2013. Some use empirical data for for low activity for up to 30 years from now.
The past three years have seen the oceans cooling (GIS Satellite).
Oh by the way, oceans heat from underneath, not the surface. It's an electric universe remember.
@kellygiz Oh really! I never knew that!!!!! lololol. I really should go back to Sunday school.
I have lived through several notable Solar states before, twice as many as you and never have been surprised what was dished out to us. It's all from the Sun. Man's influence is miniscule.
In 1801 an astronomer (Hershel) noted crop yields (via prices) matched Solar activity. Nobody but pro-warmists have an issue with that reality.
@m1aws You think Climatologists don't understand the relationship between solar output and climate? What do you think they have been studying all these years?
@m1aws I would side with the ones who are publicly funded and are in the 97% majority. The ones who are conducting the vast majority of the research. The ones who don't cling to hypotheses that were ruled out decades ago. And I think it would be tough to conduct any research without funding. Satellites and ice drills are expensive.
@kellygiz Yes, I was reading about Hansen on wiki. An atmospheric scientist. He is an absolute nutter! Gets lots of funding and highly regarded but everything he has researched has been proven dead wrong when the empirical data came in. i.e. Venus' atmosphere etc.
I'm afraid politics is a monster that will not go away.
Satellites are initially expensive but overall dirt cheap. Often the data is misconstrued. The ice cores are now done. More expensive mud, chalk and limestone cores are next!
@m1aws Satellites cost billions. Nobody is going to do it in their garage for fun. I think you should be more sceptical of your sources regarding the quality of the science.
@kellygiz I worked on such things. Expense is in the care and the engineering on all levels. Nobody wants their bit to fail. So all costs throughout raise. I'm happy with the science but not happy with the likes of Hanson who stated data should be manipulated to end the AGW argument for good. (wiki)
@m1aws Every time I have a conversation with a denier, they come up with some new thing I never heard of. Every time, I track it down and find it to be false or out of context. James Hansen wikipedia entry does not contain the word "manipulate". Please be more specific. A direct quote perhaps.
"Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it."
@m1aws You have misinterpreted the statement. There was an error in the satellite data. Hansen was confirming that the CORRECTED (not fudged, not manipulated) satellite data now agreed with the observed data seen on earth. Potholer54 covers this in his first video on climate change "Climate change - The Scientific Debate" at about 5:00. I recommend watching the entire series, and check for accuracy if you like.
@kellygiz That is correct! A fellow stated the errors were through the decaying orbit. Then you read past the bit I copied and he found the lack of tropo heating was....... problematical.
However, with his scary attitude and the likes of Jones and Wang etc. who have been reduced to propagandists I'm sorry, they have no credibility at all!
Daily Mail, 22nd November 2011 :
"New leak of hacked global warming scientist emails: A 'smoking gun' proving a conspiracy - or just hot air?"
@m1aws What do you mean "Scary attitude"? If you knew that Hansen was talking about a real error, why did you say that he was advocating fraud to quiet the sceptics?
@kellygiz Was he really? If you read all of his bio you can get a good feel of his mindset and intentions.
"noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring"
and of course, what should be done about it.
I've worked with line managers who were more subtle than this. He fudged to have the numbers doctored.
@m1aws Lets's set this straight... Old satellite agrees with thermometers, new satellite replaces old satellite, new satellite slowly starts disagreeing with thermometers... hmm this is a problem... OH! someone fucked up, here, let's see what happens when when we correct the problem... ok, now new satellite agrees with thermometers. (and all other lines of research). So where in this do you get dishonesty?
And to quote Mann from your article: "I guess they had very little left to work with"
@kellygiz New satellite is more accurate or they would not of bothered. Yes it is a problem and no, there is no error in its orbit.
Poor Mann. Using his awry data from Californian tree's that had no relationship with climate data from over the rest of the world then somebody added a big red vertical line on the end. "I guess they had very little left to work with"
"The argument is settled". IPCC are having another junkett. Their new graphs will look like tennis rackets from the about turn.
@m1aws Yes, new satellite is more accurate, but it was disagreeing with the rest of the data. That's what Hansen was talking about. That's what the correction was for. Please try to read things objectively.
@kellygiz So, you are admitting the more accurate data needed to be massaged to come in line with the different, less accurate data.
This has already happened far too many times. The old data has never been corrected unless it suited the GW agenda. That is why the IPCC graphs never add up to the old empirical data.
@david222444 why dont u create a tank full of co2 in high levels...put it on a transparent glass and record the temperature at night and day...every day. lower the level of Co2 some days in the tank and record the temperature difference from when the Co2 leaves where high and low..if u see no difference in temperature after lowering or increasing the Co2.then u might say Co2 does nothing ...only say something unless ur able to test it and prove it...
@MichaelsPianoSongs Market gardeners put co2 into glass houses to increase plant growth and not to increase temperature. Why fill a tank? you mean put o.o38% of co2 in tank and the rest air, then check the temperature difference. I can tell you now using commonsense that there would be no differene.
VERY COOL AND EDUCATIONAL. I have a partial solution, I design walkable neighborhoods and made a video about reducing how much we drive. It's at otis31755 Let me know what you think?
Fuck off with the carbon tax, there's no proof that Humans are causing climate change. The sun has been increasing in output in recent years but they never mention that, the very source of heat on earth. Also the earths magnetic field might have something to do with it as it blocks radiation from the Sun. Also Plants and trees and plankton in the oceans gobble that stuff up. Could it be that we have poisoned the oceans too much. We should take this out of the Oil companies hides not ours!!
@MrROTD agreed big oil companies should foot the bill but lets not forget to mention that more "greenhouse gasses" are released from burning coal for electricity than all the emissions used for transportation. facts are for U.S. only so have the power plants foot the bill as well but if we do that soon we be paying $20 to charge a phone
@MrROTD "The sun has been increasing in output in recent years but they never mention that, the very source of heat on earth."
Actually, solar radiation was *decreasing* throughout most of the last decade. In spite of this decreased radiation, the Earth's surface temperatures continued to rise.
@MrROTD, jnewrol10 to say there's no proof that humans are causing the climate change is like pretending there's no proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Indeed, there are life-long smokers dying of old age. Nevertheless, countless statistical studies have shown that the incidence of lung cancer among smokers (passive and active alike) is hugely larger than among non-smokers.
@MrROTD mmm Nope, solar output hasn't been increasing. Sorry. And plants and trees and plankton aren't gobbling that stuff of fast enough, apparently, as co2 has increased by 1/3, and we know that 1/3 is ours because those clever scientists can measure that, too.
@MrROTD, jnewrol10 Similarly, not all of the global climate change is caused by humans, but we surely have a large contribution. What we do changes the global climatic system in an uncontrolled way. For instance, the major aerial and marine currents are slowing down. If these currents stop, the ice cap of the north pole could extend southwards of Canada, and a huge desert could form south of NY. Average temperature stays the same, but life becomes mostly extinct.
WOW!! the video is shocking to see how much CO2 is produced at a daily rate. What is more astonishing is the extend of human selfishness witnessed in these comments. People think they are so much more evolved than primates and other animals but they just as selfish if not more so than other forms of life. With this kind of attitude there will never be a fix to the climate threat. So unfortunate to see such a beautiful planet wasted by greed, complacency, and selfishness by one species.
I saw a map shown by a Environmentalist. Showed average temps going up all over the world. The average US temp was cooler over the 50 year study and warmer over Europe and Russia to China. CO2 traps heat but why is it not trapped over the place that supposedly makes the most? It is a scam. Man caused global warming is a scam of all scams. Environmentalist say the world scientist are all agreeing but that is not true either. Don't believe the hype.
So go ahead and pretend to be educated. You lost any and all credibility you may have had when you copy pasted an article of somebody else which I found by using google to search for an exact phrase.
--NASA and the rest of the collaborating minds don't lie. And don't pretend to have an understanding of physics because I will make you look like a complete fool. I've spent an awful lot of time studying physics and it is a hobby of mine. Stop pretending poser.
This is a bunch of propaganda. CO2 is not a "greenhouse" gas. CO2 is the heaviest gas in our atmosphere and settles near ground level. CO2 does not "trap" the heat or sunlight in our atmosphere. All of the grass that has been planted combined with the rest of the botanical life sequesters the CO2. Today we have LESS CO2 in the atmosphere then we did a century ago.
@BeondaPale , Why is it that the ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as they are here on Earth when there is only trace amounts of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere?
"Why is it that the ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as they are here on Earth when there is only trace amounts of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere?"
THEY ARE??? From where oh where did you get this info? Let me guess - a political blog rather than a scientific source, right?
THINK LOGICALLY:
Earth is 96 million miles from the sun & Mars is 130 million miles from the sun.
If it was the sun, WHY WOULD WE BE WARMING AT THE SAME RATE??
CO2 does not "trap" the heat or sunlight in our atmosphere.
-- WOW!! You mean it doesn't absorb and emit infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (via asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (via bending vibrational mode) as physicists say it does?
Oh THANK YOU anonymous youtube clown for not lying to the whole world
@BeondaPale . Wow, you know how to google then cut./paste data of which you have NO UNDERSTANDING.
-The data about the Ice Caps melting on Mars is from NASA you jagoff. Furthermore, the .6C to .8C increase in temperature we've experienced over the last 30 years in consistent with that of Mars and Venus.
-Google "martian ice caps melting" and read all about it at NASA's website.
