@yazzz00 "oh I'll pick comic sans! It looks so joyful and professional, it's just perfect for my presentation at GOOGLE TECH TALKS" .... what were he thinking?
petroleum, coal and natural gas are fossil fuels..... so the best and really the only way to reduce our carbon emissions is to shut down all these oil refineries and and shut down all gas stations... and well you know that will never happen cause big oil and pharm and cigs control this contry and the world....
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[5] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[6]
ok this is at 10,000 ppm. As of October 2010[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 388 ppm by volume. so relax people... this is all so stupid. co2 is GOOD AND NEEDED FOR ALL LIFE TO CONTINUE ON THIS PLANET...
Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay
As part of the carbon cycle known as photosynthesis, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria absorb carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to produce carbohydrate energy for themselves and oxygen as a waste product. By contrast, during respiration they emit carbon dioxide, as do all other living things that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food.
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume
what a bunch of total bull.... the only way to reduce human carbon emmissions (which btw are not harmful) is to kill people...period... that is their plan to eliminate most of the worlds population...
Hmmm, got a cheap CO2 sensor someone coulds plug in realtime to their internet? Like the "Weather Stations" you see on sale all the time in the gadget catalogs? LEVERAGE THAT.........
Nice, awesome job of doing the governments job- present a standard everyone can use to make their own choices. I do not necessarily like regulation, but a standard of measurement I can appeciate something like this would give us the data we need to know if we are creating a problem-or not. Good stuff.
@TheReal ArchAngel - Polyatomic molecules like carbon dioxide does absorb energy from the infrared spectrum of light other wise spectroscopic methods of measurement of the gas would not be possible. It is the vibration of the pi bonds in carbon dioxide that allows the gas to absorb and radiate infrared energy back into the atmosphere. This is fact unless all my college professors were on weed. I still think we are looking through a pinhole instead of exploring all data.
"Polyatomic molecules like carbon dioxide does absorb energy from the infrared spectrum of light other wise spectroscopic methods of measurement of the gas would not be possible. It is the vibration of the pi bonds in carbon dioxide that allows the gas to absorb and radiate infrared energy back into the atmosphere"
This is all 19th century Academic Chemical Theory not applied Science
"This is fact unless all my college professors were on weed"
"I still think we are looking through a pinhole instead of exploring all data"
The Data means kjackshit unless you 1) no what it means and 2) Know how to use it
For example, The Correlation between Co2 rise and Heat rise no more "proves" Humans are causing global warming then the Sun Rising "Proves" Apollo is pulling it
Science is about Negative deducements not Positive reinforcements.
You can't "prove" something by finding evidence that matches your predisposition..that;s "faith"
I think we are oversimplifying the cause of the warming of our Earth. I believe molecules can absorb and trap some infrared radiation, that is fact. I feel we think we know more than we really do. Looking at a moon of Saturn called Titan can explain some things. Methane is 23 times more potent a GHG than CO2. It rains liquid methane on Titan yet its average temperature is -290 ºF. Why is it not hotter? I think we assume too much and need to dig deeper for the reason of the warming trend.
"I believe molecules can absorb and trap some infrared radiation"
Belief is for religion,"truth" is for Philosophy, Debate is for politics
1) Infrared light and heat(temperature) are not the same thing,the common confusion comes from everything having a temperature and thus radiating ir light relative to its temperature
2) Infrared lights waves are to long to vibrate anything to give it a temperature,it is the UV Light from the sun who's wave frequency is short enough to heat things
The only thing I know for sure is I know nothing -Socrates
That and feelings are for psychotherapy,not science..lol
Titan proves many things
1) A Methane/Nitrogen rich world is possible...this is what premodial earth was
2) With It's petroleum/natural gas deposits equaling 1000x more then Earths it conclusively proves petroleum/natural gas doesn't come from "dead plants and animals"
3) Nature made "Vaseline" first,(Lander landed in it...lol)
@cooterneck Climate scientists don't just look at CO2, but much of the focus is on that gas because it has the strongest anthropogenic effect on climate (about 60% of the forcing of all GHGs). Methane and a variety of other gasses are stronger GHGs, but because their concentrations are so low the cumulative effect is smaller.
Climate scientists do look at other planets, e.g. Venus and Mars. As for Titan, you can probably explain that at least in part because it's much further from the sun.
Wvunus has a large active core,a thin crust and no oceans thus the undiffused 900f coming off the surface driving 200 mile an hour winds...has nothing to do with "ghgs"
Mars has a Cooled core thus no EM thus why there is only co2 left slowly being stripped away by the solar wind..days are no hotter then 70f on day side but can drop to absolute zero@night
@TheRealArchAngel re other planets, e.g. see Kasting's "How to find a habitable planet". It's a cool book with coverage of paleoclimates, the climate on Mars and Venus, and the search for exoplanets, among other things.
CO2 has a very large effect on the climate of Venus, btw.
Yes,yes the "habitation zone": nonsense Cosmologists<Astronomers and Physicists like to have fun with
earth's Orbit has nothing to do with it's climate or that it harbors life it is
1) The Earth's Core to crust ratio generating a EM field larger then it should for it side deflection the bulk of the Solar wind allowing enough pressure to allow for liquid water and lighter gasses to not be blown away by Solar wind
2) Earth;s Core and Mantle diffusing heat through Oceans as main heat regulator
"2) Earth;s Core and Mantle diffusing heat through Oceans as main heat regulator"
And to emphasize what I said before about the bulk of the heat that keeps earth's habitability being from earth core and nit Sun....remember that Ice Ages come and go and so do "ice Ball earth" scenarios when the entire oceans freeze solid no matter how brightly the sun shines on the earth until the Core plumes and breaks the Ice Age/"Ice ball Earth" once again with oceans being main heat sink & regulator of heat
"a cool book with coverage of paleoclimates, the climate on Mars and Venus"
Venus is almost the same size as earth yet has no EM field(molten core to big?),has no oceans and therefore the lighter gases was blown away by solar wind and the 900f crust heats the co2 causing 200 mile an hour winds..there is no "green house effect" involved there any more then here
Mars is 1/4ish the size of earth,core is cooled meaning no EM and lighter gases where stripped off
P.s. Interestingly though Venus is 7/8 size of earth it's gravity isn't 7/8E(7/8ths of Earth Gravity) and though Mars is 1/4 size of earth it's Gravity isn't 1/4E thus suggesting that part of Earth's "1G" might be "induced gravity" from earth's Huge (for it's size") electromagnetic field
@TheRealArchAngel Mars is not 1/4 the size of earth. That may explain your inconsistency much easier.
Mars may have 15% of the volume of earth, but its mass is only 11% which accounts for the difference in gravitational pull.
You must also calculate the distance from the center because the farther you are the lower the gravitational pull.
This shows that Mars and mercury are very close in surface gravitational pull, as both have similar mass:distance from center ratios. Not their EM fields.
@TheRealArchAngel Venus' very high albedo should reflect a lot of sunlight back into space, lowering its temperature. Instead, the temperature is anomalously high, higher than Mercury's surface. The accepted explanation for this is its extreme greenhouse effect. As far as I'm aware, every serious scientist accepts this. The concept of a greenhouse gas follows from quantum mechanics. It's been experimentally demonstrated. I really don't see how you can deny those basic facts.
"Venus' very high albedo should reflect a lot of sunlight back into space"
Oh Flying Spaghetti monster(rollseyes)
Albedo is is nothing more then reflection of visible light off an object..like how the Moon reflects visible light...has nothing to do with temperature(heat) from Venus' large molten core to thin crust ratio with no water to diffuse it's 900f SURFACE(not atmosphere,SURFACE,not atmosphere,SURFACE) which very little sunlight ever reaches
"The accepted explanation for this is its extreme greenhouse effect."
1) Accepted doesn't mean tested
2) Not before the dumbing down of the US Education system and the Government by less then qualified people teaching such nonsense and putting US from the cutting Edge of Technology,Science,and Math to almost dead last in the world
"As far as I'm aware, every serious scientist accepts this. "
On a government Panel..yes
Bunch of eggheads with no lab or field time have to "Agree" by "consensus"
@TheRealArchAngel Sorry, but I'm taking the side of the accepted science over your layman judgment. You're disputing even the most basic, well established scientific principles involved here, waving away the judgment of thousands who've spent their lives studying this stuff, without having any real expertise yourself. I hate to say it, but that's a sign of severe Dunning Kruger syndrome. Anyway, it's been fun.
"Sorry, but I'm taking the side of the accepted science over your layman judgment."
Layman judgement?
I Specialize in Weather Manipulation,Enviromental Engineering and artifical Biospheres
If AGW were real (And I do mean IF) I'd be among the Scientists proposing practical countermeasures to not only the CO2 rise but the natural disasters supposedly attached to it
Your Eggheads thinking laws/regulations will lower the seas and carbon Taxes can save the polar bears from drowning should be a clue
@TheRealArchAngel That's all well and good, but you seem to be unaware or misinformed about some very basic concepts in climate science that virtually no expert would dispute anymore. I'm basing my judgment not just on the IPCC, but on a plethora of large reports, consensus statements by many high standing scientific institutions, textbooks, and the peer reviewed literature. You're about as far removed from everything else I've seen in the literature as you can get.
"That's all well and good, but you seem to be unaware or misinformed about some very basic concepts in climate science"
Which part?
The part that Politicians won't put their careers on the line by listening to the opinions in the summary for policy makers and the Assessments without funding testing by grunt scientists like me for a "Second Opinion"?
The Part where Al Gore's Movie/IPCC Getting Nebel is media hype,AGW is media hype and Youtube makes the "AGWer" movement seem bigger then it is?
@TheRealArchAngel I'm talking about every major institute of science in the world. And they don't comment on Al Gore. For the record, I don't care what Gore says one way or the other and I haven't seen his movie. The consensus simply reflects the state of the science and the balance of evidence at this time.
re textbooks: How about books on the actual relevant science? Climatology and paleoclimatology come to mind. I don't think you've read any that have come out since the 60s, if that.
