Carter isn't telling the truth. Here's why: 1. All independent data sets (NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, inc. recent re-analysis by BEST) show warming (surface & oceans). 2. The Urban Heat Island Effect exists but affects temp measurements only negligibly (see BEST papers for recent analysis). 3. We know we're causing warming from energy balance measurements, inc. satellite data, in line with CO2 conc increase predictions. 4. Isotope distribution patterns show extra CO2 is from fossil fuel use.
@dialectical44 Exactly the opposite is true to what you say. Corporations (e.g. Exxon, Koch Industries and others) have funnelled a huge amount of money into climate science denial. Their tactics are well-documented. You can see this from leaked memos from the companies. Read Naomi Oreskes' book Merchants of Doubt or watch her online lectures - she's just one of the people who've catalogued all this. The corporations depend on profits from fossil fuel sales.
@dialectical44 The other thing is that you have - let's face it - absolutely NO evidence that climatologists are "in the pay" of corporations, whereas there is a tonne of evidence that the fossil fuel lobby fund climate science denial (e.g. through the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other right-wing libertarian think tanks). So you're making accusations you can't back up so you can go on believing we're not changing the climate. My guess is you don't read the science, too.
@dialectical44 Finally, notice that your reply tried to simply get away from the obvious evidence I mentioned by alleging a conspiracy you have no evidence for, and that none of what you said relates to the science whatsoever. It doens't matter if Carter is disinterested or not; he's wrong. He is misrepresenting what ALL of the temp data says, whether it's funded my govt or private money. Denying AGW at this stage is like denying evolution is true: it's faith ahead of evidence.
Spending Billions of dollars does not make people "feel good" it makes the Nuclear Industyr and Carbon trading derivitive schemes traders ridiculously wealthy. GoOvernment represent free market capitalism. "Politically incorrect" means going against Capitalist interests
The middle does not equal balance nor does it equal truth. This guy is the same type of moron who suggested the economy was going to enter a mild depression. Just look at the nasa global data and you'll see whats happening the planet WARMING.
@1davidcampbell Not just the NASA data, but the HadCRU and NOAA data too. There is simply no way a person who is honest could say we don't know the planet is warming, or pretend the urban heat island has a significant effect.
@LukeScientiae I agree Luke but the problem is much deeper, that these climate treaties, the problem is free mrkt capitalism an ideology that will not countenance taking necessary steps to save lives if it impinges on profit making in any way. Watched a you tube talk Green Gone Wrong - Heather Rogers recently. Got to say things looking very grim right now from where I am. US passed a bill for 662 billion on military and homeland security, X 3 the combined public health and educat budgets.
@1davidcampbell I agree with you about the profit before people aspect. I'll watch the video you suggest. Whilst we're on recommendations, have you read Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt book? She also has some YouTube lectures. She catalogues the intentional and systematic way corporations are protecting their profits by funding denialism in a way directly analogous to how tobacco companies did: seeding doubt about the science, preying on a scientifically illiterate public.
It's not really a question of two extremes-the most thoughtful, empirical, and analytical people tend to accept anthropogenic global warming as fact, but reject the computer modelled extrapolations as unfounded. The hysteria is not warranted.
Let's not repeat stupid claims. Galileo? Your watching too may republican debates. It is making you stupid. The church opposed Galileo not the population. He had evidence showing the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Global warming is science and well supported. Ice melts, record global humidity and temps aren't going away because you done like it. Moons still revolve around Jupiter. Like the church, you will not be able to change pollution with popular opinion.
Once again we are on track for the warmest year ever recorded. Storms and floods have passed a record and we still have a few months left. Ice cover is a record low. If we could ignore the risk of global warming, how can you resolve the pollution? The oceans are picking up CO2 and increasing acidity. Are future generations going to use fairy dust for plastics, fertilizers, tractors, chemicals, energy? Let's get information about coal from geologists. Leave the climate data to NASA, NOAA.
Once again we are on track for the warmest year ever recorded. Storms and floods have passed a record and we still have a few months left. Ice cover is a record low. If we could ignore the risk of global warming, how can you resolve the pollution? The oceans are picking up CO2 and increasing acidity. Are future generations going to use fairy dust for plastics, fertilizers, tractors, chemicals, energy? Let's get information about coal from geologists. Leave the climate data to NASA, NOAA....
Keep your eyes on the headlines mate. The jig is up. Nothing that you are proclaiming is happening or will happen. You keep going to green agenda websites and you will keep yourself up late at night. Remember, Galileo was once the purveyor of an opinion that was not the common notion. He was less that .0001 % of the population. Being in the minority doesn't make you wrong.
A scientist working so far out of his field! Shows a graph of temperature vs CO2 for the last 500M, claims CO2 is not correlated with the temp.He does not point out that CO2 is ONE of the factors affecting temperature on the planet, when you subtract other known factors like the sun's energy output etc then you are left with correlation.Look up Richard Alley AGU- this provides a good comprehensive summary unlike the one here. In fact the 3C rise for 2x CO2 is what saved us from "iceball earth"!
@PlainLittle This is not a "balanced view". Carter is not telling the truth. He's wrong to say most scientists are in the middle: 97% of climate scientists accept warming is happening and is anthropogenic. Moreover, he doesn't tell the truth about the urban heat island effect either, which has been shown (see recent BEST study) to be insignificant. Carter is purposely misleading people about the state of the science. Check other denialism you've heard on the Skeptical Science site.
Wow anyone who's read a basic book on climate change can see through these straw man arguments. He focuses only on the direct warming attributed to CO2 and ignores the added warming triggered by feedback loops. I guess this should be expected by a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181.
I think Carter got his argument about the 50 billion Dollars backwards. The world has spent around 50 billion trying to find NATURAL causes OTHER than CO2, and has failed. Also wrt. CO2 being a minor forcing vs water vapor. The understanding is that water vapor is a FEEDBACK mechanism that "does the deed" of warming, but you can't have more water vapor in the atmosphere UNLESS the air is warmer in the first place. How does the air get warmer? Increased CO2!
@nickschor No you are so wrong, there are very few grants to study non co2 causes. The 50 billion is grants for co2 research. Water vapor is the main green house gas making up 95% of the green house effect
Let's keep in mind bob carter’s history. He has industry ties. Even a quick look at Wiki will tell you that. He is a marine geologist that studies ancient climates based on sea sediment. He is NOT a respected expert when it comes to the study of anthropogenic climate change. The vested interests like him because he spreads their propaganda and at least has SOME assemblance of credibility.
Here's a good short film that tells some of the story.
Why do you resort to conspiracy theories? Do you even know where Townsville is? So this guy, who's being paid by the big oil companies, lives it up in a bumkin house in Townsville, which is barely a city... WOW he's really winning!! Why for people like you is the issue about credentials and 'respect' instead of facts. Many of Galileo's theories were not respected. So how do you gain respect? By believe dogmatically in AGW? fantastic logic!
@vitalitutorials Lots of questions! I can tell you where to find the answers but your denial would probably keep you from going there.
I noticed you provided nothing to support your contention. How come? Are obscure industry puppets like carter all you can come up with? Why ignore all the credible and respected sources and glumb on to this dude? You do it because he says what you WANT to hear. That's not critical thinking. Pull yourself out of your denial and do some HONEST research.
he was right on until he said(paraphrasing): "there are many scientists who say its warming and give good reasons for it, but thats their opinion." im sorry if theyre giving reasons in the form of evidence then it not an opinion its a scientific theory.
People, come on, stop attacking the man and start attacking his arguments. If you disagree with him, explain why from you're point of view. If you can't - shut up and remain neutral. I would presume that hardly any of us commenting on this article are scientists with informed knowledge of all aspects relating to climate! It is therefore, not our place to pass judgement on such issues. Just remember people, politicians sell certainity - science lives off doubt!
@MegaPostman77 This spastic published an article in the age saying that its fact the global mean temperature has cooled over the last 10 years and that extra CO2 was going to help green the Sahara desert. You dont need to be a scientist to go to the Nasa website and check the global temperatures reported by satellite and see he is dead wrong. The temp oscillates and the trend is up. His field is stratigraphy and paleontology, and he has no background or publishing history in climate science.
@myjizzureye extra co2 does make plants grow better, it is regular practice for green houses to increase co2 to 1,000 parts to get more grout. NASA has adjusted the temp record and that is a fact as the old ones are still on line to check.
@busguy100 Do you know why they have been changed? Its because one of the satellites had drifted out of orbit and was measuring way further south when it should have been north. They picked this up because the ground stations temp readings where not matching the satellite. They then 1) adjusted the orbit 2) used the ground based readings for that section. Look into it a bit more, science always try to get more accurate. Its not some conspiracy. Always ask why dont just make shit up and settle.
@myjizzureye No that is not true all records have been adjusted in secret, even thou it is done with taxpayer money by govt employees they refuse to release the data and methods used to adjust the temp. So no one can check there work. Funny how it works on land based temps in the past record temp has been adjusted down and the last decade it is adjusted up and without the adjustments there would be no warming for the last decade.
@busguy100 Okay lets say all the clever guys in lab coats who have degrees relevant in this field have gotten together and decided, lets just fudge all the data and pretend the earth has been warming. So why is it that every single department from every singly country that has studied this with their own data as well as others have reached the same conclusion? Why on earth would the whole scientific community decide to just defraud the public? Why is it only this field alone?
@busguy100 On the same note, my family live on a farm. Its been handed down through generations and as such we have over 80 years in not only rain fall data but temp readings also. I put all of these into a spreadsheet and averaged it out and guess what, for the last 30 years (up until 2009) the years average has been steadily fluctuating upwards (not in 92/93). 2010 cooler and 2011 is still not finish to calculate. Was my grandfather and father fudging the data in the same conspiracy?