@BeondaPale , The petition went before congress and consists of 3,805 Weather, Environmental, and Atmospheric scientists. As well as 5,802 scientists from Physics and Aerospace, 2,965 Biologists, 4,822 Chemists or related scientists, and over 10,000 engineers.
---Now explain to me how is it that the temperature increase we've seen on this earth over the past 30 years is precisely consistent with that of the rest of our solar system bodies which clearly don't have man made co2? u r a douche
"Now explain to me how is it that the temperature increase we've seen on this earth over the past 30 years is precisely consistent with that of the rest of our solar system bodies which clearly don't have man made co2?"
It's not "precisely consistent" with any such thing. This is untrue, made up crap.
@BeondaPale , It's too bad you don't take the time to look at the data because if you did you probably wouldn't be running your mouth. The data doesn't lie. Your mouth does. One day you are going to look back at this argument and realize how much of a tool you actually are. Waste of humanity.
@BeondaPale , I have DATA to back up my claims. I told you what to search for and what link to follow. You did not look at the data from NASA. I have DATA that PROVES there has not been an increase in co2 over the past 150 years. DO YOU HAVE DATA? DATA DATA... Try using your brain instead of your mouth.
@BeondaPale , And one more thing Mr. Wannabe Physics Graduate, WHERE IS THIS DATA THAT CO2 EMITS MORE INFRARED THAN OTHER MATTER? Do you even know what infrared radiation is. Dude, you have no clue what you're talking about. Quit acting like a tool and do some reading. I suppose you will come back with some other sarcastic comment...I will just say, look around you.. have many friends? People like you? I seriously doubt it. So come on, keep the ignorance coming and dig yourself deeper.
@BeondaPale , Where is the data? You claim that the co2 ppm has increased from 260 to 380 over a hundred years but yet you are not able to point me in the direction of the data? LIAR
-If you want to see the data.. .google "Hadley Climatic Research Institute" and "magnetic flux" ...
-For an overview of ALL the data check out Applied Information Systems or appinsys-DOT-com
-That's what data looks like. Why can't you provide any to back up your claims? Could it be that you are making things up?
"Where is the data? You claim that the co2 ppm has increased from 260 to 380"
No not over 100 years - over 160 years.
No, not from 260 to 380 - from 280 to (currently) 388 and rising
And I just told you where you can find it - NASA, WMO, NOAA - LOL you can not simply look it up and call me a LIAR all you want - it doesn't make the info any less valid
Do you need a specific paper? OK, Look up:
"A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2"
@BeondaPale , OK, I read the paper by Francey which was a study of core samples taken from the antartic. You are correct that co2 levels rose from 280 to 380. However, there is nothing in this paper that suggests that co2 is the culprit for global warming. And nothing to suggest that a rise in temperature correlates with a change in co2 levels.
-The data I showed you proves that man made co2 is not the culprit. And it is nearly unanimous across all scientific fields that co2 is not to blame.
@BeondaPale Scroll down. I told you exactly where to go to look at the data that proves man made co2 is not responsible for the last warming phase. I told you the exact phrase to search for to get to the data at NASA's website and i directly linked the data at Applied Information Systems. YOU DID NOT BOTHER TO LOOK. And there is NOTHING in that paper I read that shows global warming as a result of a rise in CO2... nothing at all.
Why don't you look at the data I linked.. scroll down and look.
@BeondaPale , What the hell is wrong with you. You tell me where to read something that backs your stance and I check it out. I tell you where to read the information that backs my stance and you don't read it. None of your opinions are backed by data. Nor can you prove any of your claims aside from the rise in co2. Maybe if you actually shut your mouth and looked over the data you wouldn't be such an ignorant fool.
Youy just called me a "LIAR" then admitted you were wrong. Now you say that something is wrong with me. I'm ignorant fool?
I did search, but nowhere could I find information that told me that :
A. "man made co2 is not the culprit. (of the recent global warming)" - in fact NASA says the opposite is probably true
OR
B. "the ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as Earth" - NASA did say that the ice caps on mars were melting - but didn't say anything about rate.
@BeondaPale , I know, based on Robert Cahalan's work at the Goddard Space Flight Center, that there is warming across our solar system which is directly related to the number of sunspots our sun has. Based on his research and data, it is evident that the sun is more at play than co2.
co2 and methane retain more heat energy than other atmospheric gases, but is not responsible for global warming. Our planet has cooled over the past decade and that is attributable to the decline in sunspots.
I'm sorry, I've searched for anything by Robert Calahan that came anywhere close to saying that
A. there is warming across our solar system - some planets MAY be warming (but I could find no attribution to the sun for the reason) while other planets are not
or
B. that the sun is (CURRENTLY) more at play than co2.
I haven't found anything. Do you maybe have a link to one of his studies showing either of these things?
@BeondaPale, I would google Robert CAHALAN...not Calahan and "sunspot data".
You can see that the earths average temperature directly correlates to the number of sunspots or the absence of sunspots. And it's not just NASA climatologists, it's also the Russian Academy of Science which is well respected.
NASA's "official" stance is that man made co2 is the culprit but the scientists within do no agree. We experienced a very similar warming period during the 17th century. let's not argue anymor
@TheGrowdaddy Of course it'll all go aways if we don't look at it. Who told you that scientist don;t agree on global warming? There are always a handful of scientist in teh pockets of wealthy interests.
@fernandizo , DO you know who Maurice Strong is? He created the myth of global warming. He is worth trillions. He owns the company that benefits most from carbon credits. His company manufactures the hardware and software all businesses MUST use to track and trade carbon credits. There is a small group of scientists, it is the majority of scientists in relative fields that agree that man made warming is a hoax. Why have we experienced a cooling period of the past 8 years... SUNSPOTS are the caus
@fernandizo , Listen man... google "30,000 scientists petition" and read for yourself. You're talking a majority of scientists in related fields. I'm sure many did not sign the petition out of fear of losing funding. None of the signatures are hidden. You can look at each and every person on the petition and check out who they are. We're talking NASA climatologists as well. Sunspots were the cause of the warming we experienced..and the cooling we experienced afterwards is from less sunspots.
@fernandizo , SO go check it out for yourself, it's not a "handful" of scientists. Your corporate owned media, who you obviously trust at your own fault, are the ones pushing the MYTH. There is NO DATA that shows co2 is responsible. THe data shows the warming of the planets in our solar system is directly proportional to the amount of sunspots, or lack of sunspots, we experience during any given year. Go and check it out for yourself. Do your own thing and come to your own conclusion. sheep
@fernandizo, If you don't want to believe the majority of scientists, google "17th century warming period". Now try to explain why we experienced a very similar warming period during the 17th century when there was no man made co2. CO2 is a basic part of life. When you can tax carbon, which we are all made of, you can tax every aspect of everyone lives. It's a well planned and orchestrated scam brought to you by maurice strong and cohorts. Do your own research, stop being spoonfed propaganda.
@TheGrowdaddy There are people that think they know everything. They take a singular fact that hardly anybody knows about (like your Maurics Strong fact) and try to explain everything with it. Do you really think that billions of cars and hundreds of thousands of industrial plants, not to mention other human activities would not change the output of CO2 so drastically that it could change Earths climate? Your an ABSOLUTE IDIOT! People like you are the reason America is failing..you make me sick
@fernandizo , I'm an idiot? Listen douchebag.. google "30,000 scientists"... and read. Now, why is it that 90% or more of scientists in related field agree that man made global warming is a hoax? BECAUSE IT IS. All YOU have to do is look at the god damn data instead of buying into a hoax that has absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS.
Am I an idiot, certainly not. I have taken the time out of my life to research the issue and look at the data. And you have NOT researched the issue... who is the idiot?
@TheGrowdaddy What are you talking about? 90% of scientist think that global warming is a hoax? WOW..You have been watching way too much Glen Beck pal. Researching fox news' website isn't doing research. That's what educated people call propaganda. You think your the only one researching global warming? You right wing trailer punks think you got the world figured out with occasional google search and 23 hour fox news marathon blasting your brain. Unfortunately your type seems to be the majority
@fernandizo , I don't watch glen beck and I don't watch TV. This data is from nasa. If you take five minutes out of your day to look at the data, instead of acting a fool here on youtube, you would see the truth. What data do you have the shows man made co2 is responsible for the warming period we experienced a decade ago?
Show me that data and i'll be quiet. You can't, cause that data doesn't exist. However, as Robert Cahalan's research, from nasa's GSFC shows, sunspots are responsible.
@TheGrowdaddy And yes you are an idiot! I'm not going to give you any respect. You really have your facts distorted and I have no respect for ignorant people trying to convince other people they are right on matters they ABSOLUTELY know nothing about. DO NOT.. lie to people! Lying is wrong, it is irresponsible and it is a vile habit. People these days forget the meaning of honesty. honesty is an integral part of society and you are dishonest man..You sir, are an irresponsible idiot !
@fernandizo, You are forgetting that I know, for a fact, that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN DATA THAT PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE. That data doesn't exist. Show it to me. Where can I get that data. Your accusing me a being a sheep. I am a highly educated individual of sound mind with excellent problem solving skills.
You are a sheep. You have been programmed through media, film, radio, cultural suggestions, and hype to believe that your activities are responsible for the warming period in the 90's
@fernandizo So where is the data? All you have to do is google what I am telling you and look at the data. What you are buying into is a suggestion with no evidence to back the claim.
Where is your data? It does not exist. The data that shows man made co2 is not responsible does. So who is the fool? Talk all the smack you want but at the end of the day you are still the ignorant sheep.