A bunch of eggheads sending memos and reports across each others and politicians desks is not the Same as Submitting a Scientific paper to a Journal of Science were it is "peer reviewed" by scientists in the related fields for errors before being published in the Journal of Science(which only happens if there is no obvious errors)
"You're about as far removed from everything else I've seen in the literature" I'm not a Political oriented/employed Egghead
@TheRealArchAngel You seem to assume a lot about what I do or don't read. I read published, peer reviewed papers, approved textbooks and scientific assessment reports, not memos, and I avoid anything coming from politicians. You don't need to lecture me about how science and skepticism is done. You need to actually start doing it. Also, what's with your obsession with eggs?
"You seem to assume a lot about what I do or don't read"
No, just be careful in this infonet global medi information age cause a lot of it is crap
"approved textbooks"
Approved textbooks?
At least the Nazi's just burned books to deny their followers knowledge,they didn't re-write them the way the Liberal elitists are doing...But controlled information is more effective then bonfires...obviously
"A bunch of eggheads sending memos and reports across each others and politicians desks is not the Same as Submitting a Scientific paper to a Journal of Science" And to emphasis the proper scientific method your political employed/movitated eggheads don't follow 1) A observance is made 2) A Prediction is Made (Hypotheses) 3) tests are done to see if predictions are right 4) Paper is written,submitted to Journal of Science 5) Peer review 6) Publication 7) Replication 8) Falsification 9) Theory
P.S. If you want the official Score the eggheads are still stuck on 2) and so are us Grunt Scientists cause we are still only beginning to do the initial testings with Imbuki,CanX-2 and and the next generation Satellites
It's not likely step 3,Paper submitted to a Journal of Science, will ever happen as this is stemmed in political collaboration for policy making ,not science
And as of yet I have never seen a tax or a law "save the world to say nothing of turning US sovereignty to UN(smirk)
@TheRealArchAngel No peer reviewed paper has been published? This is ridiculous. I have better things to do than be Poed. Have fun in denier land. I hear it's nice and cool over there.
"No peer reviewed paper has been published? This is ridiculous."
Alright, name the Journal, the date, and publication number that presents AGW as a official Hypothesis that past initial testing by scientists and was published and is ready for the next step which is Replication of Results by independent scientists followed by excluding out all other possibilities(falsification) before becoming an official Theory
@TheRealArchAngel You can't cite a single paper that proves or disproves this issue, it's the result of thousands of peer reviewed papers, each tackling a piece of the problem. Cherry picking one study to support this or that conclusion is exactly the problem. The preponderance of evidence is what this theory is based on.
@cooterneck ...and just to add, natural forcings and feedbacks are of course also considered when looking at climate change, such as volcanism, solar activity, orbital parameters, and natural climate variability (and a host of other things). CO2 is not the only driver of climate, by a long shot, but it does happen to be the dominant one that we're currently in control of, and the one that's most likely to cause future problems if we don't make considerable changes in our emissions.
"but it does happen to be the dominant one that we're currently in control of"
6 billion Humans exhale 3 billionish tones of c02 a year
Hundreds of billions of tons of Co2 is manufactured at about $10 a pound to power Hydrolics and Co2 punk engines like Soda Fountains,to make soda pop,decaffeinate coffee.make medicines,make plastics and so forth
We cannot make $190 of Co2 from $3.47 of Gasoline as Claimed(I wish)
@TheRealArchAngel Your scientific illiteracy on this topic does not negate everything we've learned about greenhouse gasses over the past 120 years. You can claim that CO2 can't drive climate, but your simply flat out wrong.
"The one that's most likely to cause future problems if we don't make considerable changes in our emissions."
A Car's real emission if you stick a gasometer on it is 68grams - 323 grams a gallon
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs while a US Coal Fired Power plant With it's Emmision control boxes,Chemical Scrubbers,water filters,and electro-static scrubbers blows nitrogen and water vapor out of it's "stacks" with it's captured and recycled material turned into Firtilizer and Dry board
That is the real hurdle for taxing the shit out of people
Power plants and people would want to be paying for what they actually owe not a estimate
The moment you have to stick a co2 monitoring device to pay co2 taxes on a car exhaust the Environuts lose cause it isn't 19lb of co2 a gallon of gas it's 65grams to 323grams of co2 a gallon of gas(smirk)
Real problem is that the current cycle of COre plume amplification(separate from Progressive COre Pluming driving Interglaciation cycle) causing em flux(Holes in EM,dayside EM collapse),the increased amount of earthquakes,re-awakining of subduction zone volcanoes like Icland's also generates a shitload of heat and co2 from black smokers,midrifts,subduction zones as well as the heating ocean and ocean floor quakes dislodging Co2 hydrate
@TheRealArchAngel Volcanic emissions of CO2 have an isotopic signature distinct from those stemming from fossil fuels or organic matter burning. The reduction of oxygen is confirmation that the rise is due to burning, not outgassing. You can measure experimentally how much CO2 is released during burning, and combine that with knowledge of how much we've used up. You can measure CO2 release at power plants and make empirical estimates from that. Do you think these people are utter fools?
Ibukuki and CanX-2 "5 year mission" will better show where co2 comes from, how it actually travels and where it goes to
What you are re-babbling is egghead predictive estimates
Give it 3 more years for them to find the CO2 does not come from humans
Give it 10 more years for them to realize "AGW" is bullshit as the next generation satellites work with the Co2 orbiters to test if local CO2 concentrations effect temperature which effect weather which effect "climate Variability"
@TheRealArchAngel This is just absurd. A rise of 100ppm CO2 normally takes on the order of 5000 years or more to come about naturally, but somehow you're expecting me to buy the idea that this rise conveniently took place since the start of the industrial age and brought us up higher than it's been in the past 20 million years, even though every bit of information that we do have suggests otherwise. Come on now, dude.
"A rise of 100ppm CO2 normally takes on the order of 5000 years or more to come about naturally"
But if the world is finally coming out of it's unusual 10,000 years of relative stability the "rules" don't apply any more
It's like the disclaimer on those money making infomercials: "Past performance does not guarantee future results,the earth fluxes of heat & co2 associated with Climate variability may be more or less"
I was thinking absurd relative to scientific evidence and our understanding of climate.
Let me ask you this, though: if the satellites you mentioned show that the increase in CO2 is due to us humans, would you then accept anthropogenic warming is a fact?
"I was thinking absurd relative to scientific evidence and our understanding of climate."
The Eggheads "understanding" of Climate is from past results being used for estimates predictions...which there are to many variables to accurately factor for 10 days let alone 100 years
"Let me ask you this, though: if the satellites you mentioned show that the increase in CO2 is due to us humans, would you then accept anthropogenic warming is a fact?"
@TheRealArchAngel Climate and weather are not the same thing. Predicting the weather far in advance is like predicting the outcome of a roll with a 20-sided die. Predicting climate trends is like predicting the mean value of many of those rolls.
On the other issue: why do you trust satellites more than the existing plethora of ground observations? Satellites have their own flaws, as the debate between the UAH satellite team and ground based climate measurements clearly shows.
Climate is a Geographical region marked by lines of Latitude and they are Polar,Sub-polar,Temperate,Sub Tropical,Tropical,and Highlands...it's why I am most amused by "climate change"...you need to shift earth's axis to cause "climate change"
Weather is the result of Evaporation/precipitation cycle
neither has anything to due with Average global temperature or co2 concentration as the eggheads try to convince everyone it does
@TheRealArchAngel Climate is basically weather statistics. That includes regional temperature averages and trends, or global averages and trends, over a variety of time scales. It's dependent on a variety of forcings. Those can be orbital factors or shifts in the earth's axis, but they can also be things like injections of volcanic dust, atmospheric particulates, or greenhouse gasses.
No, Climate Zones are Geographical (Polar,Sub-Polar,Temperate,Tropical,Sub-Tropical,and Highlands) and locked into Axis "Climate variability"(and I hate the term cause it isn't accurate thus the " ") is actually short term and long term ecological effects from weather trends,not temperature,not AGT,not co2 concentrations
Example: Daily Temperature can go up to 122f or down to 30f in Las Vegas but it is still in a Temperate Climate Zone with a Desert Ecology for last few thousand years
"Those can be orbital factors or shifts in the earth's axis"
Or elevation change such as a Highland Zone mountain range drooping from a subduction zone shift/earthquake
"hey can also be things like injections of volcanic dust"
Mt St Helen's Explosion destroyed all life,true but it didn't change the Climate Zone(Temperate) or change the Ecology of the Area(Temperate Woodlands)..if fact if you look now everything grew back
Have you seen the "After People" series?(hint:Nature always wins)
No, the so called "Greenhouse Gases" are a byproduct of the Core pluming that powers interglacial Warming between Ice Ages which also pumps out the extra heat to prevent the otherwise super cooled waters of the poles from freezing the Oceans solid all the way down to the equator despite the sun
They are just presumably correlated with the Extra heat much like "Creation Scientists" found a human footprint in dinosaur footprint to "prove" they lived together..lol
"Predicting the weather far in advance is like predicting the outcome"
Why predict it when you can control it?
I have 2 "impractical hero" Tesla for his HARP and Ming the Merciless for his "Weather Machine"don't know what others was thinking during the intro to Flash Gordan when Ming was using his machine,but mine was "I wonder if I could build one of those")
"Predicting climate trends"
Last axis shift was 5000 years ago turning Egypt's grain belt and Sahara's Jungle into deserts(5 degree shift)
"why do you trust satellites more than the existing plethora of ground observations?"