@myjizzureye My point Im making is climate should be based on thousands of years not 30 years. If you were to look up the graph on PDO and the graph on Temp you will find they run in lockstep, now try that with co2 they do not, look at 1940 to 1980 co2 increases and temp falls. In all ice core records co2 has always been an effect of temp both up and down by an average of 800 years after temp shifts. Global warming people always start there graphs at the end of the little ice age
@busguy100 You do know we can accurately measure the amount of man made CO2 in the atmosphere via carbon 14 and also the depletion of oxygen. I am making only 2 points, 1) The planet is factually and measurably warming, this I know as all the worlds country's data sets match and show this 2) The only plausible explanation at the moment is man made CO2. Its not solar forcing as most the heating occurs at night and the higher altitudes are cooler. (continue)
@myjizzureye Both of these statements are backed up and attested to by numerous peer reviewed scientific journals from a multitude of different countries. The scientific consensus is overwhelming (amongst those with relevant degrees) so much so that to suggest otherwise is to indeed leaves only a global conspiracy. The strange thing is the data sets are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and have a predictive nature. How on earth is this possible if they are "making it all up". (continue)
@myjizzureye Lastly I don't give a fat rats ass that its warming, I will not alter my behavior as I wont be around when the shit hits the fan. The earth will be just fine as it always makes corrections to balance things in the long term, if humans are still on the planet when it does is another story. If anything I encourage backward simpletons to produce more CO2 so their grand kids get completely fucked over and can look back and see exactly who was saying DERPER DUURR CO2 Is good for you.
@myjizzureye Yes you're right the planet has been warming..from well BEFORE the industrial revolution and hasn't increased in the rate of waming...you'd know that if you read the scientific peer reviewed literature .
Most of the heating occurs at night does it?? co2 traps heat , no scientific paper says that it generates it..I think you worded it wrong because you don't understand te idea... There are alternative theories no the increased nighttime temps, not just on credible one
@OtagoMark Normally as the earth rotates heat is dissipated on the side in darkness, normally i should say unless you have a green house gas that is radiating it back in. This is why they say the warming at night shows Co2 to be the cause.To say the warming rate has not increased since before the revolution is not a statement that comports with reality. You also are blissfully un aware that Co2 without an increased nitrogen does noting for plants and the main problem with Co2 is ocean acidity.
@myjizzureye Yes I knew that ...ther are other theories to explain warming at night though...and as far as I know the rate of warming hasn't increased since pre industrial times... and increased co2 DOES cause plants to grow faster in general without the need for increased nitrogen, unless nitrogens lacking somehow... but we're talking world wide no specific cases, ... just as co2 hasn't warmed the planet as much as predicted by models, neither will it increase ocean acidity as much as predicte
@OtagoMark Okay please link me the peer reviewed journals on the other theories explaining the warming at night, ones that haven't already been disproved. As far as you know warming hasn't increased since pre industrial times but that's because you clearly haven't looked. The deep sea cores now give us a lot more accurate picture, we already have the dendrochronology records and ice cores that to be incorrect. Global mean temps are WAY higher. (Continue)
@myjizzureye Tell you what...lets let the scientist compare peer reviewed papers..this is youtube..I don't want to have a copy and paste war with someone...you're only wanting this style debate to avioid using your grey matter. You're already misrepresented my position by claiming that I deny global warming!! you have a slight comprehension issue there my friend, is it nay better when you study these peer reviewed papers? or do you just see what you want to see?
@OtagoMark The problem is you have made several statements that contradict directly what is known to be fact, and when I pull you up all of a sudden its "hey hey lets not bring peer reviewed scientific papers into the discussion". So I am only wanting hard factual peer reviewed evidence to support claims because I am avoiding using my brain? That makes complete sense....if you are a spastic.
@myjizzureye Such as what?? What have I said that contradicts FACT... Please tell me the FACT I have contradicted....by the way why should only ONE side of this debate have to supply peer reviewed papers?
@OtagoMark Tell you what, to force you to look at the data I am going to give you a challenge. Please find me just one, only one, single, peer reviewed scientific study that has shown GLOBALLY that the global mean temperature has not risen since pre industrial times. Before you post it, save me some time and make sure it has not been refuted. So once again, not LOCAL events, but GLOBALLY show me ONE peer reviewed study that says there has been no warming. I can find you plenty for the other way.
@myjizzureye Why would I want to find a peer reviewed article about something I don't persoanlly believe in and think is absurd...ofcourse the planet has warmed?? Why on earth do you want to find that type of peer reviewed paper?? ...I've never denied climate change, that has to be the worst attempt at a strawman argument i've ever seen.
@OtagoMark Okay so lets make it very very clear, 1) did you or did you not say the planet has not increased in warming since pre industrial times. 2) If you are saying that by default you are saying the increase in Co2 is not causing any additional warming. You factually wrong on both accounts. You just make claims without even bothering to check if they are factual. How can I tell this? Because you wont link any peer reviewed papers supporting those claims. I can only guess why that is.....
so of course we are going to have warming, thank God for that as we would be in serious problems if it had not warmed up. If you look up PDO you see we started on a 30 year or so cooling phase around 2005, so you should expect cooler winter for decade's plus it also looks like the sunspot activity is stalling and we could be in real trouble, and will look back to the good old days (today) and wish it was still warming
@busguy100 Thank God? So you think an all seeing invisible creator is a logical and plausible thing....now I see why you might think those fancy book learning people are wrong. I bet you have a problem with science on so many grounds, the earth going around the sun, the world not being populated via incest, sprinkling the blood of dead birds not being a cure for leprosy. How about evolution. I think we have a good idea of the weight of your opinions now based on the "god" comment.
@myjizzureye Thank God is a saying, but for you it is an excuse not to check my facts about the PDO and sunspots. Why not go look up the above and come back to me with why I'm wrong? Why insult me? The powers that be really like people like you that read or told stuff and take it as true never questioning anything. Did you know that only 10,000 years ago there was a mile of ice over the northern part of the USA, the great lakes were glaciers and the seas were 400 feet lower than today?
@busguy100 This again tells me that you have not checked the peer reviewed literature for yourself but only what the denialists have presented you. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation looks compelling and matches up until you get to around 1990 where in sun spot activity drops off to almost nothing and the temp record takes off in the opposite direction. The other thing that tells me you have not read one paper is because sunspot activity has been ruled out YEARS ago as a suspect (continue)
@myjizzureye If you had read any of the papers you would know why and how they would know this. I shall link you a dozen or so peer reviewed journals on this if you like, or are you just going to say they are all in on it. Infact fuckit I will send you a PM now, if anybody else would like the peer reviewed journals backing this just PM me.
of all the ecological issues co2 doesn't even register as a threat it's just a deception that has been incrementally pushed on to the public consciousness to destract us from real issues and to introduce a tax on life.
@myjizzure it's a clear sign of a defeated notion when one resorts to simple derogatory remarks as their point of defence or offence. should you refuse my challenge to put forth an explanation to this obvious disagreement of my claims you may have to explore the possibility that your contrary opinion on this matter has neither the substance nor merit beyond that of an ignorant child's playground politic. i advise you to expand your perspective beyond the confines of bias and connect the dots.
I've seen few videos of Bob Carter and i really love his point of view. Most people concentrate on the global warming, but how about the Earth turning into an "ice ball"?
bob carter is a sham. He has no studies to back up his opinions. He has ties to corporate industries. He is not respected in the study of anthropogenic warming. Try listening to what the experts say; NAS, AAAS, SOCC, NCAR, AGU, etc. Why reject over 30 years of global study for odd-balls like carter when EVERY study and respected scientific body says that, yes, we humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
This vid is a scam and so is bob carter. They start off with the false premis that there is a credible debate. There isn't. EVERY respected scientific body agrees that humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
Then there bob carter. He has not study to back up his claims, he is industry backed, his expertise is ancient climates not current, and his views are NOT respected among climate change professionals.
@ReduceGHGs So basically his views are not approved by alarmists? The fact that you people always resort to attacking someone's credibility rather than their points is very telling.
"Alarmists"?? Your use of that word is very telling.
bob carter's views are not respected because he has no studies to back up his opinion AND he has links to the fossil fuel industries.
Consider way you apparently reject what ALL the respected scientific institutions have been saying for years in favor of this guy; he may be saying just what you WANT to hear. It's a symptom of denial.
"Carter was one of the founding members[9] of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a member[10] of the industry-funded[11] Institute of Public Affairs which also founded the Australian Environment Foundation. He is also a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.[12]"
.
Read about the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and what their mission objective is. They are a sham assembled to spread doubt where there is none.
Like thinning carter has anything meaningful to contribute. He doesn't. But to get to him you have to ignore the many, many very credible experts out there that have studies and respected institutions to back them up. Keep digging, you'll find carter under a rock slimed with vested interest goo. Those corporate interests care nothing for our future generations. They want carter lubed up and looking slick!
The climate system is driven by thousands of factors in terms of the interactions and interrelationships between the different elements of natural phenomena. Why single out a minor trace gas as CO2? Granted CO2 retains heat-trapping properties and does cause a small amount of warming, but in reality - not very much. Even the IPCC very honestly admits that 80% of the factors driving climate are not well understood. I would argue that it is better to be sceptical than gullible!
very smart and cleaver argument, he is out of his area of expertise tho, hes a geologist not a climatologist, what the global public need is climatologists to tell us in plain English what is happening before any media or political or industrial group gets a hold of it and twists and warps it out of proportion
@hughheggen While I'm not familiar with this guy in particular, it appears he is a MARINE biologist. The ocean plays a very large roll in global temperatures and is essentially the Earth's thermostat. That arguably makes him a foremost expert on the matter.
read about bob carter on wiki and other sites. he's industry backed and has an opinion that runs contrary to what all our respected scientific institutions have been saying.
no, he's no expert on the matter. ask him if he has EVER completed a study on how humans have or have not affected climate. I did and he has never completed such a study.
looks like another paid corporate hack to me. next maybe he'll say smoking is good for you!