@fernandizo , "You really have your facts distorted and I have no respect for ignorant people trying to convince other people they are right on matters they ABSOLUTELY know nothing about."
Take a good look in the mirror you buffoon. My so called "lies" are backed up with hard data. Your ignorant assumptions are not. There isn't any data that backs your claims and you can't show it to us because it doesn't exist. My claims are backed with PROOF. HARD DATA. You are ignorant.
@TheGrowdaddy You wrote three entries on this page back to back and your only fact was ..."Robert Cahalan's research, from nasa's GSFC shows, sunspots are responsible. " This is a partial fact. That means you tried to distort the truth by using a fact out of context.
This is the full fact.."Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind"
@fernandizo , I'm not lying. When the occurrence and volume of sunspots are plotted along a timeline along with avg. temperature data there is an exact correlation. That is why 90% or more of climatologists today say that man made global warming is a hoax. I'm not lying. I asked you to show me data that proves co2 is responsible and you cannot. That is because it doesn't exist. NASA's computer "model" is only a model and likely designed to twist the truth. The data doesn't lie. Look at the data.
@TheGrowdaddy So you are now going to say that that the fact you used in favor of your argument -"NASA's computer "model" is only a model and likely designed to twist the truth." is now a falsehood because it was used against you?
I'm starting to think I'm discussing climate change with a know-it-all teenager or some kind of oil company PR guy. I'm sorry pal I don't have time to convince Exxon mobile lobbyists/ republicans that global warming exists. Good luck in your efforts to distort truth.
@fernandizo , We experienced much more drastic warming trends during the early medieval period. At that time in history, according to core samples taken, co2 was at a very very low level. Check it out. And I urge you to tell me where you have seen proof that man made co2 is responsible for the warming trend we experienced.
You can provide the data because it doesn't exist. Read my below post. Robert Cahalan was the first climatologist to draw attention to the facts.
@TheGrowdaddy "We experienced much more drastic warming trends during the early medieval period."
Solar output was high in the early medieval period, and as models predict, solar output was the forcing function primarily responsible for the temperature rise. Today, CO2 is the forcing function. There is no doubt that increasing CO2 forces temperature up. The unanswered question is how the Earth will respond to that forcing.
@BeondaPale , And about you being a "LIAR". The science you're preaching here is a lie. The Oligarchs want us to pay more taxes. They used an increase in solar activity as an opportunity to push forth their agenda where we pay taxes to the IMF for the energy we use
Now I don't disagree that we are polluting the planet or that co2 will become an issue if things don't change. However, what needs to change is the hording and shelving of clean technologies that would end the burning of fossile fuel
@BeondaPale , You read that.. 400ppm... As it's known to us Botanists that most plants benefit from co2 upwards of 900 ppm; especially grass. When plants have additional co2 available they use it. More co2 combined with optimal growing environments gives us more vibrant plants. That is why trees and plants grow well in low altitudes. If we did have an abundance of co2 we would start to see plant life migrate to higher elevations...and that has not occurred.
@BeondaPale , As you can see, two statements below, CO2 does not "trap" heat in our atmosphere. And the copy paste crap you linked has nothing to do with the trapping of any heat in our atmosphere. Though you're ignorant mind probably believes that it does. Since it does not "trap" in the heat, it cannot accurately be referred to as a "greenhouse effect".
@BeondaPale , Warming is precisely consistent across our solar system relative to the orbiting bodies distance from the sun. That is a fact and NASA backs me up on that one. You can make asinine arguments till your blue in the face but it doesn't make up for the fact that you have absolutely no clue wtf you are speaking of. I have all the science to back up my claims and you just have a mouth which you have little control over.
@BeondaPale , "you mean it doesn't absorb and emit infrared radiation"... No it doesn't "abosrb" infrared at all. It will emit Infrared radiation as ALL MATTER DOES. Rocks emit infrared radiation, my testicles emit infrared radiation, your bicycle emits infrared. You are a class act moron.
LOL, If you think this is an argument, you're an idiot. - if your testicles had gone from 280 ppm to 380 ppm within the atmosphere in 150 years, the scientists would now be talking about how humans are putting too many of your testicles in the air.
"ALL MATTER DOES"
Yes - to DIFFERING DEGREES - the other gasses (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) do it to, but not even close to the same degree that CO2 does - pick up a physics book - open to page 1
@BeondaPale , Have you looked at the comments on your page. It's unanimous, you are a tool.
-Radiation isn't measured in PPM you moron. All of my arguments are backed by science which I have told you how to view. Mostly from NASA... are you going to argue with nasa?
-Your next argument was about the petition which you know nothing of nor have checked out. It's nearly unanimous across all scientific professionals that man made global warming is a hoax.
@BeondaPale , OK... where is this data from... you are so full of shit. 280 to 380 PPM in 150 years? WHERE CAN I VIEW THIS DATA? This is absolute proof that you are talking out of your ass because this data does not exist. Prove me wrong, i dare you.
@BeondaPale , As for the petition... it isn't private. None of the names of the scientists are hidden or omitted. YOU can look every single one of their names up in their school or institution directories or listen to some of the testimony of some of the signees. Your sarcastic and quackster attitude highlight your ignorance.
@Anunnaki444 Wrong, plants respire exactly the same as us, however, by PHOTOSYNTHESIS they take in CO2 and release Oxygen, which happens at a higher rate. Diffusion happens in both cases. Trees still help though.
@SupermewX300 , This is all propaganda. Over 30,000 US Scientists ranging from Climatologists to Astronomers signed a petition to say that GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX....don't believe me.. google it. The only people saying that it is an issue are a handful of scientists who are working for the Fortune 100 or numbskull Oligarchy minions like Al Gore.
The governments of the world are going to use up all the oil and gas in the ground until there is none left. The Green brigade have done nothing to slow this down in fact its pace is increasing. But then plenty of legislation about carbon dioxide being a poison, hang on a minute isn't that what we breathe out. What I'm the polluter of the world along with all the other animals even dolphins. Not by using all the plastic and other junk that we have no choice to use, but just by existing.
I knew you EastCoasters would screwing up our enviroment hahaha. Before you tree huggers get ahead of yourselves, what about enviromental accountability developing countries even China, and India? Where's there accountability?! Has anyone heard of HAARP
I HAVE AN EASY SOLUTION: TREES & AND PLANTS produce OXYGEN and bind CO2.
So just stop logging down the rainforests.
WE COULD PLANT 1.000.000.000 TREES & grow hemp to reduce global warming
STOP PLASTIC INDUSTRY & USE HEMP INSTEAD. Thats an easy solution.
Co2 is a natural element was here long b4 the dinsaurs, but all the petro chemicals inducing cancer are not natural, PVC, PESTICIDE, ROUND UP READY, ASPARTAM, PLUTONIUM, DEPLETED URANIUM,
I HAVE AN EASY SOLUTION: TREES & AND PLANTS produce OXYGEN and bind CO2.
So just stop logging down the rainforests.
WE COULD PLANT 1.000.000.000 TREES & grow hemp to reduce global warming
STOP PLASTIC INDUSTRY & USE HEMP INSTEAD. Thats an easy solution.
watch?v=Wmn4hf0bf3I
Co2 is a natural element was here long b4 the dinsaurs, but all the petro chemicals inducing cancer are not natural, PVC, PESTICIDE, SO2, PLUTONIUM, DEPLETED URANIUM,
We can take steps to reduce pollutuion, but CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. It's not even a greenhouse gas. It is heavier than air by 1 1/2 times and moves down toward the lowlands and then the ocean. What is a greenhouse gas? Water vapor. H2O holds in heat, not CO2.
co2 is used by every plant in the world for photosynthesis as well as sunlight and water to grow and make oxygen.if there were no co2 there would be no plants and no oxygen.thats fifth grade science people.
Watching this video is like watching the heartbeat of a computerised monster that we've created for ourselves through our demand for energy. A perturbing piece of information I picked recently , the World Bank recently made a loan of $ 3.75 bn to build four coal fired power plants in South Africa. I presume the loan was sanctioned by the current president of the World Bank, Mr. Robert B. Zoellick, who was elected by the former U. S. president Mr. George Bush. They aid and abet the monster.
@johnmassengale And one Big volcanic eruption laughs at all global warmers. Using mercury filled bulbs much hazardous to the environment than co2 if you don't believe me try giving a plant co2 and try giving another one mercury and tell me which one grows healthier?
Here is a good one for you Al Gore enthusiasts. IF he is so concerned about global warmning, then why does just about every scene in his movie an Inconvienient Truth show him getting out of a jet. He is a supposed enviromentalist and yet he can't use an airline like the rest of us. Even better he should have been driving a hummer alone in the POV lane.
Here's another for your spam message. CO2 is heavier than air so it has the inclination to hover around where it's emitted. Meaning, if it's emitted on the ground, it's got a better chance to be absorbed in the biomass, and not interfere with atmospheric occlusion.
Conclusion, airplanes contribute to more AGW if there was any.
And military contributes the most, yet they are exempt from reporting their emissions.
I rarely comment on youtube, but I HAVE to make an exception because some your "facts" are just wrong.
Stuff that you said that is completely true: CO2 is used by plants in photosynthesis
Stuff that you said that is partially true: The Earth did used to have much higher concentrations of CO2, but you failed to mention that the Earth was also MUCH WARMER at that time as well.
Stuff that you said that is just false: Everything else. I would really like to know where you get your "facts" from.