1) The Satellites are on the cutting edge o\f technology, Keelings co2 station and the temperature gauges at university sites are not
2) Proxy data from Ice Cores and Trees and such are subjective and don't even match older actual measurements,thus the need to "hide the decline: that the "deniers" took the wrong way
3)Computer simulations and Mathematical formula based on past subjective data not=Observations
Especially if they are not built for what you are trying to use them for and have to add subjective data to what it actually gathers
Imbuki and Cax-2 were built specifically to collect data on co2 concentration and movements
It is sad their "Sister" the NASA OCO was "lost on launch" in the heat of Cap and Trade being debated on the Senate floor (Maybe same way the Mars orbiter was "lost" until it got the pictures of the Face on Mars and discovered it wasn't?)
"you're expecting me to buy the idea that this rise conveniently took place since the start of the industrial age and brought us up higher than it's been in the past 20 million years**
"All the predictions in the world cannot prove me right,but 1 test can prove me wrong"-Albert Eisenstein
Until the grunts (like me) successfully rule out coincidental instability of Earth's Core fluctuation cycles in last 150 years it is still a untested possibility
@TheRealArchAngel There is zero evidence for such an alternative explanation at this time, and no known natural source that could have caused the increase. On the other hand, there is every indication that it was us. Isotopes, oxygen, known quantities of sold fossil fuels, a highly anomalous increase. You can cite me Einstein, I'll point you at Occam.
Also, pointing out that the increase is anomalous relative to practically the entire neogene years is not "cherry picking".
"There is zero evidence for such an alternative explanation at this time"
Oh just because it isn't Plastered all over the Media and Internet because of some has been politician winning a award on a hyped up version of Academic Opinion on UN Environmental Policy doesn't mean it "doesn''t exist"..its Oceanography 101 and Vulcanology 101 so you are not going to here it in a Physics class or a "Environmental Studies" course thought in the Philosophy/Math building
"You can cite me Einstein, I'll point you at Occam."
Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result
Again noticing CO2 rising and Heat/AGT rising does not "prove" humans are causing the the Rise by burning fossil fuels nor can it link any part of the CO2 rise to fossil fuels without tests
My Idea of Occum is put 2 tanks one with air with 390ppm co2 one with 900ppm under the same heat source,if 900ppm rises GHG Theory is at last proved
@TheRealArchAngel That kind of experiment was done ages ago, and many times since. There's actually a documentary out there (BBC, I think) where they videotape the experiment using an infrared camera as they add more CO2 to the mixture.
...In fact, the experiment is so basic that a fourth grader actually did it for his science fare project:
watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4
Obviously, more sophisticated experiments than this one have been conducted which account for the CO2 concentration, accounting for potential differences between light sources, etc., but the point is, this has been done, frequently. Arrhenius did it in the late 1900s, and before him Tyndall did much the same thing. It's the experiment that the theory is based on.
".In fact, the experiment is so basic that a fourth grader actually did it for his science fare project:
watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4 "
Absolutely Adorable but
1)Glass is a heat absorber
2) No thermal heat from sun get's past EM and Thermosphere
3) Infrared light isn't what heats the Surface it's Ultraviolet light
Most important
4) It's heat from Earth surface via UV heating or COre Conduction that heats the lower Troposphere(upper is flat 32c around world) by humidity/evaporation not IR and CO2
"but the point is, this has been done, frequently. Arrhenius did it in the late 1900s, and before him Tyndall did much the same thing."
Classic example of doing the wrong experiment to get the right results especially since CO2 will hold 5 degrees more heat then Air and for a longer time because of it's density
To do it right
1) Get 2 clear containers of PVC
2) Fill one with air at 390ppm and one with 900ppm
3) Subject to Infrared Light spotlight (Night vision cam light)
Also, check the numbers on volcanic degassing like in Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp, 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001; Morner, 2002 and compare with estimates of anthropogenic emissions like Le Quéré, 2009 or Gerlach, 2010. Humans emit at least a hundred times more CO2 than volcanoes, possibly three times that.
"The reduction of oxygen is confirmation that the rise is due to burning"
That is actually a standing hypothesis,yet to be tested
"You can measure CO2 release at power plants"
Watch the video closer,even the speaker admits the EPA and such currently does not "Do you think these people are utter fools?"
No,eggheads scientist like them do the paperwork/hypothesis, grunt scientist like me develop the procedures/processes to verify and test the eggheads hypothesis and paper theories
Aw, cute computer models and agreement = "pretty conclusively
This is why the grunt scientists like me asked the governments for funding for impact studies to verify and test the "Eggheads" models,predictions and estimates
Imbuki (launched Jan 2009) and CanX-2(launched Noiv 2008) will measure 100,000 points on earth,will track where co2 comes from,will track how it moves, and track where it goes
I doing so they will confirm or bust the eggheads co2 models (I say bust)
CO2 not exhaled by animals and plants(at night) buibble from land based co2 sinks like lake Nyos and rarely get into the evaporation/precipitation cycle being 1.2 times heavier then air (as in co2 doesn't stay in air "indefinitely" it moves through it)
there is thousands of trillions of tons of co2 in land based sinks and millions of trilliions tons more of co2 locked in earths crust
Co2 is the most abundant form of free carbon in the world and this co2 exchange chart is bul'shit
How does a measured rise in CO2 "Proof" it is from burning fossil fuels when the co2 has been rising for the last 100,000 years and the graph only shows from the start of the Keeling station in 1960? (Proxy data would show that fucker going all the way down to almost zero in the last Ice Age)
I think the best way to reduce carbon emissions in the west is to have an immigration moratorium. Statistics clearlyu show the USA population grew by 100 million in the last 40 years and nearly all the growth was due to immigration.
The west could drasically reduce carbon emissions with a reduction in immigration and population and would have nearly stable growth in the USA with a moratorium on immigration.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsenseThe present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning. - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
We have only had a 65 ppm rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide with devastating effects over the last 50 years. Right! So, if we are the verge of destruction due to 65 ppm rise in carbon dixoide then a like reduction of 65 ppm over the next 50 years puts us where? Last time I checked, we humans have a harder time living in colder climates than warmer ones. Food is more plentiful in warmer climates. I still do not get the concern over growing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere.
i put up info on nikola teslas wireless energy system, its so important to a future world. please everyone look it up! WIRELESS ENERGY WOULD BE OBTAINABLE ANYWHERE ON EARTH! there would be no carbon dioxide at all! most pollution would clear up and everyone would have wireless power!!!
I am a chemist and not a climatologist. I would like for once a global warming presentation to talk about the inconclusive data that point to a link of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to elevated atmospheric temperatures versus time. The is no evidence as far as I know. Carbon emissions are being presented as futile, yet we humans emit carbon dioxide with every exhale. What makes carbon emissions bad? I just do not get it!
@cooterneck As a chemist, I assume that you understand that the radiative properties of CO2 are not in dispute. We can confirm that CO2 is the culprit by taking spectroscopic measurements of outgoing and downward radiation at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface respectively, which show increased absorption and re-emission along CO2 associated bandwidths. In fact, we see exactly that. Other sources of info are paleodata, modelling runs, and comparisons to other rocky planets.
"I assume that you understand that the radiative properties of CO2 are not in dispute"
Sometimes giving the Eggheads scientific tools is like giving a Chimp a Chainsaw....sometimes you know they are going to use it the wrong way
CO2's ability to absorb thermal heat (5 more degrees then air at 100%) has nothing to do with the Pass/reflect/adsorb rate of Infrared light used in infrared light Spectrometry to detect what type of substance the light is mostly bouncing off(what comes back)
re CO2 breathing: The biosphere and other natural carbon sources and sinks are more or less in balance. Our emissions are a considerable source that upsets that balance. By analogy, imagine the carbon cycle as a kitchen sink with a partially closed drain and a running tap, where flow in equals flow out, maintaining a steady water level. We're opening the tap just a bit, so that now the water level must rise until the pressure is such that the flow accelerates enough that in again equals out.
"re CO2 breathing: The biosphere and other natural carbon sources and sinks are more or less in balance. Our emissions are a considerable source that upsets that balance."
All Academic until tested conclusive
A Vulcanologist would tell you it's the Earth's core pluming that drives warming cycles and fluxes in that pluming that causes "climate variability" through irregular heat release cycles through the tectonic plates and the heat is diffused through the oceans(but there are none on IPCC)
A Oceanographer would pick up were the vulcanologist left off and tell you that the heat fluctuations from the ocean floor effects the Walker circulation thus creating El nino,La nada,or La Nina which effects "Climate Variability"
A Meteorologists would then take over and tell you that the reason the Walker Circulation effects "climate variability" is it changes the level of heat and humidity involved with the evaporation/precipitation cycle
"I am a chemist and not a climatologist. I would like for once a global warming presentation to talk about the inconclusive data that point to a link of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to elevated atmospheric temperatures versus time"
And when Peter Jackson was young and finished reading "Lord of the Rings" he commented that he couldn't wait for someone to turn the books into a Movie...it would make a great movie(If you catch my drift)
I wonder why just the jesus freaks and other dumb religious people, the ones from the oil industry, some politicians and people who have no interest to make a change are on your side...and on the other side is everyone who have good knowledge on this problem
Hey, check out my website at ScientificallyGreener(Dot) com and get all the new and improved Equipments to build or buy your own solar and wind energy systems ScientificallyGreener(Dot) com is a website that sells the most modern environmental products available
I really think that Google Tech Talks should be shown on T.V. I've found almost all of their submissions to YouTube very interesting and I would love to watch in on my T.V. on my recliner rather than on a large computer screen in an uncomfortable computer chair. I'm sure Google has enough income to do this.
We have the technology to break down CO2 at the molecular structure .Plus capture all pollutants attached to coal stacks , Oil , autos .The Oceans are holding way to much CO2 , a CO2 burp along LA to Seattle , would kill untold amounts . Please check out James Tracy of Pure Power inc, this invention could save us . Ocean acidification is real . Dr, Paul Curto , NASA Chief Technologist for the past 16 years , retired is on board . So many usages , that can help , Investors needed now !