@ReduceGHGs It is impossible to study accurately how humans are impacting climate, as we would first need to know what the climate would be were humans not here. Very simple. No one knows what the climate is suppose to be, so how can we possibly know that we have changed anything. It is entirely possible "Mother Nature" has adapted to us and that we have had no meaningful impact on climate. It is equally possible we have helped the climate.....again, we can't know.
@Ltblac . I recommend not coming to such "simple" conclusions without knowing more about the issue. Until we has a good grasp of the climate sciences it's best to rely on credible and respected professionals that do. It's very complex and we certainly don't have ALL the answers. The answers we have clearly point to humans warming the planet mostly by burning fossil fuels and clearling the land. This is well established. Read what the experts say. Google: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change
@ReduceGHGs Thanks for the advice, but i have read more than my share from both sides of this debate. Instead of disputing what i said with factual evidence you tell me i shouldn't come to simple conclusions!? You don't seem to understand that Science is not just a word to throw out, there are practices and procedures, protocols, etc.. You can not even dispute the "simple" fact i raised. Keep pushing for governments to spend billions of dollars, it makes you sound like a good person.
@Ltblac Debate? There is no credible debate. It is a fact that every one of our respected scientific bodies that considered the issue came to basically the same conclusion; HUMANS are warming the planet. What credible sources do you have to dispute their findings? The "simple fact" you raise is simple because you lack a sufficient understand of the issue. It APPEARS simple when so much relevant information is omitted.
@vitalitutorials Only in your dreams -- and the paranoid ravings of the far Right. The reality of climate change is accepted far and wide more than ever, a direct result of those mountains of evidence out there proving it's real. The only reason people don't is that they are deliberately avoiding it (like only visiting denier websites). Science -- and nature -- can't be fooled. Claiming your false victory can only delay what needs to be done; it won't make the problem magically disappear.
@Ltblac yeah we do. humans werent always around and there are ways of studying the composition of the atmosphere before we were here such as analysing ice cores. weve also been recording data on the atmosphere over the last century and know that co2 has increased in correlation with growth in industrial development. furthermore, we know co2 is a greenhouse gas. therefore, it can be concluded, all other things being equal, that increased co2 will lead to a warmer atmosphere.
1. We all agree a doubling of CO2 would cause a 1deg. C increase in temperature = LIAR, the figure is 2-4deg. C
2. CO2 concentration does not follow global temperature = LIAR (SUCH A LIAR!), it did AMAZINGLY WELL in the past million years.
3. We can't understand if the temperature increase is caused by humans because of urban heat effect = LIAR, urban heat effect is ALWAYS ACCOUNTED FOR in global temperature studies.
QUESTION= is Exxon paying Bob Carter to lie, or he's a liar naturally?
@Dodger481 As the diligent and sharp scholar you appear to be from the tone of your message, would you DO YOUR HOMEWORK and address ONE (let's take it easy at firsts, JUST ONE for now) of my points? Because before scouring, a diligent person does one thing: HE/SHE USES LOGIC, rather than the preaching rhetoric you've just unwittingly sported.
a doubling in C02 would at most cause a 1 degree rise probably less. The methane scare being released from the arctic accounts for the IPCC's 2-4 degrees. (of which there is no evidence to make this claim)
C02 concentrations preceeds global warming by about 800 years as was proven in the british courts when Al gores movie was debunked.
3. Urban heat island effect and how it is documented has never been released and is most likely exagerated. Most themometers are in cities.
@Dodger481 a court debunking science?? Not so scallywag. Please see skeptical science on Urban Heat Island. In summary : The UHI should match where most people live. However, if you look at the 2006 global temperature anomaly (figure 2.), you find that the greatest difference in temperatures for the long term averages where across Russia, Alaska, far north Canada and Greenland and not where major urbanisation has occurred.
@Dodger481 Dear Dodger481, you may wanna try harder next time.
1. Climate models assume that THE NET EFFECT OF ALL NON-CO2 DRIVERS IS CLOSE TO ZERO. Where you found that Methane story is PURE MISTERY TO ME.
2. CO2 concentration FOLLOWS warming and that is the usual skeptical argument: you seem to me in the midst of confusion here
3. If urban heat is "causing" global warming, then WHY: a. Ocean temperatures have increased so much b. Arctic Ice melts MUCH faster THAN MODELS PREDICT?
Unlike AGW One theory that has been validated over and over is that a fool and his money are soon parted. If you want sea ice the stuff is growing like wildfire, we may be soon overrun at the rate it is growing. That just may be the next big scare if ocean acidification flops.
@Dodger481 You are extremely disappointing to have a conversation with.
WHERE IS THE DATA ON ARCTIC SEA ICE INCREASING?!? Because apart from SEVERAL Nature papers, ANY FOOL can google "Arctic Sea Ice" and follow the first link, which leads you to figures that inequivocably show a DRAMATIC decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. Currently, Arctic Sea Ice might have never been so low. What you talk about, again, is a MISTERY.
You can't educate someone like yourself who has sold his house to buy carbon credits but in any event, you should look into the scam a bit more.Arctic sea ice is overtaking the world.
just google arctic sea ice growing, it has been on the rebound for a few years now. Yet another sign debunking the scam. Wake up or just send me the cash now.
@Dodger481 "The total amount of ice, which set a record low last year, grew in October [2008] at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979"
So, you are using the SAME (satellite) DATA I TALK ABOUT to argue that Arctic Sea Ice is increasing because IN OCTOBER 2008 ice rose at the fastest MONTHLY rate since 1978? What about this year's Ice, which have been the lowest ever in December 2010, January and February 2011?
No more ridiculous that to use 30 years of data in the dataset comprising roughly 6 billion years. The logicall conclusion you can draw from that dataset is:
1. It is too small to be used as any kind of reference point.
2. Since it is increasing obviously global warming has been much more about a scare than science. The predictions for an ice free arctic have been nullified and there is no cause for alarm.
Or you can keep thinking the world will come to an end, your call.
@Dodger481 With this, I would like to EMPHASIZE that Dodger481 claims "Arctic Sea Ice is overtaking the world" because I rose particularly fast IN OCTOBER 2008. The man doesn't care about October 2009 and 2010, AND THE REST OF THE YEARS.
Very impressive case of strong logic, dedication, and infallible scholarship. Chapeaux!
I made the same statistical observations and explanations employed by globeal warmers. Using the miniscule dataset we have, one can say that sea ice is growing at the fastest rate in recorded history period.
In any event this is another nullification of global warming fear mongering. The arctic will not be ice free by 2013 as predicted. Yet another facet of the myriad of the scam exposed.
@Dodger481 GIVE ME PROOF THE IPCC PREDICTED ARTIC SEA ICE WILL DISAPPEAR IN 2013.
By the way, you can't, their prediction DOES NOT PREDICT DISAPPEARANCE OF ARTIC SEA ICE.
For those humans with brains out there, google "Arctic Sea Ice model".
If we were face to face, you would be running away as fast as you could. You are truly shameless and a bit pathetic for inventing arguments like you are doing. Are you a minor?
google arctic ice free 2013 and watch shoddy science unfold before your eyes. Another facet of the scam that has been debunked are glaciers. The himalayan galciers will not be disapearing as claimed by the IPCC. For anyone who has done there homework it is clear, Global warming is not a material issue anyone has to worry about.
@Dodger481 I asked you to give me proof THE IPCC predicted disappearance of Arctic sea ice by 2013, not one study from A RANDOM SCIENTIST. Albeit interesting, that is NOT the position of the IPCC, which, again, did not predict sea ice loss.
ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME?
The disappearance of the Hymalaian glaciers WAS NOT PREDICTED BY THE IPCC. In fact, it has appeared in IPCC volume n.2 IN CONTRAST WITH IPCC VOLUME n.1 - the scientific basis one.
@Dodger481 More generally, with each single post you are giving proof of your UTTER IGNORANCE on this subject.
By the way, the "increase" in Arctic Sea Ice you talk about IS NOT ABOUT ARCTIC SEA ICE. It's about ANTARCTIC SEA ICE: you evidently don't know what you're talking about, and you are shamelessly, unwittingly exposing your ignorance.
You crack me up. Read what you write before you click post. "it's not in the IPCC volume 1 it's in volume 2" In any event another falsehood thrown out by Global warming activists.
Yes the arctic sea ice is growing faster than ever before in recorded history. Interesting that you say the IPCC has predicted no arctic sea ice loss. That will be news to everyone but in any event I agree there will be no sea ice loss.
Again the point remains global warming is a non event.
First: what is the SCIENCE IPCC volume, the one YOU are attacking? Number 1. What does number 1 volume say about Hymalaian glaciers in the next decade? That they'll be reduced by still healthy.
@Dodger481 Second: You still have to: 1. Provide a link suggesting Arctic Sea Ice is increasing and not dramatically decreasing 2. EXPLAIN why you have a problem distinguishing between the words ARCTIC and ANTARCTIC 3. Related to the above, you should also provide proof you have passed 7th grade, which given the above is not at all warranted.
I can bring a retard to water but I can't make him drink. Do some research about the arctic ice and you will see that it is growing along with the antarctic ice which has been growing for decades. In any event this is not material as we are looking at 30 years of data out of 6 billion.
Instead of wrecking this thread for everyone else with your petty insults, I will attempt some remedial education for you out of the public eye. E-mail me directly. kleiniken@hotmail.com
@Dodger481 no no no no, SHOW US THE RESEARCH. I understand you are loosing face with every single post you write, but it's not my fault. SHOW US THAT RESEARCH, please.