He mentions what research he has carried out. (i.e. Tracking emissions at various Point-Sources) If you have a better model, then I suggest you post it, Otherwise, I feel you have little validity to your claims.
Before stating something silly about plants and CO2 learn about stoma and their numbers when changing atmospheric CO2 concentration over goelogical timeframes.
Rinse an aluminum can using hot water from kitchen sink gets real hot. Metals get real hot and retain heat. Roads are get hot and retain heat. More roads, parking lots, homes and buildings have been built over decades. Population has soared. I've also read articles that Indians in the 1800's said that it began getting hotter after the white man came and built (including railroads.) There is obviously "something" going on in regards to global warming -Author Diana Neiderhiser.
Scientist must think we all plain stupid, the planet alive and it responding to number of factor which outside of human control, global warming issue more likely caused by air movement or lack due to mountain levels as well planet axis shifting, if we had global plan on Terraforming area in Africa and turn them into carbon naturalizing zone it would provide great help I see this whole global warming as one big plan to tax us more
interesting that 36000 scientific minds have signed to say that the co2 "problem" is in fact not true. You cant help but think that this is more of a cynical ploy to control world energy policy than it is in saving the world.
u know the funny thing is that carbon dioxide is not a threat and does not cause "global warming" (which isnt a real thrdat anywyay" the emission that could even remotely pose a threat is carbon monoxide...
Ok, so we can possibly discount the idea that climate change has been started by us. We can not ignore that we are starting into a runaway greenhouse effect, do to excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. That much we know. Whether it is us or not who started it isn't really the issue. In order to sustain the highest human population as long as possible, we need to address the impacts that warming is going to have on our planet.
"The planet doesn't need saving, we do." ~ I forget.
Indeed, whatever/whoever started the climate change is a useless debate at this point. We are contributing to it and we need to reduce our CO2 emissions. Let's focus on solutions. Zero emission cars are part of the solution, and we have started a discussion about it: what can be done, what will it take: new technologies, new mindset and new habits.
The more that goes in the bin, the more materials we need for new things, and the more energy we burn making them. So if we throw less away, then we,re using less energy and cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions
PLANTS CARRY OUT PHOTO-SYNTHESIS REACTIONS. PHOTO-SYNTHESIS ABSORBS & CONVERTS CO2'S [IE, the MOST SIGNIFICANT CARBON EMISSIONS GAS] & H2O'S FROM THE ATMOSPHERE, activated by light LIGHT, INTO CARB'S FOR THE PLANT AND O2 (Oxygen) FOR CLEANER AIR FOR HUMAN USE. WIN-WIN SITUATION. JUST PLANT MORE TREES. SHRUBS. BUSHES. FLOWERS. GARDENS. WHATEVER. JUST KEEP PLANTING. REVIEW: PLANTS ABSORB CO2 (noxious fossil fuel gas/waste products) & PRODUCE O2 (clean, breathable air). Just Plant More Trees.
CO2 itself doesn't have any impact on temperature, that is true.
And I suppose that the CO2 could be used by plants, if we weren't cutting down the rain forests at an un-sustainable rate.
Also, look up the greenhouse effect. It has been in play since before the whole Climate Change debate even arose. The greenhouse effect ensures that the planet doesn't freeze. If you want an example of what happens when a greenhouse effect goes wrong, check out the planet Venus.
WE aren't cutting down rainforests, and it is illegal for US to use such yields. We grow wood with specific intention of industrial use, and regrow it once cut down. Keep in mind that when we grow and cut down this wood, we are taking CO2 from the air and crea
pshh..... nerds
1123avatar1123 7 months ago
Co2 is a harmless gas with nothing at all to do with Global warming. The cycles have changed Global cooling will now be the norm for the next few decades.
david222444 7 months ago
@david222444 Nope.
kellygiz 4 months ago
@kellygiz Oh yes it is!
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Go read a book.
kellygiz 4 months ago
@kellygiz Like the Beano you read?
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Perhaps a book about science. One written by a relevant scientist.
kellygiz 4 months ago
@kellygiz As long as it is not about some silly climate model trying ti prove some non existant warming trend.. At present we have the Sun entering a Grand minimum, the Pacific is cooling , a strong La nina building again, volcanic acticity is increasing,the magneosphere is weakening allowing more cosmic rays into the atmosphere,we have every level of the atmosphere cooling, and freezing winters. What have you got? a measly trace gas which is a product of past warming by the highly active Sun.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 But the trend does exist. And it is supported my measurements, not models. And we have spent decades ruling out all the other possible explanations. Every level of the atmosphere is not cooling. Neither are the oceans. Volcanic activity is not increasing. And CO2 is not just a product of warming, it is a positive feedback. And this trace gas is adding 1.66 watts/square meter, we know this for a fact.
kellygiz 4 months ago
@kellygiz Your 1.66W/m^2 was from theoretical models who's empirical data is now irrelevant due to the Suns change of state.
Sorry.
m1aws 2 months ago
Um, nope. Not irrrelevant. No "change of state".
Sorry.
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz Why do you theorise "no change of state"?
Even the pro-AGW Solar bods like "drkstrong" say the Sun is still exceptionally quiet. The Solar prediction guys are also predicting it's going to stay quiet 'til 2013. Some use empirical data for for low activity for up to 30 years from now.
The past three years have seen the oceans cooling (GIS Satellite).
Oh by the way, oceans heat from underneath, not the surface. It's an electric universe remember.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws The sun regularly changes output on an 11 year cycle. "Change of state" indicates that the sun is doing something really unusual. It's not.
Comment about oceans heating from underneath: ಠ_ಠ
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz Oh really! I never knew that!!!!! lololol. I really should go back to Sunday school.
I have lived through several notable Solar states before, twice as many as you and never have been surprised what was dished out to us. It's all from the Sun. Man's influence is miniscule.
In 1801 an astronomer (Hershel) noted crop yields (via prices) matched Solar activity. Nobody but pro-warmists have an issue with that reality.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws You think Climatologists don't understand the relationship between solar output and climate? What do you think they have been studying all these years?
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz Too many climatologists are directly in contention with the ones you refer to. So who is right?
I suggest take away the money that feeds the monster from both sides and see what happens.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws I would side with the ones who are publicly funded and are in the 97% majority. The ones who are conducting the vast majority of the research. The ones who don't cling to hypotheses that were ruled out decades ago. And I think it would be tough to conduct any research without funding. Satellites and ice drills are expensive.
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz Yes, I was reading about Hansen on wiki. An atmospheric scientist. He is an absolute nutter! Gets lots of funding and highly regarded but everything he has researched has been proven dead wrong when the empirical data came in. i.e. Venus' atmosphere etc.
I'm afraid politics is a monster that will not go away.
Satellites are initially expensive but overall dirt cheap. Often the data is misconstrued. The ice cores are now done. More expensive mud, chalk and limestone cores are next!
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws Satellites cost billions. Nobody is going to do it in their garage for fun. I think you should be more sceptical of your sources regarding the quality of the science.
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz I worked on such things. Expense is in the care and the engineering on all levels. Nobody wants their bit to fail. So all costs throughout raise. I'm happy with the science but not happy with the likes of Hanson who stated data should be manipulated to end the AGW argument for good. (wiki)
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws Every time I have a conversation with a denier, they come up with some new thing I never heard of. Every time, I track it down and find it to be false or out of context. James Hansen wikipedia entry does not contain the word "manipulate". Please be more specific. A direct quote perhaps.
kellygiz 2 months ago
"Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it."
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws You have misinterpreted the statement. There was an error in the satellite data. Hansen was confirming that the CORRECTED (not fudged, not manipulated) satellite data now agreed with the observed data seen on earth. Potholer54 covers this in his first video on climate change "Climate change - The Scientific Debate" at about 5:00. I recommend watching the entire series, and check for accuracy if you like.
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz That is correct! A fellow stated the errors were through the decaying orbit. Then you read past the bit I copied and he found the lack of tropo heating was....... problematical.
However, with his scary attitude and the likes of Jones and Wang etc. who have been reduced to propagandists I'm sorry, they have no credibility at all!
Daily Mail, 22nd November 2011 :
"New leak of hacked global warming scientist emails: A 'smoking gun' proving a conspiracy - or just hot air?"
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws What do you mean "Scary attitude"? If you knew that Hansen was talking about a real error, why did you say that he was advocating fraud to quiet the sceptics?
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz Was he really? If you read all of his bio you can get a good feel of his mindset and intentions.
"noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring"
and of course, what should be done about it.
I've worked with line managers who were more subtle than this. He fudged to have the numbers doctored.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws Lets's set this straight... Old satellite agrees with thermometers, new satellite replaces old satellite, new satellite slowly starts disagreeing with thermometers... hmm this is a problem... OH! someone fucked up, here, let's see what happens when when we correct the problem... ok, now new satellite agrees with thermometers. (and all other lines of research). So where in this do you get dishonesty?
And to quote Mann from your article: "I guess they had very little left to work with"
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz New satellite is more accurate or they would not of bothered. Yes it is a problem and no, there is no error in its orbit.
Poor Mann. Using his awry data from Californian tree's that had no relationship with climate data from over the rest of the world then somebody added a big red vertical line on the end. "I guess they had very little left to work with"
"The argument is settled". IPCC are having another junkett. Their new graphs will look like tennis rackets from the about turn.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws Yes, new satellite is more accurate, but it was disagreeing with the rest of the data. That's what Hansen was talking about. That's what the correction was for. Please try to read things objectively.
kellygiz 2 months ago
@kellygiz So, you are admitting the more accurate data needed to be massaged to come in line with the different, less accurate data.