This is scary if u read this far u will die in 10 days if u dont send to any 15 videos in 2 hours good luck hope i dont die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1(OMG SORRY I AN SO FREAKED AT THESE THINGS!!AHH)
Our measly contribution of .003% does not drive climate. This does:
1. Distance of earth from the sun
2. Tilt of the earth on its axis which affects the angle and intensity of the suns rays - this creates our seasons (Latitude determines what climatic zone one lives in)
3. Orbit of the earth around the sun
4. Rotation of the earth which makes for warming by day and cooling by night - this is what creates our winds and jet streams.
If that was all that determined climate then why can parts of earth be colder then the coldest parts of mars if mars is farther from the sun?
Venus is only 17% closer to the sun but is over 850 degrees Fahrenheit because of greenhouse gases. Its hotter then mercury which is closer to the sun.
Our moon is about -60 degrees because it is not in our atmosphear with our CO2 trapping heat, and it is about the same distance from the sun as the earth.
George Reisman is a economist who probably hasnt taken a science class since the Korean war.
He is a self proclaimed ayn Rand fan, and shes the person who said helping others is un-ethical.
This morally bankrupt economist is supposed to know how much heat is retained or deflected by fine partials in the troposphere? Its like asking a waiter to be an expert on how much fuel a 747 needs to get from LA to NY.
His research on this topic is impeccable: "If you take the trouble to do an internet search on Google for carbon dioxide + Martian atmosphere, you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is -63° C (-81° F). (It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth,
cont'd: "If you take the trouble to do an internet search on Google for carbon dioxide + Martian atmosphere, you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is -63° C (-81° F). (It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth, which appears to make up for the
thinness of the Martian atmosphere about 14 times over.)
But even putting this decisive objection aside, there is simply no informed or honest way...to suggest that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth is or ever will be comparable to the amount on Venus. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, the atmosphere of Venus is 96 percent carbon dioxide. The atmosphere of the Earth, in contrast, is less than .04 percent carbon dioxide. Thats not .04, but .0004, i.e.,
The comparason of distance between planets was to point out that your assertion that the atmosphere has NO effect on the climate of the planet is totally false.
Rotation and distance from the sun and tilt of a planet are not the only factors in planetary climates, you are very misinformed.
Cont'd-"four one-hundredths of one percent. To be precise, carbon dioxide is presently 383 parts per million of the Earths atmosphere. All of the brouhaha going on about the subject is over a projected increase to perhaps as much as 1000 parts per million by the year 2100, i.e., to .1 percent, which is 10 one-hundredths of one percent."
Your projection of 1000 ppm increase is a 300% increase in carbon in the atmosphere from 384 ppm. 384 PPM is a 35% increase from 1832 levels of 284ppm.
All the brouhaha going on will turn out to probably only effect the average temperature of the earth by less then 5.8 degrees.
The posts I've made are getting messed up; why don't you go over there and read the research yourself instead of launching a personal attack against the man? This isn't his opinion, but quotes from reliable sources.
The atmospheric pressure of Venus is 90 times that of Earth. But 50 miles up, the pressure and temperature are the same as Earth's surface. Will a runaway greenhouse effect increase the mass of the Earth's atmosphere by two orders of magnitude? This would take a huge purging from the oceans and rocks, as the oceans absorb CO2 more efficiently than does air. Venus has no ocean to store CO2. The physics and chemistry are not equivalent. And where on Earth does CO2 freeze like it does on Mars?
Oops, correction: we're clogging the drain, rather than opening the tap. So, the same happens with the GHGs; normally energy in (solar heating) equals energy out (the earths infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere). We're shifting the balance so that the energy flows out of the system slower than before. As a result, the earth must warm up until a new equilibrium is reached.
The analogy comes from David Archer, btw. He has a nice lecture series on this topic:
"normally energy in (solar heating) equals energy out (the earths infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere)."
A early 19th century idea still re-babbled by the Academic Sciences eggheads(Atmospheric physicists,ocean physicists,Geo-physicists,Eco-physicists and everything else ending in "physicists") but has no place in the practical sciences(meteorology,Geology,Oceanography,Ecology)
"GHGs"
GHGs and the "Green house effect" are early 19th century Academic Egghead nonsense still re-babbled
Lol, is this guy a stand up comedian or what? so some nice colorful pictures and a load of hot air means what? That we all need to take a microchip and pay carbon taxes?? I don't quite get how he comes all these fairytale conclusions. So basically he is saying he imagines all, he assumes, he models, blah blah blah. Come on who actually swallows this?
It's interesting that the billions vested in the interests of keeping us in the dark about the true costs of convenience can be revealed with a $200 million satellite.
As far as the question about natural carbon cycles: These models show the human impact beyond what happens naturally.
It would be interesting to estimate atmospheric carbon from the fossil record and show it slowly being sequestered over millions of years and suddenly being released in a few hundred, next to a graph of estimated vegetative cover over the same time period.
Is that the effin' graph you are looking for, twinspur?
There is more and more people around the world about 7 bil now, and less and less trees etc. What will happen with O2 when there will be 17 bil of people or what will happen when there will be 30 bil of humans.
One car burns about as much O2 in 1 hour as 1 tree can produce during the whole day. During the night tree also uses O2.
How long will it take before we will run out of O2 to the point when we will slowly sufficate? Or when we will run out of the trees?
Why did he use comic sans, why?
yazzz00 4 months ago
@yazzz00 "oh I'll pick comic sans! It looks so joyful and professional, it's just perfect for my presentation at GOOGLE TECH TALKS" .... what were he thinking?
trixigt2 3 months ago
Incredible, how many global warming deniers are here,
wouldn't wonder if most of the same people deny evolution...
Fact is: We're pumping an incredible amount of carbon+ the other GHGs into the atmosphere; should we wonder that
- sea levels rise
- the arctica shrinks with incredible speed
- huge permafrost regions thaw up
- the pH of some marine regions reaches destructive levels to lifeforms?
But dear deniers, dream on...
Elune137 7 months ago
petroleum, coal and natural gas are fossil fuels..... so the best and really the only way to reduce our carbon emissions is to shut down all these oil refineries and and shut down all gas stations... and well you know that will never happen cause big oil and pharm and cigs control this contry and the world....
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[5] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[6]
ok this is at 10,000 ppm. As of October 2010[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 388 ppm by volume. so relax people... this is all so stupid. co2 is GOOD AND NEEDED FOR ALL LIFE TO CONTINUE ON THIS PLANET...
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
As part of the carbon cycle known as photosynthesis, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria absorb carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water to produce carbohydrate energy for themselves and oxygen as a waste product. By contrast, during respiration they emit carbon dioxide, as do all other living things that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food.
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039% by volume
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all credit to my next few posts will go to wikipedia...
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
what a bunch of total bull.... the only way to reduce human carbon emmissions (which btw are not harmful) is to kill people...period... that is their plan to eliminate most of the worlds population...
TheWakeupworld 7 months ago
this guy is from the IPCC UN pannel inothwe words an idiot hes a C02 fraud loon
virgogreg 10 months ago
when we calculate China economic scale topic, this methods to count is same one?
When we would understand concrete/acute methods like this. DO WE NEED SUPERCOMPUTER? MANY INVESTER? Idon'know,but I want to know.
flowewritharoma 1 year ago
Hmmm, got a cheap CO2 sensor someone coulds plug in realtime to their internet? Like the "Weather Stations" you see on sale all the time in the gadget catalogs? LEVERAGE THAT.........
bmecher 1 year ago
Nice, awesome job of doing the governments job- present a standard everyone can use to make their own choices. I do not necessarily like regulation, but a standard of measurement I can appeciate something like this would give us the data we need to know if we are creating a problem-or not. Good stuff.
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher btw, we already know we are creating a problem emitting CO2..
8DX 1 year ago
Okay, what did the Buffalo dump in methane before cars?, methane is a much mor effective green house gas. Are our cars preserving a balance we upset?
bmecher 1 year ago
He starts talking at 01:57.
alexander256 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
lavernedi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
fittingciobb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it's probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
checksummedchest 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
lavernedi 1 year ago
Whoops, typo: late 1800s or late 19th century.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@TheReal ArchAngel - Polyatomic molecules like carbon dioxide does absorb energy from the infrared spectrum of light other wise spectroscopic methods of measurement of the gas would not be possible. It is the vibration of the pi bonds in carbon dioxide that allows the gas to absorb and radiate infrared energy back into the atmosphere. This is fact unless all my college professors were on weed. I still think we are looking through a pinhole instead of exploring all data.
cooterneck 1 year ago
"Polyatomic molecules like carbon dioxide does absorb energy from the infrared spectrum of light other wise spectroscopic methods of measurement of the gas would not be possible. It is the vibration of the pi bonds in carbon dioxide that allows the gas to absorb and radiate infrared energy back into the atmosphere"
This is all 19th century Academic Chemical Theory not applied Science
"This is fact unless all my college professors were on weed"
More likely Eggheads that never seen a lab
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"I still think we are looking through a pinhole instead of exploring all data"
The Data means kjackshit unless you 1) no what it means and 2) Know how to use it
For example, The Correlation between Co2 rise and Heat rise no more "proves" Humans are causing global warming then the Sun Rising "Proves" Apollo is pulling it
Science is about Negative deducements not Positive reinforcements.