As for me, again, google "Arctic Sea Ice" and see how SIMPLE OBSERVATIONS show THE OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting without even providing one single reference to support your point.
P.S.: You still didn't explain why temperature should increase 1C instead of 2-4C, among others.
Co2 is a diminishing return, that is not debated by anyone. The IPCC predicts 1 degree warming from co2 and the remainder from melting icecaps and belching of methane. Do your research, start acting globally by getting you head out of you Ass locally.
The arctic sea ice has grown for the past 3 years, look it up. Matter of fact the sea if is growing like wildfire.
@Dodger481 Insulting for lack of arguments, and then presenting
1. I have ALREADY argued the CO2-caused 2-4degrees increase in temperature IS NOT DUE TO METHANE. At least, ACCORDING TO THE IPCC, which you seem to criticize. If you don't cite your data = your data is worthless.
2. google "Actic Sea Ice", scroll down and read. "January 2011 had the lowest ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records [1979]". Sea ice SHRINKING like wildfire?!?
doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. A theoretical increase in AGW of 0.6 degrees today with result in a 0.6 future increase if c02 is doubled.
@Dodger481 You are inconclusive even when you try to make sense:
1. Wasn't the problem connected with climate system INERTIA to increase of CO2 - that is, isn't the climate system still adjusting to the increased CO2?
2. How does this address the role of methane and you misciting the IPCC?
P.S.: Still waiting to see this "Arctic Sea Ice Increasing" reference...
The issue is not a modelling issue it is mathmatics. The relationship between co2 and temperature is logrithmic. The IPCC notes this and derives a 3-4 degree of warming due not to CO2 increases but rather to the perceived effects of release of methane from oceans, melting ice caps etc... in otherwords a "tipping point" and the entire climate sustem goes into a positive feedback loop. Not something I believe will occur, that just the theory.
@Dodger481 Ok, fair enough, I don't remember the IPCC citing methane as a cause of global warming, but that might be worth doing some more research on on my side.
As for Arctic Sea Ice, I am puzzled of how a simple measurement of ice extent done yearly in September could be changed by the media.
Th arctic sea ice has been increasing for the past few years, you may be indeed correct about this january, but the fact remains it has been increasing for the past few years. Something that was not predicted and certainly not condusive to an ice free arctic by 2013 or whatever dat eis used at the time to scare the public and lawmakers. All the stuff you quote is spin from newspapers. If you examine the data it is not that worrysome. Cheers and stop wrecking bobs thread.
The following is from Wiki about carter. Try researching it. It looks like corporate interests may well be driving his efforts. Sad.
.
“Carter was one of the founding members[9] of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a member[10] of the industry-funded[11] Institute of Public Affairs which also founded the Australian Environment Foundation. He is also a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.”
.
I've asked him to explain it. We'll see if he can.
bob carter has NEVER completed about how humans affect climate. I asked. He studies ANCIENT climates using marine sediment. He's a marine geologist.
So, in the face of have NO respected studies or scientific institutions to support then naysaying position maybe you deniers should get a grip on reality, try some critical thinking because We The Reasonable think you to be delusional.
But, maybe start with learning.
Google: Island-scale study reveals climate-change effects
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
I love how you say that with NO evidence. Do you even know where Townsville is? This guy is professor of a friend of mine. Yeh Exxon mobil funds a guy who lives in bumkin Townsville in a standard apartment... You idiot
So, we don't know whether we're in a cooling or warming state; there's too much noise in the climate system to determine how we are affecting the climate, if at all, and what of it is natural and what's us, but! "We will have one degree of cooling and we've experienced 75% of it so far" -Facts and figures from Bob's crystal ball. An impressive interview...
Bob Carter is on the board of conservative think-tanks which have idealogical & financial grounds for their views (they are funded by fossil fuel companies). See source w a t ch. c o m. The official policy for these organizations is to delay government decisions and sow doubt, and question that there is a consensus. See Naomi Oreskes book "Merchants of Doubt"- the same organisations (and often the same people)successfully used the same tactics to delay action on tobacco for the tobacco lobby.
The assertion that "most climate scientists sit in the middle" is a lie. More than 97% of published climate scientists say that CO2 is to blame, and that increasing CO2 levels may lead to disastrous effects on the planet. Check out skeptical science. com.Bob Carter does not talk about the interaction between CO2 and water vapor and the oceans. And as far as "temperature rising is just an opinion", maybe it is also "just the opinion" of satellite and global temperature measurements stations.
Was there such a thing as a climate scientist BEFORE the global warming fear? There were some, but since the hysteria there are thousands. Their paycheck relies on CO2 being the blame and you know it. I mean, Why would a climate scientist say otherwise. The fact is every day less and less people believe this bullshit. I can almost say "What! They still make people like you?"
Your focus is money (misinformed at best). Try shifting to what's really at stake; habitability. Without it you have nothing else. If you think it is wrong to use the best science available to defend it then you are delusional.
.
Google: Getting warmer: Climatologist says it's time to act on global warming
.
Google: Climate change calculations put millions at risk, says new report
What... are there still people who believe that the sky is falling? Dude, you're going to be okay. Take a deep breath, step out of the circle, now exhale slowly...... there we go, feeling a bit better now?
Many just want someone to tell them that they have nothing to worry about, that every thing is just fine. That form of willing delusion may make them more comfortable but ignoring the overwhelming evidence would be at the expense of those that come after. carter is one of the few scientists that is a contrarian on this issue. He has nothing of substance to back up his claims. NO STUDIES! Again, he may sound good to some as he reinforces what they WANT to hear. I prefer no such delusion.
No, I have never tried to "play" scientist. That should be left to those that have studied the science. bob carter has NEVER completed a study on how humans affect climate. I asked him. His field of study has been ancient sea floor deposits and associated climates. So yes, just because you hear carter talking like he has a clue doesn't mean he does. Rely on those that currently study the issue. Among them there is no credible debate. Any respected contrary evidence? No, none.
Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal . Busted for more fudged data , . . . . . . . . . . Kiwi records show no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared . . . . Its not Science its an agenda
@manwichstick Prove that he's wrong ! Check the scientific papers, don't read the conclusions on the news(papers), read it yourself, check the facts and come back and prove it right here in a few words that he lies.
Its not true though what hes saying because the NZ climate science coalition does not give the balanced facts.It excludes some facts and hypes others to side with the alarmists.In this video he makes the blanket statement not backed by facts that WE are adding to the atmosphere.When C02 is actually down and lags behind temperature which means temperature drive C02.We humans are not adding to the atmosphere in any legible amounts its been proven and he excluded it.Shill.
Bob Carter is a right-wing tool famous for saying that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not... a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of the research."
To hear him tell it, one man's opinion should be enough. To hell with what everybody else thinks, even if they have been studying the problem for decades. And the question of money is irrelevant? Only a fool would think so.
Protecting the environment is not a feel good thing, unlike the "health of the economy" stuff, ie the more we consume, produce and the economy grows the more happy we are. Basically what Bob Carter is saying is that we don't have to take responsibility for something we can't control, when he just pointed out earlier that the science of greenhouse emissions and climatology tells us we are responsible. Someone sounds like they are in denial!
Did you even bother listening to the man? Sounds like you deny evidence that opposes your presuppositions, which therefore makes YOU a denier. Do you also deny the Holocaust? (because that's the implication you ignorant fool)
So what do you have a PHD in?... And which universities can I hear YOUR lectures?
Humans have no effect ion climate only greenies from Australia would think that ! He is a cretin , call me. ! Urban warming causes a temp rise..highre temp more vapour , more cloud , more solar reflection . We know that because if it wasn't this way we would have been like Mars many millions of years ago . ! All Aussies are total uneducated tossers !
Time to wake up and demand that utilities move to sustainable energy generation. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the planet has just come through the warmest decade, the warmest 12 months, the warmest six months, and the warmest April, May, and June on record.
Is it too late? We'll probably never know but the only rational, the only moral thing to do is to try.
bob carter does nothing but spread disinformation.
@ReduceGHGs There is no need to force utilitiates to move to sustainable energy production. Eventually, the scarcity of goods will get so high the prices will become unbreable and thus the need to change to sustainable energy production voluntarily.
Yeah, according to what record? Are they talking about the history of the planet Earth? The history of the human race? Or since 1880? What timeframe? "Warmest decade on record" is a vague assertion.
@DaveDoggOwns Same old trick. If you don't want a reply, don't click on "reply", just post.
Sure, eventually we will be forced to move off fossil fuels because their supplies will dwindle. But, that just means business as usual until then. The experts tell us that dumping the rest of the fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere is hazardous to our health.
It will take mandatory reductions otherwise short-term interests will prevail. Didn't we cover externalities, the Cuyahoga River, etc.?
@jago76 What history? What timeframe? In the Holocene period alone there have been three periods hotter than today...so why do the Polar Bears still exist? Why do humans still exist?
Bob Carter, pisses me off... He says that most independent scientists lie in the middle. Name them then Bob, give us the number of scientists and their names so we can be sure you're not just pulling figures from your arse.
The deep freeze is nothing to be laughed at. I assume you're joking when you're laughing because the Brits are not amused. The queen has come to Canada to warm up. Will she be surprised. It's cold and rainy here. Lately we've been getting summer in September. Better late than never.
Bob Carter had NO respected scientific institutions that agree with his core position. And, he has NO studies to back up his opinions. I asked him. He's a marine geologist who mainly studies ancient climate. Google these debunkings.
Google: Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air
Google: How Bob Carter diddled his data
For what the credible experts say try the following link.
@ReduceGHGs ,,,, Science is not about consensus, ok!. Science is about rasing a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. The hypothesis is; ‘Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming’. Bob Carter and many other scientists are testing that hypothesis and that hypothesis is simply failing the tests.