This has already happened far too many times. The old data has never been corrected unless it suited the GW agenda. That is why the IPCC graphs never add up to the old empirical data.
m1aws 2 months ago
@kellygiz Sorry, restricted message length
m1aws 2 months ago
@david222444 why dont u create a tank full of co2 in high levels...put it on a transparent glass and record the temperature at night and day...every day. lower the level of Co2 some days in the tank and record the temperature difference from when the Co2 leaves where high and low..if u see no difference in temperature after lowering or increasing the Co2.then u might say Co2 does nothing ...only say something unless ur able to test it and prove it...
MichaelsPianoSongs 4 months ago
@MichaelsPianoSongs Market gardeners put co2 into glass houses to increase plant growth and not to increase temperature. Why fill a tank? you mean put o.o38% of co2 in tank and the rest air, then check the temperature difference. I can tell you now using commonsense that there would be no differene.
david222444 4 months ago
VERY COOL AND EDUCATIONAL. I have a partial solution, I design walkable neighborhoods and made a video about reducing how much we drive. It's at otis31755 Let me know what you think?
Patrick Cox, AICP
otis31755 9 months ago
Plants convert co2 to energy in return they give off oxygen. co2 is not all bad.
smokescreen767 10 months ago
Comment removed
david222444 10 months ago
Fuck off with the carbon tax, there's no proof that Humans are causing climate change. The sun has been increasing in output in recent years but they never mention that, the very source of heat on earth. Also the earths magnetic field might have something to do with it as it blocks radiation from the Sun. Also Plants and trees and plankton in the oceans gobble that stuff up. Could it be that we have poisoned the oceans too much. We should take this out of the Oil companies hides not ours!!
MrROTD 1 year ago
@MrROTD agreed big oil companies should foot the bill but lets not forget to mention that more "greenhouse gasses" are released from burning coal for electricity than all the emissions used for transportation. facts are for U.S. only so have the power plants foot the bill as well but if we do that soon we be paying $20 to charge a phone
jnewrol10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrROTD "The sun has been increasing in output in recent years but they never mention that, the very source of heat on earth."
Actually, solar radiation was *decreasing* throughout most of the last decade. In spite of this decreased radiation, the Earth's surface temperatures continued to rise.
terrymorse 11 months ago
@MrROTD, jnewrol10 to say there's no proof that humans are causing the climate change is like pretending there's no proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Indeed, there are life-long smokers dying of old age. Nevertheless, countless statistical studies have shown that the incidence of lung cancer among smokers (passive and active alike) is hugely larger than among non-smokers.
a0flj0 8 months ago
@MrROTD mmm Nope, solar output hasn't been increasing. Sorry. And plants and trees and plankton aren't gobbling that stuff of fast enough, apparently, as co2 has increased by 1/3, and we know that 1/3 is ours because those clever scientists can measure that, too.
kellygiz 4 months ago
Maybe I should point this out. Humans are responsible for 0.28% of all Greenhouse gases. Here are some of the greenhouse gases.
Water Vapor--->95% of greenhouse gases = 0.001% Man Made 94.999% Natural --
CO2---> 3.618% of greenhouse gases = 0.117% Man Made 3.502% Natural --
CH4---> 0.36% of greenhouse gases = 0.066% Man Made 0.294% Natural --
N2O--->0.95% of greenhouse gases = 0.903% Man Made 0.047% Natural --
Other--->0.072% of greenhouse gases = 0.025% Man Made 0.047% Natural --
AntiRacismAndHateCom 1 year ago
@AntiRacismAndHateCom I got the N2O and Other mixed up.
N2O--->0.95% of greenhouse gases = 0.047% Man Made & 0.903% Natural
Other-->0.025% of greenhouse gases = 0.047% Man Made & 0.025% Natural
Other includes CFCs
So 0.001 + 0.117 + 0.066 + 0.047 + 0.047 = 0.278% Man Made
AntiRacismAndHateCom 1 year ago
Global warming does NOT exist anymore
It's now called climate change.
jnewrol10 1 year ago
@jnewrol10 politicains just name it whatever suits thier agenda, fuck them I'm not convinced it's just from humans.
MrROTD 1 year ago
@MrROTD nah id say maybe 85% humans fault
jnewrol10 1 year ago
@MrROTD, jnewrol10 Similarly, not all of the global climate change is caused by humans, but we surely have a large contribution. What we do changes the global climatic system in an uncontrolled way. For instance, the major aerial and marine currents are slowing down. If these currents stop, the ice cap of the north pole could extend southwards of Canada, and a huge desert could form south of NY. Average temperature stays the same, but life becomes mostly extinct.
a0flj0 8 months ago
(2:35) Looks like mud, thats peacely streams over the US
kvr13 1 year ago
WOW!! the video is shocking to see how much CO2 is produced at a daily rate. What is more astonishing is the extend of human selfishness witnessed in these comments. People think they are so much more evolved than primates and other animals but they just as selfish if not more so than other forms of life. With this kind of attitude there will never be a fix to the climate threat. So unfortunate to see such a beautiful planet wasted by greed, complacency, and selfishness by one species.
fernandizo 1 year ago
I saw a map shown by a Environmentalist. Showed average temps going up all over the world. The average US temp was cooler over the 50 year study and warmer over Europe and Russia to China. CO2 traps heat but why is it not trapped over the place that supposedly makes the most? It is a scam. Man caused global warming is a scam of all scams. Environmentalist say the world scientist are all agreeing but that is not true either. Don't believe the hype.
feelzthelove 1 year ago
So go ahead and pretend to be educated. You lost any and all credibility you may have had when you copy pasted an article of somebody else which I found by using google to search for an exact phrase.
--NASA and the rest of the collaborating minds don't lie. And don't pretend to have an understanding of physics because I will make you look like a complete fool. I've spent an awful lot of time studying physics and it is a hobby of mine. Stop pretending poser.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
This is a bunch of propaganda. CO2 is not a "greenhouse" gas. CO2 is the heaviest gas in our atmosphere and settles near ground level. CO2 does not "trap" the heat or sunlight in our atmosphere. All of the grass that has been planted combined with the rest of the botanical life sequesters the CO2. Today we have LESS CO2 in the atmosphere then we did a century ago.
PROPAGANDA.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
Whoa - just lie why don't you?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeondaPale , what did I say that is a lie? Why don't you tell me so I can prove you wrong right here and now
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , Why is it that the ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as they are here on Earth when there is only trace amounts of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere?
Idiots like you perpetuate stupidity.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"Why is it that the ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as they are here on Earth when there is only trace amounts of CO2 in Mars' atmosphere?"
THEY ARE??? From where oh where did you get this info? Let me guess - a political blog rather than a scientific source, right?
THINK LOGICALLY:
Earth is 96 million miles from the sun & Mars is 130 million miles from the sun.
If it was the sun, WHY WOULD WE BE WARMING AT THE SAME RATE??
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"CO2 is not a "greenhouse" gas."
-- WOW!! Scientists say it is
CO2 does not "trap" the heat or sunlight in our atmosphere.
-- WOW!! You mean it doesn't absorb and emit infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (via asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (via bending vibrational mode) as physicists say it does?
Oh THANK YOU anonymous youtube clown for not lying to the whole world
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale . Wow, you know how to google then cut./paste data of which you have NO UNDERSTANDING.
-The data about the Ice Caps melting on Mars is from NASA you jagoff. Furthermore, the .6C to .8C increase in temperature we've experienced over the last 30 years in consistent with that of Mars and Venus.
-Google "martian ice caps melting" and read all about it at NASA's website.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , The petition went before congress and consists of 3,805 Weather, Environmental, and Atmospheric scientists. As well as 5,802 scientists from Physics and Aerospace, 2,965 Biologists, 4,822 Chemists or related scientists, and over 10,000 engineers.
---Now explain to me how is it that the temperature increase we've seen on this earth over the past 30 years is precisely consistent with that of the rest of our solar system bodies which clearly don't have man made co2? u r a douche
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"Now explain to me how is it that the temperature increase we've seen on this earth over the past 30 years is precisely consistent with that of the rest of our solar system bodies which clearly don't have man made co2?"
It's not "precisely consistent" with any such thing. This is untrue, made up crap.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , It's too bad you don't take the time to look at the data because if you did you probably wouldn't be running your mouth. The data doesn't lie. Your mouth does. One day you are going to look back at this argument and realize how much of a tool you actually are. Waste of humanity.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , I have DATA to back up my claims. I told you what to search for and what link to follow. You did not look at the data from NASA. I have DATA that PROVES there has not been an increase in co2 over the past 150 years. DO YOU HAVE DATA? DATA DATA... Try using your brain instead of your mouth.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
NASA and every other valid source says just the opposite, sorry
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , And one more thing Mr. Wannabe Physics Graduate, WHERE IS THIS DATA THAT CO2 EMITS MORE INFRARED THAN OTHER MATTER? Do you even know what infrared radiation is. Dude, you have no clue what you're talking about. Quit acting like a tool and do some reading. I suppose you will come back with some other sarcastic comment...I will just say, look around you.. have many friends? People like you? I seriously doubt it. So come on, keep the ignorance coming and dig yourself deeper.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"WHERE IS THIS DATA THAT CO2 EMITS MORE INFRARED THAN OTHER MATTER?"