You can't "prove" something by finding evidence that matches your predisposition..that;s "faith"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
I think we are oversimplifying the cause of the warming of our Earth. I believe molecules can absorb and trap some infrared radiation, that is fact. I feel we think we know more than we really do. Looking at a moon of Saturn called Titan can explain some things. Methane is 23 times more potent a GHG than CO2. It rains liquid methane on Titan yet its average temperature is -290 ºF. Why is it not hotter? I think we assume too much and need to dig deeper for the reason of the warming trend.
cooterneck 1 year ago
"I believe molecules can absorb and trap some infrared radiation"
Belief is for religion,"truth" is for Philosophy, Debate is for politics
1) Infrared light and heat(temperature) are not the same thing,the common confusion comes from everything having a temperature and thus radiating ir light relative to its temperature
2) Infrared lights waves are to long to vibrate anything to give it a temperature,it is the UV Light from the sun who's wave frequency is short enough to heat things
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"I feel we think we know more than we really do"
The only thing I know for sure is I know nothing -Socrates
That and feelings are for psychotherapy,not science..lol
Titan proves many things
1) A Methane/Nitrogen rich world is possible...this is what premodial earth was
2) With It's petroleum/natural gas deposits equaling 1000x more then Earths it conclusively proves petroleum/natural gas doesn't come from "dead plants and animals"
3) Nature made "Vaseline" first,(Lander landed in it...lol)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@cooterneck Climate scientists don't just look at CO2, but much of the focus is on that gas because it has the strongest anthropogenic effect on climate (about 60% of the forcing of all GHGs). Methane and a variety of other gasses are stronger GHGs, but because their concentrations are so low the cumulative effect is smaller.
Climate scientists do look at other planets, e.g. Venus and Mars. As for Titan, you can probably explain that at least in part because it's much further from the sun.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"Climate scientists do look at other planets"
Would that be Astrophysicists?
"Venus and Mars"
Wvunus has a large active core,a thin crust and no oceans thus the undiffused 900f coming off the surface driving 200 mile an hour winds...has nothing to do with "ghgs"
Mars has a Cooled core thus no EM thus why there is only co2 left slowly being stripped away by the solar wind..days are no hotter then 70f on day side but can drop to absolute zero@night
"Titan"
Tidal Friction might be driving storms
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel re other planets, e.g. see Kasting's "How to find a habitable planet". It's a cool book with coverage of paleoclimates, the climate on Mars and Venus, and the search for exoplanets, among other things.
CO2 has a very large effect on the climate of Venus, btw.
werecow2003 1 year ago
Yes,yes the "habitation zone": nonsense Cosmologists<Astronomers and Physicists like to have fun with
earth's Orbit has nothing to do with it's climate or that it harbors life it is
1) The Earth's Core to crust ratio generating a EM field larger then it should for it side deflection the bulk of the Solar wind allowing enough pressure to allow for liquid water and lighter gasses to not be blown away by Solar wind
2) Earth;s Core and Mantle diffusing heat through Oceans as main heat regulator
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"2) Earth;s Core and Mantle diffusing heat through Oceans as main heat regulator"
And to emphasize what I said before about the bulk of the heat that keeps earth's habitability being from earth core and nit Sun....remember that Ice Ages come and go and so do "ice Ball earth" scenarios when the entire oceans freeze solid no matter how brightly the sun shines on the earth until the Core plumes and breaks the Ice Age/"Ice ball Earth" once again with oceans being main heat sink & regulator of heat
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"a cool book with coverage of paleoclimates, the climate on Mars and Venus"
Venus is almost the same size as earth yet has no EM field(molten core to big?),has no oceans and therefore the lighter gases was blown away by solar wind and the 900f crust heats the co2 causing 200 mile an hour winds..there is no "green house effect" involved there any more then here
Mars is 1/4ish the size of earth,core is cooled meaning no EM and lighter gases where stripped off
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
P.s. Interestingly though Venus is 7/8 size of earth it's gravity isn't 7/8E(7/8ths of Earth Gravity) and though Mars is 1/4 size of earth it's Gravity isn't 1/4E thus suggesting that part of Earth's "1G" might be "induced gravity" from earth's Huge (for it's size") electromagnetic field
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Mars is not 1/4 the size of earth. That may explain your inconsistency much easier.
Mars may have 15% of the volume of earth, but its mass is only 11% which accounts for the difference in gravitational pull.
You must also calculate the distance from the center because the farther you are the lower the gravitational pull.
This shows that Mars and mercury are very close in surface gravitational pull, as both have similar mass:distance from center ratios. Not their EM fields.
ilikehwy40 1 year ago
MAss and volume ratios are a different subject
Was pointing out "Induced gravity" of Earth's EM that can and does flux with EM fluxes from core disterbances
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Venus' very high albedo should reflect a lot of sunlight back into space, lowering its temperature. Instead, the temperature is anomalously high, higher than Mercury's surface. The accepted explanation for this is its extreme greenhouse effect. As far as I'm aware, every serious scientist accepts this. The concept of a greenhouse gas follows from quantum mechanics. It's been experimentally demonstrated. I really don't see how you can deny those basic facts.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"Venus' very high albedo should reflect a lot of sunlight back into space"
Oh Flying Spaghetti monster(rollseyes)
Albedo is is nothing more then reflection of visible light off an object..like how the Moon reflects visible light...has nothing to do with temperature(heat) from Venus' large molten core to thin crust ratio with no water to diffuse it's 900f SURFACE(not atmosphere,SURFACE,not atmosphere,SURFACE) which very little sunlight ever reaches
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"The accepted explanation for this is its extreme greenhouse effect."
1) Accepted doesn't mean tested
2) Not before the dumbing down of the US Education system and the Government by less then qualified people teaching such nonsense and putting US from the cutting Edge of Technology,Science,and Math to almost dead last in the world
"As far as I'm aware, every serious scientist accepts this. "
On a government Panel..yes
Bunch of eggheads with no lab or field time have to "Agree" by "consensus"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"I really don't see how you can deny those basic facts."
Belief or denial is for for Religion
"Truth" is for Philosophy
Debate and Consensus is for politics
Acceptance is for Popularity contests
"Facts" are relative to perception
"Accepted Science" is always "right" in the present but never in hind sight after a test confirms or falsifies it
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Sorry, but I'm taking the side of the accepted science over your layman judgment. You're disputing even the most basic, well established scientific principles involved here, waving away the judgment of thousands who've spent their lives studying this stuff, without having any real expertise yourself. I hate to say it, but that's a sign of severe Dunning Kruger syndrome. Anyway, it's been fun.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"Sorry, but I'm taking the side of the accepted science over your layman judgment."
Layman judgement?
I Specialize in Weather Manipulation,Enviromental Engineering and artifical Biospheres
If AGW were real (And I do mean IF) I'd be among the Scientists proposing practical countermeasures to not only the CO2 rise but the natural disasters supposedly attached to it
Your Eggheads thinking laws/regulations will lower the seas and carbon Taxes can save the polar bears from drowning should be a clue
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel That's all well and good, but you seem to be unaware or misinformed about some very basic concepts in climate science that virtually no expert would dispute anymore. I'm basing my judgment not just on the IPCC, but on a plethora of large reports, consensus statements by many high standing scientific institutions, textbooks, and the peer reviewed literature. You're about as far removed from everything else I've seen in the literature as you can get.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"That's all well and good, but you seem to be unaware or misinformed about some very basic concepts in climate science"
Which part?
The part that Politicians won't put their careers on the line by listening to the opinions in the summary for policy makers and the Assessments without funding testing by grunt scientists like me for a "Second Opinion"?
The Part where Al Gore's Movie/IPCC Getting Nebel is media hype,AGW is media hype and Youtube makes the "AGWer" movement seem bigger then it is?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"m basing my judgment not just on the IPCC, but on a plethora of large report"
Eggheads all patting each other on the back with supportive opinions and predictions doesn't equal a test
"consensus statements by many high standing scientific institutions,"
Again, Opinions released by Board of Directors on AL Gores Movie on IPCC isn't a test...just opinions supporting opinions and predictions
Consensus isn't a test
"textbooks"
Meteorology? Ecology? or is this a pamphlet in "environmental Studies"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel I'm talking about every major institute of science in the world. And they don't comment on Al Gore. For the record, I don't care what Gore says one way or the other and I haven't seen his movie. The consensus simply reflects the state of the science and the balance of evidence at this time.
re textbooks: How about books on the actual relevant science? Climatology and paleoclimatology come to mind. I don't think you've read any that have come out since the 60s, if that.
werecow2003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"the peer reviewed literature"
Aw fuck
A bunch of eggheads sending memos and reports across each others and politicians desks is not the Same as Submitting a Scientific paper to a Journal of Science were it is "peer reviewed" by scientists in the related fields for errors before being published in the Journal of Science(which only happens if there is no obvious errors)
"You're about as far removed from everything else I've seen in the literature" I'm not a Political oriented/employed Egghead
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel You seem to assume a lot about what I do or don't read. I read published, peer reviewed papers, approved textbooks and scientific assessment reports, not memos, and I avoid anything coming from politicians. You don't need to lecture me about how science and skepticism is done. You need to actually start doing it. Also, what's with your obsession with eggs?
werecow2003 1 year ago
"You seem to assume a lot about what I do or don't read"
No, just be careful in this infonet global medi information age cause a lot of it is crap
"approved textbooks"
Approved textbooks?
At least the Nazi's just burned books to deny their followers knowledge,they didn't re-write them the way the Liberal elitists are doing...But controlled information is more effective then bonfires...obviously
"I avoid anything coming from politicians"
Really?
Then when did you first hear of "AGW"?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"You don't need to lecture me about how science and skepticism is done"
Skepticism actually has no place in Science...just testability and falsification
Problem is there is no such thing as a truely unbiased Scientist
"You need to actually start doing it."
Yeah, when I have the time I'll video tape some demos showing how the "Greenhouse effect" doesn't work in the lab or field as the Eggheads claim
"Also, what's with your obsession with eggs?"
Just what I call University/Government Physicists
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
P.S. If you want the official Score the eggheads are still stuck on 2) and so are us Grunt Scientists cause we are still only beginning to do the initial testings with Imbuki,CanX-2 and and the next generation Satellites
It's not likely step 3,Paper submitted to a Journal of Science, will ever happen as this is stemmed in political collaboration for policy making ,not science
And as of yet I have never seen a tax or a law "save the world to say nothing of turning US sovereignty to UN(smirk)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel No peer reviewed paper has been published? This is ridiculous. I have better things to do than be Poed. Have fun in denier land. I hear it's nice and cool over there.
werecow2003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"No peer reviewed paper has been published? This is ridiculous."