@aus2045 Science is about research, study, review, testing, etc. ok!
bob carter has NEVER completed a study about how humans affect climate, NEVER. I asked him. He is a marine geologist and has written many papert about ancient climates.
If you can find ONE respected scientific institution that says the warming is an overall "good" thing or that we aren't warming the planet please send me a link.
The "test failing" is that almost all projections have been too conservative.
@alexhamster1134 No, the guy presents himself as an expert in how human activity affects climate. It isn't his field of study.
I recommend not using the word "debate". There is no credible debate in the scientific community. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences may well be dire. Any poorly based opinions by people that call themselves experts give credibility to a position where none exists.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wikipedia
@ReduceGHGs any "opinions" must surely be backed up, no matter who they come from. i think the guy isnt asserting anything concrete, just saying "this is an area which needs more study". sure finite CO2 emissions are adding to the atmosphere, but how much is this affecting the planet? 1%? 0.0001%? nobody can tell for certain, we only have accurate measurements of temp in the order of 10's of years. extrapolating temps from fossils/rocks/trees is not confirmation or denial of man made cc.
Yea, I've had an email converstation with bob carter. He has never studied how our current climate can be affected by human activity. He has studied PAST climates based on marine geology. And of course, this area needs more study but what does that mean. Does it discredit all the current studies? No.
As for the composition of the atmosphere, I recommend that you don't try to "play" scientist unless you are qualified. A little knowledge is dangerous.
Carter isn't telling the truth. Here's why: 1. All independent data sets (NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, inc. recent re-analysis by BEST) show warming (surface & oceans). 2. The Urban Heat Island Effect exists but affects temp measurements only negligibly (see BEST papers for recent analysis). 3. We know we're causing warming from energy balance measurements, inc. satellite data, in line with CO2 conc increase predictions. 4. Isotope distribution patterns show extra CO2 is from fossil fuel use.
LukeScientiae 1 month ago
@LukeScientiae
He is a disinterested researcher. This is where the evidence has lead him. It's your IPCC "scientists" that are in pay of corporations.
dialectical44 1 month ago
@dialectical44 Exactly the opposite is true to what you say. Corporations (e.g. Exxon, Koch Industries and others) have funnelled a huge amount of money into climate science denial. Their tactics are well-documented. You can see this from leaked memos from the companies. Read Naomi Oreskes' book Merchants of Doubt or watch her online lectures - she's just one of the people who've catalogued all this. The corporations depend on profits from fossil fuel sales.
LukeScientiae 1 month ago
@dialectical44 The other thing is that you have - let's face it - absolutely NO evidence that climatologists are "in the pay" of corporations, whereas there is a tonne of evidence that the fossil fuel lobby fund climate science denial (e.g. through the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other right-wing libertarian think tanks). So you're making accusations you can't back up so you can go on believing we're not changing the climate. My guess is you don't read the science, too.
LukeScientiae 1 month ago
@dialectical44 Finally, notice that your reply tried to simply get away from the obvious evidence I mentioned by alleging a conspiracy you have no evidence for, and that none of what you said relates to the science whatsoever. It doens't matter if Carter is disinterested or not; he's wrong. He is misrepresenting what ALL of the temp data says, whether it's funded my govt or private money. Denying AGW at this stage is like denying evolution is true: it's faith ahead of evidence.
LukeScientiae 1 month ago
Spending Billions of dollars does not make people "feel good" it makes the Nuclear Industyr and Carbon trading derivitive schemes traders ridiculously wealthy. GoOvernment represent free market capitalism. "Politically incorrect" means going against Capitalist interests
dialectical44 1 month ago
The middle does not equal balance nor does it equal truth. This guy is the same type of moron who suggested the economy was going to enter a mild depression. Just look at the nasa global data and you'll see whats happening the planet WARMING.
1davidcampbell 3 months ago
@1davidcampbell
Check out what Nobel Price Winner Kary Mullis has to say about that
dialectical44 1 month ago
@1davidcampbell Not just the NASA data, but the HadCRU and NOAA data too. There is simply no way a person who is honest could say we don't know the planet is warming, or pretend the urban heat island has a significant effect.
LukeScientiae 1 month ago
@LukeScientiae I agree Luke but the problem is much deeper, that these climate treaties, the problem is free mrkt capitalism an ideology that will not countenance taking necessary steps to save lives if it impinges on profit making in any way. Watched a you tube talk Green Gone Wrong - Heather Rogers recently. Got to say things looking very grim right now from where I am. US passed a bill for 662 billion on military and homeland security, X 3 the combined public health and educat budgets.
1davidcampbell 1 month ago
@1davidcampbell I agree with you about the profit before people aspect. I'll watch the video you suggest. Whilst we're on recommendations, have you read Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt book? She also has some YouTube lectures. She catalogues the intentional and systematic way corporations are protecting their profits by funding denialism in a way directly analogous to how tobacco companies did: seeding doubt about the science, preying on a scientifically illiterate public.
LukeScientiae 1 month ago
It's not really a question of two extremes-the most thoughtful, empirical, and analytical people tend to accept anthropogenic global warming as fact, but reject the computer modelled extrapolations as unfounded. The hysteria is not warranted.
pretorious700 3 months ago
Let's not repeat stupid claims. Galileo? Your watching too may republican debates. It is making you stupid. The church opposed Galileo not the population. He had evidence showing the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Global warming is science and well supported. Ice melts, record global humidity and temps aren't going away because you done like it. Moons still revolve around Jupiter. Like the church, you will not be able to change pollution with popular opinion.
proshot1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again we are on track for the warmest year ever recorded. Storms and floods have passed a record and we still have a few months left. Ice cover is a record low. If we could ignore the risk of global warming, how can you resolve the pollution? The oceans are picking up CO2 and increasing acidity. Are future generations going to use fairy dust for plastics, fertilizers, tractors, chemicals, energy? Let's get information about coal from geologists. Leave the climate data to NASA, NOAA.
proshot1 4 months ago
Once again we are on track for the warmest year ever recorded. Storms and floods have passed a record and we still have a few months left. Ice cover is a record low. If we could ignore the risk of global warming, how can you resolve the pollution? The oceans are picking up CO2 and increasing acidity. Are future generations going to use fairy dust for plastics, fertilizers, tractors, chemicals, energy? Let's get information about coal from geologists. Leave the climate data to NASA, NOAA....
proshot1 4 months ago
@proshot1
Keep your eyes on the headlines mate. The jig is up. Nothing that you are proclaiming is happening or will happen. You keep going to green agenda websites and you will keep yourself up late at night. Remember, Galileo was once the purveyor of an opinion that was not the common notion. He was less that .0001 % of the population. Being in the minority doesn't make you wrong.
aquartlow 4 months ago
A scientist working so far out of his field! Shows a graph of temperature vs CO2 for the last 500M, claims CO2 is not correlated with the temp.He does not point out that CO2 is ONE of the factors affecting temperature on the planet, when you subtract other known factors like the sun's energy output etc then you are left with correlation.Look up Richard Alley AGU- this provides a good comprehensive summary unlike the one here. In fact the 3C rise for 2x CO2 is what saved us from "iceball earth"!
indulis1 5 months ago
This is a very good interview with a rational and professional scientist. It's good to hear a balanced view.
PlainLittle 6 months ago
@PlainLittle This is not a "balanced view". Carter is not telling the truth. He's wrong to say most scientists are in the middle: 97% of climate scientists accept warming is happening and is anthropogenic. Moreover, he doesn't tell the truth about the urban heat island effect either, which has been shown (see recent BEST study) to be insignificant. Carter is purposely misleading people about the state of the science. Check other denialism you've heard on the Skeptical Science site.
LukeScientiae 1 month ago
global warming doesnt exist anymore
ciarandots77 7 months ago
Leather vest?? Jesus man.
beeDUB75 7 months ago
Wow anyone who's read a basic book on climate change can see through these straw man arguments. He focuses only on the direct warming attributed to CO2 and ignores the added warming triggered by feedback loops. I guess this should be expected by a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181.
ObamaFTWdotcom 7 months ago
I think Carter got his argument about the 50 billion Dollars backwards. The world has spent around 50 billion trying to find NATURAL causes OTHER than CO2, and has failed. Also wrt. CO2 being a minor forcing vs water vapor. The understanding is that water vapor is a FEEDBACK mechanism that "does the deed" of warming, but you can't have more water vapor in the atmosphere UNLESS the air is warmer in the first place. How does the air get warmer? Increased CO2!
nickschor 7 months ago
@nickschor No you are so wrong, there are very few grants to study non co2 causes. The 50 billion is grants for co2 research. Water vapor is the main green house gas making up 95% of the green house effect
busguy100 7 months ago
Let's keep in mind bob carter’s history. He has industry ties. Even a quick look at Wiki will tell you that. He is a marine geologist that studies ancient climates based on sea sediment. He is NOT a respected expert when it comes to the study of anthropogenic climate change. The vested interests like him because he spreads their propaganda and at least has SOME assemblance of credibility.
Here's a good short film that tells some of the story.
Google: The Denial Machine Video Frontline PBS
ReduceGHGs 8 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
Why do you resort to conspiracy theories? Do you even know where Townsville is? So this guy, who's being paid by the big oil companies, lives it up in a bumkin house in Townsville, which is barely a city... WOW he's really winning!! Why for people like you is the issue about credentials and 'respect' instead of facts. Many of Galileo's theories were not respected. So how do you gain respect? By believe dogmatically in AGW? fantastic logic!
vitalitutorials 8 months ago
@vitalitutorials Lots of questions! I can tell you where to find the answers but your denial would probably keep you from going there.