It's a well recorded physical property of the gas
"Do you even know what infrared radiation is?"
Yes, heat
...Digging away XD
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , Where is the data? You claim that the co2 ppm has increased from 260 to 380 over a hundred years but yet you are not able to point me in the direction of the data? LIAR
-If you want to see the data.. .google "Hadley Climatic Research Institute" and "magnetic flux" ...
-For an overview of ALL the data check out Applied Information Systems or appinsys-DOT-com
-That's what data looks like. Why can't you provide any to back up your claims? Could it be that you are making things up?
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"Where is the data? You claim that the co2 ppm has increased from 260 to 380"
No not over 100 years - over 160 years.
No, not from 260 to 380 - from 280 to (currently) 388 and rising
And I just told you where you can find it - NASA, WMO, NOAA - LOL you can not simply look it up and call me a LIAR all you want - it doesn't make the info any less valid
Do you need a specific paper? OK, Look up:
"A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2"
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , OK, I read the paper by Francey which was a study of core samples taken from the antartic. You are correct that co2 levels rose from 280 to 380. However, there is nothing in this paper that suggests that co2 is the culprit for global warming. And nothing to suggest that a rise in temperature correlates with a change in co2 levels.
-The data I showed you proves that man made co2 is not the culprit. And it is nearly unanimous across all scientific fields that co2 is not to blame.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"there is nothing in this paper that suggests that co2 is the culprit for global warming"
Yes there is, LOTS. For that you go to several other papers.
This is established science since the 1800's
"The data I showed you proves that man made co2 is not the culprit. "
You didn't show me data - you made statements. Please show me the specific data (for example) supporting your claim that:
"the ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as they are here on Earth"
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Scroll down. I told you exactly where to go to look at the data that proves man made co2 is not responsible for the last warming phase. I told you the exact phrase to search for to get to the data at NASA's website and i directly linked the data at Applied Information Systems. YOU DID NOT BOTHER TO LOOK. And there is NOTHING in that paper I read that shows global warming as a result of a rise in CO2... nothing at all.
Why don't you look at the data I linked.. scroll down and look.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , What the hell is wrong with you. You tell me where to read something that backs your stance and I check it out. I tell you where to read the information that backs my stance and you don't read it. None of your opinions are backed by data. Nor can you prove any of your claims aside from the rise in co2. Maybe if you actually shut your mouth and looked over the data you wouldn't be such an ignorant fool.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
Youy just called me a "LIAR" then admitted you were wrong. Now you say that something is wrong with me. I'm ignorant fool?
I did search, but nowhere could I find information that told me that :
A. "man made co2 is not the culprit. (of the recent global warming)" - in fact NASA says the opposite is probably true
OR
B. "the ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as Earth" - NASA did say that the ice caps on mars were melting - but didn't say anything about rate.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , I know, based on Robert Cahalan's work at the Goddard Space Flight Center, that there is warming across our solar system which is directly related to the number of sunspots our sun has. Based on his research and data, it is evident that the sun is more at play than co2.
co2 and methane retain more heat energy than other atmospheric gases, but is not responsible for global warming. Our planet has cooled over the past decade and that is attributable to the decline in sunspots.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
I'm sorry, I've searched for anything by Robert Calahan that came anywhere close to saying that
A. there is warming across our solar system - some planets MAY be warming (but I could find no attribution to the sun for the reason) while other planets are not
or
B. that the sun is (CURRENTLY) more at play than co2.
I haven't found anything. Do you maybe have a link to one of his studies showing either of these things?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale, I would google Robert CAHALAN...not Calahan and "sunspot data".
You can see that the earths average temperature directly correlates to the number of sunspots or the absence of sunspots. And it's not just NASA climatologists, it's also the Russian Academy of Science which is well respected.
NASA's "official" stance is that man made co2 is the culprit but the scientists within do no agree. We experienced a very similar warming period during the 17th century. let's not argue anymor
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy Of course it'll all go aways if we don't look at it. Who told you that scientist don;t agree on global warming? There are always a handful of scientist in teh pockets of wealthy interests.
fernandizo 1 year ago
@fernandizo , DO you know who Maurice Strong is? He created the myth of global warming. He is worth trillions. He owns the company that benefits most from carbon credits. His company manufactures the hardware and software all businesses MUST use to track and trade carbon credits. There is a small group of scientists, it is the majority of scientists in relative fields that agree that man made warming is a hoax. Why have we experienced a cooling period of the past 8 years... SUNSPOTS are the caus
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@fernandizo , Listen man... google "30,000 scientists petition" and read for yourself. You're talking a majority of scientists in related fields. I'm sure many did not sign the petition out of fear of losing funding. None of the signatures are hidden. You can look at each and every person on the petition and check out who they are. We're talking NASA climatologists as well. Sunspots were the cause of the warming we experienced..and the cooling we experienced afterwards is from less sunspots.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@fernandizo , SO go check it out for yourself, it's not a "handful" of scientists. Your corporate owned media, who you obviously trust at your own fault, are the ones pushing the MYTH. There is NO DATA that shows co2 is responsible. THe data shows the warming of the planets in our solar system is directly proportional to the amount of sunspots, or lack of sunspots, we experience during any given year. Go and check it out for yourself. Do your own thing and come to your own conclusion. sheep
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@fernandizo, If you don't want to believe the majority of scientists, google "17th century warming period". Now try to explain why we experienced a very similar warming period during the 17th century when there was no man made co2. CO2 is a basic part of life. When you can tax carbon, which we are all made of, you can tax every aspect of everyone lives. It's a well planned and orchestrated scam brought to you by maurice strong and cohorts. Do your own research, stop being spoonfed propaganda.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy There are people that think they know everything. They take a singular fact that hardly anybody knows about (like your Maurics Strong fact) and try to explain everything with it. Do you really think that billions of cars and hundreds of thousands of industrial plants, not to mention other human activities would not change the output of CO2 so drastically that it could change Earths climate? Your an ABSOLUTE IDIOT! People like you are the reason America is failing..you make me sick
fernandizo 1 year ago
@fernandizo , I'm an idiot? Listen douchebag.. google "30,000 scientists"... and read. Now, why is it that 90% or more of scientists in related field agree that man made global warming is a hoax? BECAUSE IT IS. All YOU have to do is look at the god damn data instead of buying into a hoax that has absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS.
Am I an idiot, certainly not. I have taken the time out of my life to research the issue and look at the data. And you have NOT researched the issue... who is the idiot?
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy What are you talking about? 90% of scientist think that global warming is a hoax? WOW..You have been watching way too much Glen Beck pal. Researching fox news' website isn't doing research. That's what educated people call propaganda. You think your the only one researching global warming? You right wing trailer punks think you got the world figured out with occasional google search and 23 hour fox news marathon blasting your brain. Unfortunately your type seems to be the majority
fernandizo 1 year ago
@fernandizo , I don't watch glen beck and I don't watch TV. This data is from nasa. If you take five minutes out of your day to look at the data, instead of acting a fool here on youtube, you would see the truth. What data do you have the shows man made co2 is responsible for the warming period we experienced a decade ago?
Show me that data and i'll be quiet. You can't, cause that data doesn't exist. However, as Robert Cahalan's research, from nasa's GSFC shows, sunspots are responsible.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy And yes you are an idiot! I'm not going to give you any respect. You really have your facts distorted and I have no respect for ignorant people trying to convince other people they are right on matters they ABSOLUTELY know nothing about. DO NOT.. lie to people! Lying is wrong, it is irresponsible and it is a vile habit. People these days forget the meaning of honesty. honesty is an integral part of society and you are dishonest man..You sir, are an irresponsible idiot !
fernandizo 1 year ago
@fernandizo, You are forgetting that I know, for a fact, that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN DATA THAT PROVES GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE. That data doesn't exist. Show it to me. Where can I get that data. Your accusing me a being a sheep. I am a highly educated individual of sound mind with excellent problem solving skills.
You are a sheep. You have been programmed through media, film, radio, cultural suggestions, and hype to believe that your activities are responsible for the warming period in the 90's
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@fernandizo So where is the data? All you have to do is google what I am telling you and look at the data. What you are buying into is a suggestion with no evidence to back the claim.
Where is your data? It does not exist. The data that shows man made co2 is not responsible does. So who is the fool? Talk all the smack you want but at the end of the day you are still the ignorant sheep.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@fernandizo , "You really have your facts distorted and I have no respect for ignorant people trying to convince other people they are right on matters they ABSOLUTELY know nothing about."
Take a good look in the mirror you buffoon. My so called "lies" are backed up with hard data. Your ignorant assumptions are not. There isn't any data that backs your claims and you can't show it to us because it doesn't exist. My claims are backed with PROOF. HARD DATA. You are ignorant.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy You wrote three entries on this page back to back and your only fact was ..."Robert Cahalan's research, from nasa's GSFC shows, sunspots are responsible. " This is a partial fact. That means you tried to distort the truth by using a fact out of context.
This is the full fact.."Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind"
LIAR!!
fernandizo 1 year ago
@fernandizo , I'm not lying. When the occurrence and volume of sunspots are plotted along a timeline along with avg. temperature data there is an exact correlation. That is why 90% or more of climatologists today say that man made global warming is a hoax. I'm not lying. I asked you to show me data that proves co2 is responsible and you cannot. That is because it doesn't exist. NASA's computer "model" is only a model and likely designed to twist the truth. The data doesn't lie. Look at the data.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy So you are now going to say that that the fact you used in favor of your argument -"NASA's computer "model" is only a model and likely designed to twist the truth." is now a falsehood because it was used against you?