Alright, name the Journal, the date, and publication number that presents AGW as a official Hypothesis that past initial testing by scientists and was published and is ready for the next step which is Replication of Results by independent scientists followed by excluding out all other possibilities(falsification) before becoming an official Theory
(good luck)
"Have fun in denier land"
Your religion will fall before real Science
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel You can't cite a single paper that proves or disproves this issue, it's the result of thousands of peer reviewed papers, each tackling a piece of the problem. Cherry picking one study to support this or that conclusion is exactly the problem. The preponderance of evidence is what this theory is based on.
werecow2003 1 year ago
@cooterneck ...and just to add, natural forcings and feedbacks are of course also considered when looking at climate change, such as volcanism, solar activity, orbital parameters, and natural climate variability (and a host of other things). CO2 is not the only driver of climate, by a long shot, but it does happen to be the dominant one that we're currently in control of, and the one that's most likely to cause future problems if we don't make considerable changes in our emissions.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"CO2 is not the only driver of climate"
It doesn't drive climate at all
"but it does happen to be the dominant one that we're currently in control of"
6 billion Humans exhale 3 billionish tones of c02 a year
Hundreds of billions of tons of Co2 is manufactured at about $10 a pound to power Hydrolics and Co2 punk engines like Soda Fountains,to make soda pop,decaffeinate coffee.make medicines,make plastics and so forth
We cannot make $190 of Co2 from $3.47 of Gasoline as Claimed(I wish)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Your scientific illiteracy on this topic does not negate everything we've learned about greenhouse gasses over the past 120 years. You can claim that CO2 can't drive climate, but your simply flat out wrong.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"The one that's most likely to cause future problems if we don't make considerable changes in our emissions."
A Car's real emission if you stick a gasometer on it is 68grams - 323 grams a gallon
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs while a US Coal Fired Power plant With it's Emmision control boxes,Chemical Scrubbers,water filters,and electro-static scrubbers blows nitrogen and water vapor out of it's "stacks" with it's captured and recycled material turned into Firtilizer and Dry board
watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
35:34 - 36:31
That is the real hurdle for taxing the shit out of people
Power plants and people would want to be paying for what they actually owe not a estimate
The moment you have to stick a co2 monitoring device to pay co2 taxes on a car exhaust the Environuts lose cause it isn't 19lb of co2 a gallon of gas it's 65grams to 323grams of co2 a gallon of gas(smirk)
37:50 - 38:55
ther is no EM field at poles which lets consecrated solar flares in that destroys Ozone "CFC depletion" is bullshit
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
9:21 - 12:04
Cute graphs
Real problem is that the current cycle of COre plume amplification(separate from Progressive COre Pluming driving Interglaciation cycle) causing em flux(Holes in EM,dayside EM collapse),the increased amount of earthquakes,re-awakining of subduction zone volcanoes like Icland's also generates a shitload of heat and co2 from black smokers,midrifts,subduction zones as well as the heating ocean and ocean floor quakes dislodging Co2 hydrate
Humans have jackshit to do with it
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Volcanic emissions of CO2 have an isotopic signature distinct from those stemming from fossil fuels or organic matter burning. The reduction of oxygen is confirmation that the rise is due to burning, not outgassing. You can measure experimentally how much CO2 is released during burning, and combine that with knowledge of how much we've used up. You can measure CO2 release at power plants and make empirical estimates from that. Do you think these people are utter fools?
werecow2003 1 year ago
Ibukuki and CanX-2 "5 year mission" will better show where co2 comes from, how it actually travels and where it goes to
What you are re-babbling is egghead predictive estimates
Give it 3 more years for them to find the CO2 does not come from humans
Give it 10 more years for them to realize "AGW" is bullshit as the next generation satellites work with the Co2 orbiters to test if local CO2 concentrations effect temperature which effect weather which effect "climate Variability"
(Hint: no)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel This is just absurd. A rise of 100ppm CO2 normally takes on the order of 5000 years or more to come about naturally, but somehow you're expecting me to buy the idea that this rise conveniently took place since the start of the industrial age and brought us up higher than it's been in the past 20 million years, even though every bit of information that we do have suggests otherwise. Come on now, dude.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"This is just absurd."
relative to perception
"A rise of 100ppm CO2 normally takes on the order of 5000 years or more to come about naturally"
But if the world is finally coming out of it's unusual 10,000 years of relative stability the "rules" don't apply any more
It's like the disclaimer on those money making infomercials: "Past performance does not guarantee future results,the earth fluxes of heat & co2 associated with Climate variability may be more or less"
"Come on now"
Time is on my side
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
I was thinking absurd relative to scientific evidence and our understanding of climate.
Let me ask you this, though: if the satellites you mentioned show that the increase in CO2 is due to us humans, would you then accept anthropogenic warming is a fact?
werecow2003 1 year ago
"I was thinking absurd relative to scientific evidence and our understanding of climate."
The Eggheads "understanding" of Climate is from past results being used for estimates predictions...which there are to many variables to accurately factor for 10 days let alone 100 years
"Let me ask you this, though: if the satellites you mentioned show that the increase in CO2 is due to us humans, would you then accept anthropogenic warming is a fact?"
Soon as the actual tests they are doing show it
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Climate and weather are not the same thing. Predicting the weather far in advance is like predicting the outcome of a roll with a 20-sided die. Predicting climate trends is like predicting the mean value of many of those rolls.
On the other issue: why do you trust satellites more than the existing plethora of ground observations? Satellites have their own flaws, as the debate between the UAH satellite team and ground based climate measurements clearly shows.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"Climate and weather are not the same thing"
No
Climate is a Geographical region marked by lines of Latitude and they are Polar,Sub-polar,Temperate,Sub Tropical,Tropical,and Highlands...it's why I am most amused by "climate change"...you need to shift earth's axis to cause "climate change"
Weather is the result of Evaporation/precipitation cycle
neither has anything to due with Average global temperature or co2 concentration as the eggheads try to convince everyone it does
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Climate is basically weather statistics. That includes regional temperature averages and trends, or global averages and trends, over a variety of time scales. It's dependent on a variety of forcings. Those can be orbital factors or shifts in the earth's axis, but they can also be things like injections of volcanic dust, atmospheric particulates, or greenhouse gasses.
werecow2003 1 year ago
No, Climate Zones are Geographical (Polar,Sub-Polar,Temperate,Tropical,Sub-Tropical,and Highlands) and locked into Axis "Climate variability"(and I hate the term cause it isn't accurate thus the " ") is actually short term and long term ecological effects from weather trends,not temperature,not AGT,not co2 concentrations
Example: Daily Temperature can go up to 122f or down to 30f in Las Vegas but it is still in a Temperate Climate Zone with a Desert Ecology for last few thousand years
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Those can be orbital factors or shifts in the earth's axis"
Or elevation change such as a Highland Zone mountain range drooping from a subduction zone shift/earthquake
"hey can also be things like injections of volcanic dust"
Mt St Helen's Explosion destroyed all life,true but it didn't change the Climate Zone(Temperate) or change the Ecology of the Area(Temperate Woodlands)..if fact if you look now everything grew back
Have you seen the "After People" series?(hint:Nature always wins)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"or greenhouse gasses."
No, the so called "Greenhouse Gases" are a byproduct of the Core pluming that powers interglacial Warming between Ice Ages which also pumps out the extra heat to prevent the otherwise super cooled waters of the poles from freezing the Oceans solid all the way down to the equator despite the sun
They are just presumably correlated with the Extra heat much like "Creation Scientists" found a human footprint in dinosaur footprint to "prove" they lived together..lol
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Predicting the weather far in advance is like predicting the outcome"
Why predict it when you can control it?
I have 2 "impractical hero" Tesla for his HARP and Ming the Merciless for his "Weather Machine"don't know what others was thinking during the intro to Flash Gordan when Ming was using his machine,but mine was "I wonder if I could build one of those")
"Predicting climate trends"
Last axis shift was 5000 years ago turning Egypt's grain belt and Sahara's Jungle into deserts(5 degree shift)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"why do you trust satellites more than the existing plethora of ground observations?"
1) The Satellites are on the cutting edge o\f technology, Keelings co2 station and the temperature gauges at university sites are not
2) Proxy data from Ice Cores and Trees and such are subjective and don't even match older actual measurements,thus the need to "hide the decline: that the "deniers" took the wrong way
3)Computer simulations and Mathematical formula based on past subjective data not=Observations
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Satellites have their own flaws"
Especially if they are not built for what you are trying to use them for and have to add subjective data to what it actually gathers
Imbuki and Cax-2 were built specifically to collect data on co2 concentration and movements
It is sad their "Sister" the NASA OCO was "lost on launch" in the heat of Cap and Trade being debated on the Senate floor (Maybe same way the Mars orbiter was "lost" until it got the pictures of the Face on Mars and discovered it wasn't?)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"you're expecting me to buy the idea that this rise conveniently took place since the start of the industrial age and brought us up higher than it's been in the past 20 million years**
"All the predictions in the world cannot prove me right,but 1 test can prove me wrong"-Albert Eisenstein
Until the grunts (like me) successfully rule out coincidental instability of Earth's Core fluctuation cycles in last 150 years it is still a untested possibility
20mill year co2 rise argument =cherry picking
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel There is zero evidence for such an alternative explanation at this time, and no known natural source that could have caused the increase. On the other hand, there is every indication that it was us. Isotopes, oxygen, known quantities of sold fossil fuels, a highly anomalous increase. You can cite me Einstein, I'll point you at Occam.