I noticed you provided nothing to support your contention. How come? Are obscure industry puppets like carter all you can come up with? Why ignore all the credible and respected sources and glumb on to this dude? You do it because he says what you WANT to hear. That's not critical thinking. Pull yourself out of your denial and do some HONEST research.
ReduceGHGs 8 months ago
he was right on until he said(paraphrasing): "there are many scientists who say its warming and give good reasons for it, but thats their opinion." im sorry if theyre giving reasons in the form of evidence then it not an opinion its a scientific theory.
Scotch7000 8 months ago
We need more scientists like this guy. We won't get anywhere arguing one sided on an issue.
tmacclurg1 8 months ago
What an awesome interview. Lots of respect for the few honest scientists with integrity.
FantasticBob7000 8 months ago 3
People, come on, stop attacking the man and start attacking his arguments. If you disagree with him, explain why from you're point of view. If you can't - shut up and remain neutral. I would presume that hardly any of us commenting on this article are scientists with informed knowledge of all aspects relating to climate! It is therefore, not our place to pass judgement on such issues. Just remember people, politicians sell certainity - science lives off doubt!
MegaPostman77 9 months ago 8
@MegaPostman77 This spastic published an article in the age saying that its fact the global mean temperature has cooled over the last 10 years and that extra CO2 was going to help green the Sahara desert. You dont need to be a scientist to go to the Nasa website and check the global temperatures reported by satellite and see he is dead wrong. The temp oscillates and the trend is up. His field is stratigraphy and paleontology, and he has no background or publishing history in climate science.
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye extra co2 does make plants grow better, it is regular practice for green houses to increase co2 to 1,000 parts to get more grout. NASA has adjusted the temp record and that is a fact as the old ones are still on line to check.
busguy100 7 months ago
@busguy100 Do you know why they have been changed? Its because one of the satellites had drifted out of orbit and was measuring way further south when it should have been north. They picked this up because the ground stations temp readings where not matching the satellite. They then 1) adjusted the orbit 2) used the ground based readings for that section. Look into it a bit more, science always try to get more accurate. Its not some conspiracy. Always ask why dont just make shit up and settle.
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye No that is not true all records have been adjusted in secret, even thou it is done with taxpayer money by govt employees they refuse to release the data and methods used to adjust the temp. So no one can check there work. Funny how it works on land based temps in the past record temp has been adjusted down and the last decade it is adjusted up and without the adjustments there would be no warming for the last decade.
busguy100 7 months ago
@busguy100 Okay lets say all the clever guys in lab coats who have degrees relevant in this field have gotten together and decided, lets just fudge all the data and pretend the earth has been warming. So why is it that every single department from every singly country that has studied this with their own data as well as others have reached the same conclusion? Why on earth would the whole scientific community decide to just defraud the public? Why is it only this field alone?
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@busguy100 On the same note, my family live on a farm. Its been handed down through generations and as such we have over 80 years in not only rain fall data but temp readings also. I put all of these into a spreadsheet and averaged it out and guess what, for the last 30 years (up until 2009) the years average has been steadily fluctuating upwards (not in 92/93). 2010 cooler and 2011 is still not finish to calculate. Was my grandfather and father fudging the data in the same conspiracy?
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye My point Im making is climate should be based on thousands of years not 30 years. If you were to look up the graph on PDO and the graph on Temp you will find they run in lockstep, now try that with co2 they do not, look at 1940 to 1980 co2 increases and temp falls. In all ice core records co2 has always been an effect of temp both up and down by an average of 800 years after temp shifts. Global warming people always start there graphs at the end of the little ice age
busguy100 7 months ago
@busguy100 You do know we can accurately measure the amount of man made CO2 in the atmosphere via carbon 14 and also the depletion of oxygen. I am making only 2 points, 1) The planet is factually and measurably warming, this I know as all the worlds country's data sets match and show this 2) The only plausible explanation at the moment is man made CO2. Its not solar forcing as most the heating occurs at night and the higher altitudes are cooler. (continue)
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye Both of these statements are backed up and attested to by numerous peer reviewed scientific journals from a multitude of different countries. The scientific consensus is overwhelming (amongst those with relevant degrees) so much so that to suggest otherwise is to indeed leaves only a global conspiracy. The strange thing is the data sets are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and have a predictive nature. How on earth is this possible if they are "making it all up". (continue)
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye Lastly I don't give a fat rats ass that its warming, I will not alter my behavior as I wont be around when the shit hits the fan. The earth will be just fine as it always makes corrections to balance things in the long term, if humans are still on the planet when it does is another story. If anything I encourage backward simpletons to produce more CO2 so their grand kids get completely fucked over and can look back and see exactly who was saying DERPER DUURR CO2 Is good for you.
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye Yes you're right the planet has been warming..from well BEFORE the industrial revolution and hasn't increased in the rate of waming...you'd know that if you read the scientific peer reviewed literature .
Most of the heating occurs at night does it?? co2 traps heat , no scientific paper says that it generates it..I think you worded it wrong because you don't understand te idea... There are alternative theories no the increased nighttime temps, not just on credible one
OtagoMark 6 months ago
@OtagoMark Normally as the earth rotates heat is dissipated on the side in darkness, normally i should say unless you have a green house gas that is radiating it back in. This is why they say the warming at night shows Co2 to be the cause.To say the warming rate has not increased since before the revolution is not a statement that comports with reality. You also are blissfully un aware that Co2 without an increased nitrogen does noting for plants and the main problem with Co2 is ocean acidity.
myjizzureye 6 months ago
@myjizzureye Yes I knew that ...ther are other theories to explain warming at night though...and as far as I know the rate of warming hasn't increased since pre industrial times... and increased co2 DOES cause plants to grow faster in general without the need for increased nitrogen, unless nitrogens lacking somehow... but we're talking world wide no specific cases, ... just as co2 hasn't warmed the planet as much as predicted by models, neither will it increase ocean acidity as much as predicte
OtagoMark 6 months ago
@OtagoMark Okay please link me the peer reviewed journals on the other theories explaining the warming at night, ones that haven't already been disproved. As far as you know warming hasn't increased since pre industrial times but that's because you clearly haven't looked. The deep sea cores now give us a lot more accurate picture, we already have the dendrochronology records and ice cores that to be incorrect. Global mean temps are WAY higher. (Continue)
myjizzureye 6 months ago
@myjizzureye Tell you what...lets let the scientist compare peer reviewed papers..this is youtube..I don't want to have a copy and paste war with someone...you're only wanting this style debate to avioid using your grey matter. You're already misrepresented my position by claiming that I deny global warming!! you have a slight comprehension issue there my friend, is it nay better when you study these peer reviewed papers? or do you just see what you want to see?
OtagoMark 6 months ago
@OtagoMark The problem is you have made several statements that contradict directly what is known to be fact, and when I pull you up all of a sudden its "hey hey lets not bring peer reviewed scientific papers into the discussion". So I am only wanting hard factual peer reviewed evidence to support claims because I am avoiding using my brain? That makes complete sense....if you are a spastic.
Continue....
myjizzureye 6 months ago
@myjizzureye Such as what?? What have I said that contradicts FACT... Please tell me the FACT I have contradicted....by the way why should only ONE side of this debate have to supply peer reviewed papers?
OtagoMark 6 months ago
@OtagoMark Tell you what, to force you to look at the data I am going to give you a challenge. Please find me just one, only one, single, peer reviewed scientific study that has shown GLOBALLY that the global mean temperature has not risen since pre industrial times. Before you post it, save me some time and make sure it has not been refuted. So once again, not LOCAL events, but GLOBALLY show me ONE peer reviewed study that says there has been no warming. I can find you plenty for the other way.
myjizzureye 6 months ago
@myjizzureye Why would I want to find a peer reviewed article about something I don't persoanlly believe in and think is absurd...ofcourse the planet has warmed?? Why on earth do you want to find that type of peer reviewed paper?? ...I've never denied climate change, that has to be the worst attempt at a strawman argument i've ever seen.
OtagoMark 6 months ago
@OtagoMark Okay so lets make it very very clear, 1) did you or did you not say the planet has not increased in warming since pre industrial times. 2) If you are saying that by default you are saying the increase in Co2 is not causing any additional warming. You factually wrong on both accounts. You just make claims without even bothering to check if they are factual. How can I tell this? Because you wont link any peer reviewed papers supporting those claims. I can only guess why that is.....
myjizzureye 6 months ago
@myjizzureye 1/ no i did not say there had been no warming since preindustrial times
Your comprehension is lacking
OtagoMark 6 months ago
@OtagoMark Did you not see the word increased..... My comprehension is it.....awesome.
myjizzureye 6 months ago
@OtagoMark I didn't phrase it like that... and that not the way you phrased it in your rebuttle of my comment...
No increase in warming is different to no increase in the RATE of warming...
OtagoMark 6 months ago
@busguy100 part 2
so of course we are going to have warming, thank God for that as we would be in serious problems if it had not warmed up. If you look up PDO you see we started on a 30 year or so cooling phase around 2005, so you should expect cooler winter for decade's plus it also looks like the sunspot activity is stalling and we could be in real trouble, and will look back to the good old days (today) and wish it was still warming
busguy100 7 months ago
@busguy100 Thank God? So you think an all seeing invisible creator is a logical and plausible thing....now I see why you might think those fancy book learning people are wrong. I bet you have a problem with science on so many grounds, the earth going around the sun, the world not being populated via incest, sprinkling the blood of dead birds not being a cure for leprosy. How about evolution. I think we have a good idea of the weight of your opinions now based on the "god" comment.