I'm starting to think I'm discussing climate change with a know-it-all teenager or some kind of oil company PR guy. I'm sorry pal I don't have time to convince Exxon mobile lobbyists/ republicans that global warming exists. Good luck in your efforts to distort truth.
fernandizo 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy by the way here is a link to "your" fact so you can read it yourself..jerk!
nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/solar_variability.html
fernandizo 1 year ago
@fernandizo , We experienced much more drastic warming trends during the early medieval period. At that time in history, according to core samples taken, co2 was at a very very low level. Check it out. And I urge you to tell me where you have seen proof that man made co2 is responsible for the warming trend we experienced.
You can provide the data because it doesn't exist. Read my below post. Robert Cahalan was the first climatologist to draw attention to the facts.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGrowdaddy "We experienced much more drastic warming trends during the early medieval period."
Solar output was high in the early medieval period, and as models predict, solar output was the forcing function primarily responsible for the temperature rise. Today, CO2 is the forcing function. There is no doubt that increasing CO2 forces temperature up. The unanswered question is how the Earth will respond to that forcing.
terrymorse 11 months ago
@BeondaPale , And about you being a "LIAR". The science you're preaching here is a lie. The Oligarchs want us to pay more taxes. They used an increase in solar activity as an opportunity to push forth their agenda where we pay taxes to the IMF for the energy we use
Now I don't disagree that we are polluting the planet or that co2 will become an issue if things don't change. However, what needs to change is the hording and shelving of clean technologies that would end the burning of fossile fuel
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
There has been no increase in solar activity according to astronomers. Are astronomers "oligarchs"?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Hey look asshole, i can copy and paste too..
As there are 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere the ratio of CO2 molecules
to the rest of the atmosphere is 2500 to 1. As will be shown later the most OLR CO2 can absorb
because of a narrow absorption band is 8% OLR. So, the rate of cooling would be reduced to 92% OLR.
Escaping heat (OLR) would be slightly “redistributed” by CO2, so reducing the rate of cooling slightly.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , You read that.. 400ppm... As it's known to us Botanists that most plants benefit from co2 upwards of 900 ppm; especially grass. When plants have additional co2 available they use it. More co2 combined with optimal growing environments gives us more vibrant plants. That is why trees and plants grow well in low altitudes. If we did have an abundance of co2 we would start to see plant life migrate to higher elevations...and that has not occurred.
You can't learn with your mouth open
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"If we did have an abundance of co2 we would start to see plant life migrate to higher elevations...and that has not occurred."
Funny - Google this little phase, my little clown of the moment:
"Climate change forces plants higher: study"
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , As you can see, two statements below, CO2 does not "trap" heat in our atmosphere. And the copy paste crap you linked has nothing to do with the trapping of any heat in our atmosphere. Though you're ignorant mind probably believes that it does. Since it does not "trap" in the heat, it cannot accurately be referred to as a "greenhouse effect".
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"CO2 does not "trap" heat in our atmosphere."
In the same way that a blanket does not "trap" heat close to your body on a cold night, right moron?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , Warming is precisely consistent across our solar system relative to the orbiting bodies distance from the sun. That is a fact and NASA backs me up on that one. You can make asinine arguments till your blue in the face but it doesn't make up for the fact that you have absolutely no clue wtf you are speaking of. I have all the science to back up my claims and you just have a mouth which you have little control over.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , "you mean it doesn't absorb and emit infrared radiation"... No it doesn't "abosrb" infrared at all. It will emit Infrared radiation as ALL MATTER DOES. Rocks emit infrared radiation, my testicles emit infrared radiation, your bicycle emits infrared. You are a class act moron.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"my testicles emit infrared radiation"
LOL, If you think this is an argument, you're an idiot. - if your testicles had gone from 280 ppm to 380 ppm within the atmosphere in 150 years, the scientists would now be talking about how humans are putting too many of your testicles in the air.
"ALL MATTER DOES"
Yes - to DIFFERING DEGREES - the other gasses (nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) do it to, but not even close to the same degree that CO2 does - pick up a physics book - open to page 1
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , Have you looked at the comments on your page. It's unanimous, you are a tool.
-Radiation isn't measured in PPM you moron. All of my arguments are backed by science which I have told you how to view. Mostly from NASA... are you going to argue with nasa?
-Your next argument was about the petition which you know nothing of nor have checked out. It's nearly unanimous across all scientific professionals that man made global warming is a hoax.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , OK... where is this data from... you are so full of shit. 280 to 380 PPM in 150 years? WHERE CAN I VIEW THIS DATA? This is absolute proof that you are talking out of your ass because this data does not exist. Prove me wrong, i dare you.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"where is this data from... you are so full of shit. 280 to 380 PPM in 150 years?"
You can find this info at NOAA, NASA, WMO & whatever other climatological database you wish to look in anywhere on the planet
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , As for the petition... it isn't private. None of the names of the scientists are hidden or omitted. YOU can look every single one of their names up in their school or institution directories or listen to some of the testimony of some of the signees. Your sarcastic and quackster attitude highlight your ignorance.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGrowdaddy
"YOU can look every single one of their names "
LOL - yes, and when you do, you find that most of them have nothing to do with the study of the CLIMATE in any way at all !!
But then I supposed you go to your dentists when you need to see a cardiologist, right?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@Anunnaki444 Wrong, plants respire exactly the same as us, however, by PHOTOSYNTHESIS they take in CO2 and release Oxygen, which happens at a higher rate. Diffusion happens in both cases. Trees still help though.
SupermewX300 1 year ago
@SupermewX300 , This is all propaganda. Over 30,000 US Scientists ranging from Climatologists to Astronomers signed a petition to say that GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX....don't believe me.. google it. The only people saying that it is an issue are a handful of scientists who are working for the Fortune 100 or numbskull Oligarchy minions like Al Gore.
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"30,000 US Scientists ranging from Climatologists to Astronomers"
to veterinarians, to dentists, to MDs, to guys that SAY they are scientists, to cartoon charterers, etc, etc
political stunt petitions ARE NOT SCIENCE
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale , 30,000 SCIENTISTS signed the petition. EXPERTS IN THE FIELD all from the U.S.
That is not a lie... google it.. read about it for yourself. Where are my lies? I can back everything up with research...
TheGrowdaddy 1 year ago
@TheGrowdaddy
"30,000 SCIENTISTS signed the petition. EXPERTS IN THE FIELD all from the U.S."
Experts in WHAT field?? Have you SEEN the petition??
First 3 names, genius:
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD - Field: Biology, interested explicitly in SURPRISE - Intelligent Design.
Charles W. Aami - Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection with ANY scientific field WHATSOEVER
Roger L. Aamodt, PhD - Field: Oncology - EXPERT IN THE FIELD, huh??
You people are CLOWNS!!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
1 valcano puts out more co2 than all the cars ever made so this US overlook really doesn't matter
blake97562 1 year ago
Global CO2 is at 2 ppm - biological fact - from high school biology
JonThm 1 year ago
This is soooooo cool!
poltoja 1 year ago
The governments of the world are going to use up all the oil and gas in the ground until there is none left. The Green brigade have done nothing to slow this down in fact its pace is increasing. But then plenty of legislation about carbon dioxide being a poison, hang on a minute isn't that what we breathe out. What I'm the polluter of the world along with all the other animals even dolphins. Not by using all the plastic and other junk that we have no choice to use, but just by existing.
ste6666666 1 year ago
I knew you EastCoasters would screwing up our enviroment hahaha. Before you tree huggers get ahead of yourselves, what about enviromental accountability developing countries even China, and India? Where's there accountability?! Has anyone heard of HAARP
IncorriGible82 1 year ago
scam scam scam scam scam.hogshit hogshit hogshit hogshit
niccarstob 1 year ago
I HAVE AN EASY SOLUTION: TREES & AND PLANTS produce OXYGEN and bind CO2.
So just stop logging down the rainforests.
WE COULD PLANT 1.000.000.000 TREES & grow hemp to reduce global warming
STOP PLASTIC INDUSTRY & USE HEMP INSTEAD. Thats an easy solution.
Co2 is a natural element was here long b4 the dinsaurs, but all the petro chemicals inducing cancer are not natural, PVC, PESTICIDE, ROUND UP READY, ASPARTAM, PLUTONIUM, DEPLETED URANIUM,
WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION FOR PROFIT !
PAIDSHILLsSUCK 1 year ago
I HAVE AN EASY SOLUTION: TREES & AND PLANTS produce OXYGEN and bind CO2.
So just stop logging down the rainforests.
WE COULD PLANT 1.000.000.000 TREES & grow hemp to reduce global warming
STOP PLASTIC INDUSTRY & USE HEMP INSTEAD. Thats an easy solution.
watch?v=Wmn4hf0bf3I
Co2 is a natural element was here long b4 the dinsaurs, but all the petro chemicals inducing cancer are not natural, PVC, PESTICIDE, SO2, PLUTONIUM, DEPLETED URANIUM,
WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION FOR PROFIT !
PAIDSHILLsSUCK 1 year ago
@Destroyer470 less co2 means less oxygen. with 7,000ppm when life exploded on earth I doubt 350ppm is a problem or 1200ppm for that matter.