Also, pointing out that the increase is anomalous relative to practically the entire neogene years is not "cherry picking".
werecow2003 1 year ago
"There is zero evidence for such an alternative explanation at this time"
Oh just because it isn't Plastered all over the Media and Internet because of some has been politician winning a award on a hyped up version of Academic Opinion on UN Environmental Policy doesn't mean it "doesn''t exist"..its Oceanography 101 and Vulcanology 101 so you are not going to here it in a Physics class or a "Environmental Studies" course thought in the Philosophy/Math building
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"You can cite me Einstein, I'll point you at Occam."
Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result
Again noticing CO2 rising and Heat/AGT rising does not "prove" humans are causing the the Rise by burning fossil fuels nor can it link any part of the CO2 rise to fossil fuels without tests
My Idea of Occum is put 2 tanks one with air with 390ppm co2 one with 900ppm under the same heat source,if 900ppm rises GHG Theory is at last proved
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel That kind of experiment was done ages ago, and many times since. There's actually a documentary out there (BBC, I think) where they videotape the experiment using an infrared camera as they add more CO2 to the mixture.
werecow2003 1 year ago
...In fact, the experiment is so basic that a fourth grader actually did it for his science fare project:
watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4
Obviously, more sophisticated experiments than this one have been conducted which account for the CO2 concentration, accounting for potential differences between light sources, etc., but the point is, this has been done, frequently. Arrhenius did it in the late 1900s, and before him Tyndall did much the same thing. It's the experiment that the theory is based on.
werecow2003 1 year ago
".In fact, the experiment is so basic that a fourth grader actually did it for his science fare project:
watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4 "
Absolutely Adorable but
1)Glass is a heat absorber
2) No thermal heat from sun get's past EM and Thermosphere
3) Infrared light isn't what heats the Surface it's Ultraviolet light
Most important
4) It's heat from Earth surface via UV heating or COre Conduction that heats the lower Troposphere(upper is flat 32c around world) by humidity/evaporation not IR and CO2
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"but the point is, this has been done, frequently. Arrhenius did it in the late 1900s, and before him Tyndall did much the same thing."
Classic example of doing the wrong experiment to get the right results especially since CO2 will hold 5 degrees more heat then Air and for a longer time because of it's density
To do it right
1) Get 2 clear containers of PVC
2) Fill one with air at 390ppm and one with 900ppm
3) Subject to Infrared Light spotlight (Night vision cam light)
4) Note no change
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Also, check the numbers on volcanic degassing like in Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp, 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001; Morner, 2002 and compare with estimates of anthropogenic emissions like Le Quéré, 2009 or Gerlach, 2010. Humans emit at least a hundred times more CO2 than volcanoes, possibly three times that.
werecow2003 1 year ago
No, 6 billion humans exhale 3 billion tons of co2 a year, none of it is "created" by combustion
CO is molecularity stable and can't spontaneous oxidize into Carbon Dioxide
In a car with a Catalyst Converter the extra oxygen is chemically forced on by electrolysis to turn deadly co to inert co2
After the 1994 IPCC catalyst converters where stopped on new cars
Short of electrolysis in a Catalyst converter the only other way to make co2 is secondary nuclear fusion,combustion isn't hot enough
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"The reduction of oxygen is confirmation that the rise is due to burning"
That is actually a standing hypothesis,yet to be tested
"You can measure CO2 release at power plants"
Watch the video closer,even the speaker admits the EPA and such currently does not "Do you think these people are utter fools?"
No,eggheads scientist like them do the paperwork/hypothesis, grunt scientist like me develop the procedures/processes to verify and test the eggheads hypothesis and paper theories
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
7:10-7:22
Aw, cute computer models and agreement = "pretty conclusively
This is why the grunt scientists like me asked the governments for funding for impact studies to verify and test the "Eggheads" models,predictions and estimates
Imbuki (launched Jan 2009) and CanX-2(launched Noiv 2008) will measure 100,000 points on earth,will track where co2 comes from,will track how it moves, and track where it goes
I doing so they will confirm or bust the eggheads co2 models (I say bust)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
5:38 "Humans emitting 6-61/2 billion tons a year from burning of fossil fuels"
utter predictive and untested bullshit
But a human exhale 525 kilograms of co2 a year
times that by 6 billion and we are talking about under 4 billion kilogram actual contribution to co2
7:04 "by 3 billion tons a year"
By Exhalation yes, measurable on Mauna Loa or the sporadic random sea level measurements,definitely not
"proof" that observed co2 rise is from humans burning fossil fuels? when pigs fly
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
5:38
CO2 not exhaled by animals and plants(at night) buibble from land based co2 sinks like lake Nyos and rarely get into the evaporation/precipitation cycle being 1.2 times heavier then air (as in co2 doesn't stay in air "indefinitely" it moves through it)
there is thousands of trillions of tons of co2 in land based sinks and millions of trilliions tons more of co2 locked in earths crust
Co2 is the most abundant form of free carbon in the world and this co2 exchange chart is bul'shit
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
4:22-4:30
What the Fuck?
How does a measured rise in CO2 "Proof" it is from burning fossil fuels when the co2 has been rising for the last 100,000 years and the graph only shows from the start of the Keeling station in 1960? (Proxy data would show that fucker going all the way down to almost zero in the last Ice Age)
5:15-5:13
actually it's 1.2 trillion tons of c02 in 5000 trillion tons of air,with 500 billion rise in last 150 years
The Oceans hold thousands of trillions of tons of co2
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
You want to reduce emissions then stop producing false crap like this, it is a waist of natural resources
electron1100 1 year ago
what about the c\rbon emsssions of a burning oil drilling platform?
hoplite46 1 year ago
blame it all on humans, then tax the shit out of them.. wut a great scam.... - NWO
XxxxxLAMBOFGODxxxxX 2 years ago 2
what dialect is that guy in the beginning speaking?
cornettonuss 2 years ago
@cornettonuss Sounds like Polish accent or Check?
Boyan67 1 year ago
I think the best way to reduce carbon emissions in the west is to have an immigration moratorium. Statistics clearlyu show the USA population grew by 100 million in the last 40 years and nearly all the growth was due to immigration.
The west could drasically reduce carbon emissions with a reduction in immigration and population and would have nearly stable growth in the USA with a moratorium on immigration.
rocketsredglare101 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh look a google NWO propaganda page
imagine that hehe
BlessedONE333returnz 2 years ago
co2 rises after temp rises
the sun is hot
-reader of mad magazine
SsjSned 2 years ago
yAssss i reached 26:25min and gave up !! :O doing well. i think the guy at the start really needed a Drink
kuneckid05 2 years ago
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsenseThe present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning. - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal
ChipsShot 2 years ago
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist
ChipsShot 2 years ago
We have only had a 65 ppm rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide with devastating effects over the last 50 years. Right! So, if we are the verge of destruction due to 65 ppm rise in carbon dixoide then a like reduction of 65 ppm over the next 50 years puts us where? Last time I checked, we humans have a harder time living in colder climates than warmer ones. Food is more plentiful in warmer climates. I still do not get the concern over growing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere.
cooterneck 2 years ago
i put up info on nikola teslas wireless energy system, its so important to a future world. please everyone look it up! WIRELESS ENERGY WOULD BE OBTAINABLE ANYWHERE ON EARTH! there would be no carbon dioxide at all! most pollution would clear up and everyone would have wireless power!!!
boxa888 2 years ago
I am a chemist and not a climatologist. I would like for once a global warming presentation to talk about the inconclusive data that point to a link of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to elevated atmospheric temperatures versus time. The is no evidence as far as I know. Carbon emissions are being presented as futile, yet we humans emit carbon dioxide with every exhale. What makes carbon emissions bad? I just do not get it!
cooterneck 2 years ago 2
@cooterneck As a chemist, I assume that you understand that the radiative properties of CO2 are not in dispute. We can confirm that CO2 is the culprit by taking spectroscopic measurements of outgoing and downward radiation at the top of the atmosphere and at the surface respectively, which show increased absorption and re-emission along CO2 associated bandwidths. In fact, we see exactly that. Other sources of info are paleodata, modelling runs, and comparisons to other rocky planets.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"I assume that you understand that the radiative properties of CO2 are not in dispute"
Sometimes giving the Eggheads scientific tools is like giving a Chimp a Chainsaw....sometimes you know they are going to use it the wrong way
CO2's ability to absorb thermal heat (5 more degrees then air at 100%) has nothing to do with the Pass/reflect/adsorb rate of Infrared light used in infrared light Spectrometry to detect what type of substance the light is mostly bouncing off(what comes back)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
re CO2 breathing: The biosphere and other natural carbon sources and sinks are more or less in balance. Our emissions are a considerable source that upsets that balance. By analogy, imagine the carbon cycle as a kitchen sink with a partially closed drain and a running tap, where flow in equals flow out, maintaining a steady water level. We're opening the tap just a bit, so that now the water level must rise until the pressure is such that the flow accelerates enough that in again equals out.
werecow2003 1 year ago
"re CO2 breathing: The biosphere and other natural carbon sources and sinks are more or less in balance. Our emissions are a considerable source that upsets that balance."
All Academic until tested conclusive
A Vulcanologist would tell you it's the Earth's core pluming that drives warming cycles and fluxes in that pluming that causes "climate variability" through irregular heat release cycles through the tectonic plates and the heat is diffused through the oceans(but there are none on IPCC)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
A Oceanographer would pick up were the vulcanologist left off and tell you that the heat fluctuations from the ocean floor effects the Walker circulation thus creating El nino,La nada,or La Nina which effects "Climate Variability"
A Meteorologists would then take over and tell you that the reason the Walker Circulation effects "climate variability" is it changes the level of heat and humidity involved with the evaporation/precipitation cycle
(hint:No Oceanographers/Meteorologists on IPCC)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"I am a chemist and not a climatologist. I would like for once a global warming presentation to talk about the inconclusive data that point to a link of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to elevated atmospheric temperatures versus time"
And when Peter Jackson was young and finished reading "Lord of the Rings" he commented that he couldn't wait for someone to turn the books into a Movie...it would make a great movie(If you catch my drift)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Is there a way to download this and listen on an MP3 player?
vikram222164 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the kikes to destroy America.
supaflyjohnson 2 years ago
Comment removed
beautiful4est 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wonder why just the jesus freaks and other dumb religious people, the ones from the oil industry, some politicians and people who have no interest to make a change are on your side...and on the other side is everyone who have good knowledge on this problem
beautiful4est 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is all BS Humans don't have anything to do with temp change. Earth has had multiple ice ages. We didn't contribute to any of those either.