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye Thank God is a saying, but for you it is an excuse not to check my facts about the PDO and sunspots. Why not go look up the above and come back to me with why I'm wrong? Why insult me? The powers that be really like people like you that read or told stuff and take it as true never questioning anything. Did you know that only 10,000 years ago there was a mile of ice over the northern part of the USA, the great lakes were glaciers and the seas were 400 feet lower than today?
busguy100 7 months ago
@busguy100 This again tells me that you have not checked the peer reviewed literature for yourself but only what the denialists have presented you. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation looks compelling and matches up until you get to around 1990 where in sun spot activity drops off to almost nothing and the temp record takes off in the opposite direction. The other thing that tells me you have not read one paper is because sunspot activity has been ruled out YEARS ago as a suspect (continue)
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzureye If you had read any of the papers you would know why and how they would know this. I shall link you a dozen or so peer reviewed journals on this if you like, or are you just going to say they are all in on it. Infact fuckit I will send you a PM now, if anybody else would like the peer reviewed journals backing this just PM me.
myjizzureye 7 months ago
of all the ecological issues co2 doesn't even register as a threat it's just a deception that has been incrementally pushed on to the public consciousness to destract us from real issues and to introduce a tax on life.
boosomentity 9 months ago
@boosomentity The spastic meter just went off the charts....
myjizzureye 7 months ago
@myjizzure it's a clear sign of a defeated notion when one resorts to simple derogatory remarks as their point of defence or offence. should you refuse my challenge to put forth an explanation to this obvious disagreement of my claims you may have to explore the possibility that your contrary opinion on this matter has neither the substance nor merit beyond that of an ignorant child's playground politic. i advise you to expand your perspective beyond the confines of bias and connect the dots.
boosomentity 7 months ago
I've seen few videos of Bob Carter and i really love his point of view. Most people concentrate on the global warming, but how about the Earth turning into an "ice ball"?
blaszizzz 9 months ago
@blaszizzz .
bob carter is a sham. He has no studies to back up his opinions. He has ties to corporate industries. He is not respected in the study of anthropogenic warming. Try listening to what the experts say; NAS, AAAS, SOCC, NCAR, AGU, etc. Why reject over 30 years of global study for odd-balls like carter when EVERY study and respected scientific body says that, yes, we humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
The Ice Ball earth story is interesting though.
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
This vid is a scam and so is bob carter. They start off with the false premis that there is a credible debate. There isn't. EVERY respected scientific body agrees that humans are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
Then there bob carter. He has not study to back up his claims, he is industry backed, his expertise is ancient climates not current, and his views are NOT respected among climate change professionals.
Yes, THIS VID IS A SHAM.
ReduceGHGs 10 months ago
@ReduceGHGs So basically his views are not approved by alarmists? The fact that you people always resort to attacking someone's credibility rather than their points is very telling.
vidmanx0 9 months ago
@vidmanx0 .
"Alarmists"?? Your use of that word is very telling.
bob carter's views are not respected because he has no studies to back up his opinion AND he has links to the fossil fuel industries.
Consider way you apparently reject what ALL the respected scientific institutions have been saying for years in favor of this guy; he may be saying just what you WANT to hear. It's a symptom of denial.
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
@ReduceGHGs "he has links to the fossil fuel industries"
Source?
vidmanx0 9 months ago
@vidmanx0 .
I believe the easiest place to look was Wiki. But I've done the homework and researched carter.
It's available on the net. Here's another I found interesting.
Google: Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
@vidmanx0 .
This is right out of Wiki.
"Carter was one of the founding members[9] of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a member[10] of the industry-funded[11] Institute of Public Affairs which also founded the Australian Environment Foundation. He is also a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.[12]"
.
Read about the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and what their mission objective is. They are a sham assembled to spread doubt where there is none.
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
A new chant for deniers....
.
"Ignore the best, dig for the rest!"
.
Like thinning carter has anything meaningful to contribute. He doesn't. But to get to him you have to ignore the many, many very credible experts out there that have studies and respected institutions to back them up. Keep digging, you'll find carter under a rock slimed with vested interest goo. Those corporate interests care nothing for our future generations. They want carter lubed up and looking slick!
ReduceGHGs 10 months ago
The climate system is driven by thousands of factors in terms of the interactions and interrelationships between the different elements of natural phenomena. Why single out a minor trace gas as CO2? Granted CO2 retains heat-trapping properties and does cause a small amount of warming, but in reality - not very much. Even the IPCC very honestly admits that 80% of the factors driving climate are not well understood. I would argue that it is better to be sceptical than gullible!
MegaPostman77 10 months ago
very smart and cleaver argument, he is out of his area of expertise tho, hes a geologist not a climatologist, what the global public need is climatologists to tell us in plain English what is happening before any media or political or industrial group gets a hold of it and twists and warps it out of proportion
hughheggen 11 months ago
@hughheggen While I'm not familiar with this guy in particular, it appears he is a MARINE biologist. The ocean plays a very large roll in global temperatures and is essentially the Earth's thermostat. That arguably makes him a foremost expert on the matter.
justinthejerkoff 10 months ago
@justinthejerkoff I meant to type geologist, not biologist.
justinthejerkoff 10 months ago
@justinthejerkoff .
read about bob carter on wiki and other sites. he's industry backed and has an opinion that runs contrary to what all our respected scientific institutions have been saying.
no, he's no expert on the matter. ask him if he has EVER completed a study on how humans have or have not affected climate. I did and he has never completed such a study.
looks like another paid corporate hack to me. next maybe he'll say smoking is good for you!
ReduceGHGs 10 months ago
@ReduceGHGs It is impossible to study accurately how humans are impacting climate, as we would first need to know what the climate would be were humans not here. Very simple. No one knows what the climate is suppose to be, so how can we possibly know that we have changed anything. It is entirely possible "Mother Nature" has adapted to us and that we have had no meaningful impact on climate. It is equally possible we have helped the climate.....again, we can't know.
Ltblac 8 months ago
@Ltblac . I recommend not coming to such "simple" conclusions without knowing more about the issue. Until we has a good grasp of the climate sciences it's best to rely on credible and respected professionals that do. It's very complex and we certainly don't have ALL the answers. The answers we have clearly point to humans warming the planet mostly by burning fossil fuels and clearling the land. This is well established. Read what the experts say. Google: Scientific Opinion on Climate Change
ReduceGHGs 8 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Thanks for the advice, but i have read more than my share from both sides of this debate. Instead of disputing what i said with factual evidence you tell me i shouldn't come to simple conclusions!? You don't seem to understand that Science is not just a word to throw out, there are practices and procedures, protocols, etc.. You can not even dispute the "simple" fact i raised. Keep pushing for governments to spend billions of dollars, it makes you sound like a good person.
Ltblac 8 months ago
@Ltblac Debate? There is no credible debate. It is a fact that every one of our respected scientific bodies that considered the issue came to basically the same conclusion; HUMANS are warming the planet. What credible sources do you have to dispute their findings? The "simple fact" you raise is simple because you lack a sufficient understand of the issue. It APPEARS simple when so much relevant information is omitted.
For an understanding try,
Google: NAS pdf Global Warming 2008 Edition
ReduceGHGs 8 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
And a credible debate has never been allowed. Why are you so afraid?
vitalitutorials 8 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
Are you embarrassed by the fact that less and less people around the world are believing the lie?
vitalitutorials 8 months ago
@vitalitutorials Only in your dreams -- and the paranoid ravings of the far Right. The reality of climate change is accepted far and wide more than ever, a direct result of those mountains of evidence out there proving it's real. The only reason people don't is that they are deliberately avoiding it (like only visiting denier websites). Science -- and nature -- can't be fooled. Claiming your false victory can only delay what needs to be done; it won't make the problem magically disappear.
Ranillon 8 months ago
@Ltblac yeah we do. humans werent always around and there are ways of studying the composition of the atmosphere before we were here such as analysing ice cores. weve also been recording data on the atmosphere over the last century and know that co2 has increased in correlation with growth in industrial development. furthermore, we know co2 is a greenhouse gas. therefore, it can be concluded, all other things being equal, that increased co2 will lead to a warmer atmosphere.
Scotch7000 8 months ago
You are either crazy, blind or very well paid!
SuperSwanDive 11 months ago
1. We all agree a doubling of CO2 would cause a 1deg. C increase in temperature = LIAR, the figure is 2-4deg. C
2. CO2 concentration does not follow global temperature = LIAR (SUCH A LIAR!), it did AMAZINGLY WELL in the past million years.
3. We can't understand if the temperature increase is caused by humans because of urban heat effect = LIAR, urban heat effect is ALWAYS ACCOUNTED FOR in global temperature studies.
QUESTION= is Exxon paying Bob Carter to lie, or he's a liar naturally?
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
No Carter is on fire hammering some truth into the AGW issue, you are wrong. Do your homework and start thinking.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 As the diligent and sharp scholar you appear to be from the tone of your message, would you DO YOUR HOMEWORK and address ONE (let's take it easy at firsts, JUST ONE for now) of my points? Because before scouring, a diligent person does one thing: HE/SHE USES LOGIC, rather than the preaching rhetoric you've just unwittingly sported.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
a doubling in C02 would at most cause a 1 degree rise probably less. The methane scare being released from the arctic accounts for the IPCC's 2-4 degrees. (of which there is no evidence to make this claim)
C02 concentrations preceeds global warming by about 800 years as was proven in the british courts when Al gores movie was debunked.
3. Urban heat island effect and how it is documented has never been released and is most likely exagerated. Most themometers are in cities.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 a court debunking science?? Not so scallywag. Please see skeptical science on Urban Heat Island. In summary : The UHI should match where most people live. However, if you look at the 2006 global temperature anomaly (figure 2.), you find that the greatest difference in temperatures for the long term averages where across Russia, Alaska, far north Canada and Greenland and not where major urbanisation has occurred.
radoa1 11 months ago
@Dodger481 Dear Dodger481, you may wanna try harder next time.