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
We can take steps to reduce pollutuion, but CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. It's not even a greenhouse gas. It is heavier than air by 1 1/2 times and moves down toward the lowlands and then the ocean. What is a greenhouse gas? Water vapor. H2O holds in heat, not CO2.
applet93 1 year ago
co2 is used by every plant in the world for photosynthesis as well as sunlight and water to grow and make oxygen.if there were no co2 there would be no plants and no oxygen.thats fifth grade science people.
MrJasin30 1 year ago
Good work Prof. Gurney!
devnull25 1 year ago
Watching this video is like watching the heartbeat of a computerised monster that we've created for ourselves through our demand for energy. A perturbing piece of information I picked recently , the World Bank recently made a loan of $ 3.75 bn to build four coal fired power plants in South Africa. I presume the loan was sanctioned by the current president of the World Bank, Mr. Robert B. Zoellick, who was elected by the former U. S. president Mr. George Bush. They aid and abet the monster.
someshinyday 1 year ago
its all fake :)
MegaHungrybear 1 year ago
@MegaHungrybear really? its the manbearpig, i'm super cereal!
executableapplet 1 year ago
@executableapplet it was on the news... commonly refered to as climategate
MegaHungrybear 1 year ago
@MegaHungrybear LOL!
Yeah, goofy dimwits simply buy every crap they´re sold.
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
Interesting Video about CO2 emissions in the US
jfmart65 1 year ago
When I read these comments I wonder how many of the commenters are paid by Exxon to disseminate false information.
johnmassengale 1 year ago 6
@johnmassengale And one Big volcanic eruption laughs at all global warmers. Using mercury filled bulbs much hazardous to the environment than co2 if you don't believe me try giving a plant co2 and try giving another one mercury and tell me which one grows healthier?
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
Here is a good one for you Al Gore enthusiasts. IF he is so concerned about global warmning, then why does just about every scene in his movie an Inconvienient Truth show him getting out of a jet. He is a supposed enviromentalist and yet he can't use an airline like the rest of us. Even better he should have been driving a hummer alone in the POV lane.
chriseato7 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey Hey! Strange but true Co2 facts!
Co2 as produced in combustion engines is one of the most basic nutrients of all life on Earth and is literally what makes our planet green!
The vast majority of Co2 put into the atmosphere each year is from natural respiration!
Our Co2 level is currently 380+ppm Most plants prefer 1200-1500ppm!
higher Co2 levels make plants more drought resistant!
Most plants evolved in far higher Co2 levels!
The Ordovician ice age had 4400 ppm Co2!
GuybrushThreebwood 1 year ago
Here's another for your spam message. CO2 is heavier than air so it has the inclination to hover around where it's emitted. Meaning, if it's emitted on the ground, it's got a better chance to be absorbed in the biomass, and not interfere with atmospheric occlusion.
Conclusion, airplanes contribute to more AGW if there was any.
And military contributes the most, yet they are exempt from reporting their emissions.
ParapaDrifter 1 year ago
Actually that was a one off post- but good point, I hadn't considered that before.
No wonder those shrubs by the drive-thru lanes are so healthy!
Also got to consider the vapor-trail albedo etc
Another crucial overlooked factor is the logarithmic nature of Co2's GH effect.
So that much of the GH effect that can ever be induced by our Co2 is already hard at work- utterly failing to do anything exciting.
GuybrushThreebwood 1 year ago
I rarely comment on youtube, but I HAVE to make an exception because some your "facts" are just wrong.
Stuff that you said that is completely true: CO2 is used by plants in photosynthesis
Stuff that you said that is partially true: The Earth did used to have much higher concentrations of CO2, but you failed to mention that the Earth was also MUCH WARMER at that time as well.
Stuff that you said that is just false: Everything else. I would really like to know where you get your "facts" from.
tootall2342 1 year ago
@tootall2342
He mentions what research he has carried out. (i.e. Tracking emissions at various Point-Sources) If you have a better model, then I suggest you post it, Otherwise, I feel you have little validity to your claims.
devnull25 1 year ago
@GuybrushThreebwood Well? So what?
Before stating something silly about plants and CO2 learn about stoma and their numbers when changing atmospheric CO2 concentration over goelogical timeframes.
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch my video.
It's about climate change, earth catastrophe and our planet as we lives in.
Recent Earth catastrophes - Continental Drift: One huge continent became 2 continents, then 5 (or 6) and then?
watch?v=j7I_eFoIk64
p.s. : this has nothing to do to Al Gore's politics on Climate Change
fridaysabtu 1 year ago
still this video is not perfect truth
naruto192054 1 year ago
crocs are dying and nothing is happening so are u still saying nothin is still happening
naruto192054 1 year ago
not true crocs out there r dying and u say nothing is hapening r u crazy
naruto192054 1 year ago
diananeiderhiser26 1 year ago
no sorry
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
Scientist must think we all plain stupid, the planet alive and it responding to number of factor which outside of human control, global warming issue more likely caused by air movement or lack due to mountain levels as well planet axis shifting, if we had global plan on Terraforming area in Africa and turn them into carbon naturalizing zone it would provide great help I see this whole global warming as one big plan to tax us more
u2funnyman 2 years ago
@u2funnyman OMG, i cannot believe what whackjobs can turn on a computer...
0PsycoDad0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hardcore whores , you wont believe them tiny[dot]cc/doherhole
MubedaHulofo 2 years ago
CO2 does not cause global warming, CO2 is something we can not do with out.
attykon 2 years ago
interesting that 36000 scientific minds have signed to say that the co2 "problem" is in fact not true. You cant help but think that this is more of a cynical ploy to control world energy policy than it is in saving the world.
remogadge 2 years ago
r u kidding me this is nonsence global warming is a big problem
naruto192054 1 year ago
because we are addicted. You forgot that piece of information..
cypress1337 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GIRL DIED IN 1993, A MAN BURIED HER IN HER OWN homewhen she was still
alive The murderer chanted Toma sota balcu0 as heburied her. Now that
you have read the chant, you will meet this littlegirl. In the middle
of the night she will stand at the side of your bedstarring straight
int your eyes She will suffocate you like............ she was suffocated
This story is sadlytrue Ifyou post this 5 differnt times she will not
bother you
shinyfuck09 2 years ago
u know the funny thing is that carbon dioxide is not a threat and does not cause "global warming" (which isnt a real thrdat anywyay" the emission that could even remotely pose a threat is carbon monoxide...
suckmyassyouwhore 2 years ago
are you stupid ?
Ihateslowinternet 2 years ago
YouTube - Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center
Please tell me that BROKEN LAWS OF PHYSICS is not WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT AT PURDUE
Civil Eng. Alumni member, Canadore College, North Bay, Ont.
Please send me a message at my channel
caninechezmo 2 years ago
Comment removed
caninechezmo 2 years ago
@jamflip
Ok, so we can possibly discount the idea that climate change has been started by us. We can not ignore that we are starting into a runaway greenhouse effect, do to excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. That much we know. Whether it is us or not who started it isn't really the issue. In order to sustain the highest human population as long as possible, we need to address the impacts that warming is going to have on our planet.
"The planet doesn't need saving, we do." ~ I forget.
omegachair 2 years ago
@omegachair
Indeed, whatever/whoever started the climate change is a useless debate at this point. We are contributing to it and we need to reduce our CO2 emissions. Let's focus on solutions. Zero emission cars are part of the solution, and we have started a discussion about it: what can be done, what will it take: new technologies, new mindset and new habits.
journeytozero 2 years ago
The more that goes in the bin, the more materials we need for new things, and the more energy we burn making them. So if we throw less away, then we,re using less energy and cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions
pegobuilders 2 years ago
What is the deal with North Dakota in these maps?
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
PLANTS CARRY OUT PHOTO-SYNTHESIS REACTIONS. PHOTO-SYNTHESIS ABSORBS & CONVERTS CO2'S [IE, the MOST SIGNIFICANT CARBON EMISSIONS GAS] & H2O'S FROM THE ATMOSPHERE, activated by light LIGHT, INTO CARB'S FOR THE PLANT AND O2 (Oxygen) FOR CLEANER AIR FOR HUMAN USE. WIN-WIN SITUATION. JUST PLANT MORE TREES. SHRUBS. BUSHES. FLOWERS. GARDENS. WHATEVER. JUST KEEP PLANTING. REVIEW: PLANTS ABSORB CO2 (noxious fossil fuel gas/waste products) & PRODUCE O2 (clean, breathable air). Just Plant More Trees.
Millard234 2 years ago
this global warming co2 thing is a fucking joke. water vapor does a hell of a lot more then co2 ever will lol.
i
Dogmeat1950 2 years ago
What's the difference between humans and animals breathing out CO2 and power plants outputting CO2?
Answer: Nothing, both CO2 outputs are consumed by plants are improve the quality and quantity of agricultural yields.
Studies show that CO2 has barely any effect on temperature, so the benefits of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere far outweigh the losses.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
@PonguigPeopinn
CO2 itself doesn't have any impact on temperature, that is true.
And I suppose that the CO2 could be used by plants, if we weren't cutting down the rain forests at an un-sustainable rate.
Also, look up the greenhouse effect. It has been in play since before the whole Climate Change debate even arose. The greenhouse effect ensures that the planet doesn't freeze. If you want an example of what happens when a greenhouse effect goes wrong, check out the planet Venus.
omegachair 2 years ago
WE aren't cutting down rainforests, and it is illegal for US to use such yields. We grow wood with specific intention of industrial use, and regrow it once cut down. Keep in mind that when we grow and cut down this wood, we are taking CO2 from the air and crea