This is all a big money ploy. Basically its the 21st century religion.
jsmith5549 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, check out my website at ScientificallyGreener(Dot) com and get all the new and improved Equipments to build or buy your own solar and wind energy systems ScientificallyGreener(Dot) com is a website that sells the most modern environmental products available
scientificallygreene 2 years ago
51:16 omg
PrivatePanic 2 years ago
Awesome, more propaganda to raise some taxes for the reserve.
WarCowboy 2 years ago
I really think that Google Tech Talks should be shown on T.V. I've found almost all of their submissions to YouTube very interesting and I would love to watch in on my T.V. on my recliner rather than on a large computer screen in an uncomfortable computer chair. I'm sure Google has enough income to do this.
TokyoisBA 2 years ago
Hasn't cash for clunkers solved this? Can we get a new video for the front page maybe?
jamesdcarroll1 2 years ago
We have the technology to break down CO2 at the molecular structure .Plus capture all pollutants attached to coal stacks , Oil , autos .The Oceans are holding way to much CO2 , a CO2 burp along LA to Seattle , would kill untold amounts . Please check out James Tracy of Pure Power inc, this invention could save us . Ocean acidification is real . Dr, Paul Curto , NASA Chief Technologist for the past 16 years , retired is on board . So many usages , that can help , Investors needed now !
sadhouse 2 years ago
Comment removed
paucarre 2 years ago
you dont have to be patner to uplode it somthing to do with being a member before 2004 or somthing
jlctheowner 2 years ago
hoe do you can uploade videos over 10 minuttes? O_o
tripleHHH877 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BTW, the new NASA GISS website is quite impressive.
If you wish to see it, google "Climate Change: Key Indicators"
And guess what? 11 of the last 12 years were the hottest in history since 1860.
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is scary if u read this far u will die in 10 days if u dont send to any 15 videos in 2 hours good luck hope i dont die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1(OMG SORRY I AN SO FREAKED AT THESE THINGS!!AHH)
MIDNIGHTCLUB2FAN 2 years ago
The world has been cooling since 2005.
JonThm 2 years ago
Awesome presentation, thanks!
parallax7d 2 years ago
I agree - excellent presentation, excellent speaker, easy to understand, convincing. I'm glad I came across it.
flummock 2 years ago
Our measly contribution of .003% does not drive climate. This does:
1. Distance of earth from the sun
2. Tilt of the earth on its axis which affects the angle and intensity of the suns rays - this creates our seasons (Latitude determines what climatic zone one lives in)
3. Orbit of the earth around the sun
4. Rotation of the earth which makes for warming by day and cooling by night - this is what creates our winds and jet streams.
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
If that was all that determined climate then why can parts of earth be colder then the coldest parts of mars if mars is farther from the sun?
Venus is only 17% closer to the sun but is over 850 degrees Fahrenheit because of greenhouse gases. Its hotter then mercury which is closer to the sun.
Our moon is about -60 degrees because it is not in our atmosphear with our CO2 trapping heat, and it is about the same distance from the sun as the earth.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago 3
Please google George Reisman's blog "Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?". It should clear up any questions you have.
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
George Reisman is a economist who probably hasnt taken a science class since the Korean war.
He is a self proclaimed ayn Rand fan, and shes the person who said helping others is un-ethical.
This morally bankrupt economist is supposed to know how much heat is retained or deflected by fine partials in the troposphere? Its like asking a waiter to be an expert on how much fuel a 747 needs to get from LA to NY.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago
His research on this topic is impeccable: "If you take the trouble to do an internet search on Google for carbon dioxide + Martian atmosphere, you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is -63° C (-81° F). (It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth,
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cont'd: "If you take the trouble to do an internet search on Google for carbon dioxide + Martian atmosphere, you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is -63° C (-81° F). (It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth, which appears to make up for the
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
thinness of the Martian atmosphere about 14 times over.)
But even putting this decisive objection aside, there is simply no informed or honest way...to suggest that the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide on Earth is or ever will be comparable to the amount on Venus. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, the atmosphere of Venus is 96 percent carbon dioxide. The atmosphere of the Earth, in contrast, is less than .04 percent carbon dioxide. Thats not .04, but .0004, i.e.,
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
The comparason of distance between planets was to point out that your assertion that the atmosphere has NO effect on the climate of the planet is totally false.
Rotation and distance from the sun and tilt of a planet are not the only factors in planetary climates, you are very misinformed.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago
Cont'd-"four one-hundredths of one percent. To be precise, carbon dioxide is presently 383 parts per million of the Earths atmosphere. All of the brouhaha going on about the subject is over a projected increase to perhaps as much as 1000 parts per million by the year 2100, i.e., to .1 percent, which is 10 one-hundredths of one percent."
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
Your projection of 1000 ppm increase is a 300% increase in carbon in the atmosphere from 384 ppm. 384 PPM is a 35% increase from 1832 levels of 284ppm.
All the brouhaha going on will turn out to probably only effect the average temperature of the earth by less then 5.8 degrees.
ilikehwy40 2 years ago
The posts I've made are getting messed up; why don't you go over there and read the research yourself instead of launching a personal attack against the man? This isn't his opinion, but quotes from reliable sources.
4TIMESAYEAR 2 years ago
Please cite any instance of Ayn Rand saying that helping others is unethical.
CrazyHorseInvincible 2 years ago
The atmospheric pressure of Venus is 90 times that of Earth. But 50 miles up, the pressure and temperature are the same as Earth's surface. Will a runaway greenhouse effect increase the mass of the Earth's atmosphere by two orders of magnitude? This would take a huge purging from the oceans and rocks, as the oceans absorb CO2 more efficiently than does air. Venus has no ocean to store CO2. The physics and chemistry are not equivalent. And where on Earth does CO2 freeze like it does on Mars?
sparkloweb 2 years ago
Oops, correction: we're clogging the drain, rather than opening the tap. So, the same happens with the GHGs; normally energy in (solar heating) equals energy out (the earths infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere). We're shifting the balance so that the energy flows out of the system slower than before. As a result, the earth must warm up until a new equilibrium is reached.
The analogy comes from David Archer, btw. He has a nice lecture series on this topic:
watch?v=uHXpkoE0G3A
werecow2003 1 year ago
"normally energy in (solar heating) equals energy out (the earths infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere)."
A early 19th century idea still re-babbled by the Academic Sciences eggheads(Atmospheric physicists,ocean physicists,Geo-physicists,Eco-physicists and everything else ending in "physicists") but has no place in the practical sciences(meteorology,Geology,Oceanography,Ecology)
"GHGs"
GHGs and the "Green house effect" are early 19th century Academic Egghead nonsense still re-babbled
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Lol, is this guy a stand up comedian or what? so some nice colorful pictures and a load of hot air means what? That we all need to take a microchip and pay carbon taxes?? I don't quite get how he comes all these fairytale conclusions. So basically he is saying he imagines all, he assumes, he models, blah blah blah. Come on who actually swallows this?
Delishful 2 years ago
28:00 God is bad for the climate!
Stop going to curch or switch to watching the televangelists X)
ZerqTM 2 years ago
Washington and Oregon also have a CO2 pack, that is coordinated with california
instigatorirc 2 years ago
it claims that all electricity producing lants emit CO2 and doesnt map the hydroelectric plants
instigatorirc 2 years ago
Why not try launching it from somewhere besides a literal "Military-Industrial Complex" next time, idiots?
c2designkitchen 2 years ago
It's interesting that the billions vested in the interests of keeping us in the dark about the true costs of convenience can be revealed with a $200 million satellite.
c2designkitchen 2 years ago
Comment removed
c2designkitchen 2 years ago
I'd call it a 'Tack weld'...
c2designkitchen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
book free download 50 pgs , How God Created the Universe , see video for info .,.,.,added bonus gravitational singularity.,.,.,thxz..,.,
matmicmj 2 years ago
As far as the question about natural carbon cycles: These models show the human impact beyond what happens naturally.
It would be interesting to estimate atmospheric carbon from the fossil record and show it slowly being sequestered over millions of years and suddenly being released in a few hundred, next to a graph of estimated vegetative cover over the same time period.
Is that the effin' graph you are looking for, twinspur?
c2designkitchen 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wheres the fucking graphs you money swindling bullshiters
twinspur 3 years ago
MY BD!
BegeMood 3 years ago
Complete BS
kotowan 3 years ago
Comment removed
c2designkitchen 3 years ago
13:35 - that shit looks sick. I love it. mmmm sexy sexy psychedelic models. I also like the purple one across America.
afxgrin 3 years ago
There is more and more people around the world about 7 bil now, and less and less trees etc. What will happen with O2 when there will be 17 bil of people or what will happen when there will be 30 bil of humans.
One car burns about as much O2 in 1 hour as 1 tree can produce during the whole day. During the night tree also uses O2.
How long will it take before we will run out of O2 to the point when we will slowly sufficate? Or when we will run out of the trees?
janosik150 3 years ago
23:45 liar
obesechicken13 3 years ago
Google views not Youtube.
janosik150 3 years ago
top right corner of the video says 200000 views on youtube. But it's not as of today.
obesechicken13 3 years ago
'Revolutionary' CO2 maps zoom in on greenhouse gas sources
- this is the name of the video on youtube.
ehhh :)) over 200,000 views.
janosik150 3 years ago