1. Climate models assume that THE NET EFFECT OF ALL NON-CO2 DRIVERS IS CLOSE TO ZERO. Where you found that Methane story is PURE MISTERY TO ME.
2. CO2 concentration FOLLOWS warming and that is the usual skeptical argument: you seem to me in the midst of confusion here
3. If urban heat is "causing" global warming, then WHY: a. Ocean temperatures have increased so much b. Arctic Ice melts MUCH faster THAN MODELS PREDICT?
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
Unlike AGW One theory that has been validated over and over is that a fool and his money are soon parted. If you want sea ice the stuff is growing like wildfire, we may be soon overrun at the rate it is growing. That just may be the next big scare if ocean acidification flops.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 You are extremely disappointing to have a conversation with.
WHERE IS THE DATA ON ARCTIC SEA ICE INCREASING?!? Because apart from SEVERAL Nature papers, ANY FOOL can google "Arctic Sea Ice" and follow the first link, which leads you to figures that inequivocably show a DRAMATIC decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. Currently, Arctic Sea Ice might have never been so low. What you talk about, again, is a MISTERY.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
You can't educate someone like yourself who has sold his house to buy carbon credits but in any event, you should look into the scam a bit more.Arctic sea ice is overtaking the world.
just google arctic sea ice growing, it has been on the rebound for a few years now. Yet another sign debunking the scam. Wake up or just send me the cash now.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 "The total amount of ice, which set a record low last year, grew in October [2008] at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979"
So, you are using the SAME (satellite) DATA I TALK ABOUT to argue that Arctic Sea Ice is increasing because IN OCTOBER 2008 ice rose at the fastest MONTHLY rate since 1978? What about this year's Ice, which have been the lowest ever in December 2010, January and February 2011?
HOW ABOUT BEING LESS RIDICULOUS?!?
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
No more ridiculous that to use 30 years of data in the dataset comprising roughly 6 billion years. The logicall conclusion you can draw from that dataset is:
1. It is too small to be used as any kind of reference point.
2. Since it is increasing obviously global warming has been much more about a scare than science. The predictions for an ice free arctic have been nullified and there is no cause for alarm.
Or you can keep thinking the world will come to an end, your call.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 WHAT IS INCREASING?!? May I re-formulate the question again: WHAT IS INCREASING?!? Are you talking about ARCTIC SEA ICE?!?
Are you talking to me? After all your SHAMEFUL POSTS you have still the guts to say that Arctic Sea Ice is increasing?!?
GIVE ME A LINK THAT SAYS ARCTIC SEA ICE INCREASES. Com'on buddy. Show me what you've got.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Dodger481 With this, I would like to EMPHASIZE that Dodger481 claims "Arctic Sea Ice is overtaking the world" because I rose particularly fast IN OCTOBER 2008. The man doesn't care about October 2009 and 2010, AND THE REST OF THE YEARS.
Very impressive case of strong logic, dedication, and infallible scholarship. Chapeaux!
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
I made the same statistical observations and explanations employed by globeal warmers. Using the miniscule dataset we have, one can say that sea ice is growing at the fastest rate in recorded history period.
In any event this is another nullification of global warming fear mongering. The arctic will not be ice free by 2013 as predicted. Yet another facet of the myriad of the scam exposed.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 GIVE ME PROOF THE IPCC PREDICTED ARTIC SEA ICE WILL DISAPPEAR IN 2013.
By the way, you can't, their prediction DOES NOT PREDICT DISAPPEARANCE OF ARTIC SEA ICE.
For those humans with brains out there, google "Arctic Sea Ice model".
If we were face to face, you would be running away as fast as you could. You are truly shameless and a bit pathetic for inventing arguments like you are doing. Are you a minor?
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
google arctic ice free 2013 and watch shoddy science unfold before your eyes. Another facet of the scam that has been debunked are glaciers. The himalayan galciers will not be disapearing as claimed by the IPCC. For anyone who has done there homework it is clear, Global warming is not a material issue anyone has to worry about.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 I asked you to give me proof THE IPCC predicted disappearance of Arctic sea ice by 2013, not one study from A RANDOM SCIENTIST. Albeit interesting, that is NOT the position of the IPCC, which, again, did not predict sea ice loss.
ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME?
The disappearance of the Hymalaian glaciers WAS NOT PREDICTED BY THE IPCC. In fact, it has appeared in IPCC volume n.2 IN CONTRAST WITH IPCC VOLUME n.1 - the scientific basis one.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Dodger481 More generally, with each single post you are giving proof of your UTTER IGNORANCE on this subject.
By the way, the "increase" in Arctic Sea Ice you talk about IS NOT ABOUT ARCTIC SEA ICE. It's about ANTARCTIC SEA ICE: you evidently don't know what you're talking about, and you are shamelessly, unwittingly exposing your ignorance.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
You crack me up. Read what you write before you click post. "it's not in the IPCC volume 1 it's in volume 2" In any event another falsehood thrown out by Global warming activists.
Yes the arctic sea ice is growing faster than ever before in recorded history. Interesting that you say the IPCC has predicted no arctic sea ice loss. That will be news to everyone but in any event I agree there will be no sea ice loss.
Again the point remains global warming is a non event.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 No no, YOU CRACK ME (us) UP:
First: what is the SCIENCE IPCC volume, the one YOU are attacking? Number 1. What does number 1 volume say about Hymalaian glaciers in the next decade? That they'll be reduced by still healthy.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Dodger481 Second: You still have to: 1. Provide a link suggesting Arctic Sea Ice is increasing and not dramatically decreasing 2. EXPLAIN why you have a problem distinguishing between the words ARCTIC and ANTARCTIC 3. Related to the above, you should also provide proof you have passed 7th grade, which given the above is not at all warranted.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
I can bring a retard to water but I can't make him drink. Do some research about the arctic ice and you will see that it is growing along with the antarctic ice which has been growing for decades. In any event this is not material as we are looking at 30 years of data out of 6 billion.
Instead of wrecking this thread for everyone else with your petty insults, I will attempt some remedial education for you out of the public eye. E-mail me directly. kleiniken@hotmail.com
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 no no no no, SHOW US THE RESEARCH. I understand you are loosing face with every single post you write, but it's not my fault. SHOW US THAT RESEARCH, please.
As for me, again, google "Arctic Sea Ice" and see how SIMPLE OBSERVATIONS show THE OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting without even providing one single reference to support your point.
P.S.: You still didn't explain why temperature should increase 1C instead of 2-4C, among others.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
How does one lose face in an anonymous environment, parlaying with a retard?
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 By not addressing the "retard's" questions, and unwittingly declaring that being anonymous frees you of judgement from the people.
1. Reference on Arctic Sea Ice increasing? Still waiting.
2. Reference that a doubling of CO2 will AT MOST increase temperature by 1C OR LESS (as you proudly stated)?
I can sure keep on asking. ARE YOU AFRAID TO ANSWER?
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
Co2 is a diminishing return, that is not debated by anyone. The IPCC predicts 1 degree warming from co2 and the remainder from melting icecaps and belching of methane. Do your research, start acting globally by getting you head out of you Ass locally.
The arctic sea ice has grown for the past 3 years, look it up. Matter of fact the sea if is growing like wildfire.
Looks like global warming has been cancelled.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 Insulting for lack of arguments, and then presenting
1. I have ALREADY argued the CO2-caused 2-4degrees increase in temperature IS NOT DUE TO METHANE. At least, ACCORDING TO THE IPCC, which you seem to criticize. If you don't cite your data = your data is worthless.
2. google "Actic Sea Ice", scroll down and read. "January 2011 had the lowest ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records [1979]". Sea ice SHRINKING like wildfire?!?
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. A theoretical increase in AGW of 0.6 degrees today with result in a 0.6 future increase if c02 is doubled.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 You are inconclusive even when you try to make sense:
1. Wasn't the problem connected with climate system INERTIA to increase of CO2 - that is, isn't the climate system still adjusting to the increased CO2?
2. How does this address the role of methane and you misciting the IPCC?
P.S.: Still waiting to see this "Arctic Sea Ice Increasing" reference...
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
The issue is not a modelling issue it is mathmatics. The relationship between co2 and temperature is logrithmic. The IPCC notes this and derives a 3-4 degree of warming due not to CO2 increases but rather to the perceived effects of release of methane from oceans, melting ice caps etc... in otherwords a "tipping point" and the entire climate sustem goes into a positive feedback loop. Not something I believe will occur, that just the theory.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Dodger481 Ok, fair enough, I don't remember the IPCC citing methane as a cause of global warming, but that might be worth doing some more research on on my side.
As for Arctic Sea Ice, I am puzzled of how a simple measurement of ice extent done yearly in September could be changed by the media.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour AND,
1. Google "Arctic Ice Retreating More Quickly Than Computer Models Project": which shows you that models UNDERESTIMATE sea ice shrinkage.
2. Google "The Arctic's "Surprising" Double-Dip Melt (Update)" and see that this year Arctic Sea Ice DECREASED, NOT INCREASED.
The amount of lies you are generating is astounding.
Cornour 11 months ago
@Cornour
Th arctic sea ice has been increasing for the past few years, you may be indeed correct about this january, but the fact remains it has been increasing for the past few years. Something that was not predicted and certainly not condusive to an ice free arctic by 2013 or whatever dat eis used at the time to scare the public and lawmakers. All the stuff you quote is spin from newspapers. If you examine the data it is not that worrysome. Cheers and stop wrecking bobs thread.
Dodger481 11 months ago
@Cornour yes - Exxon and the big mining companies. There's a good boy!
radoa1 11 months ago
The following is from Wiki about carter. Try researching it. It looks like corporate interests may well be driving his efforts. Sad.
.
“Carter was one of the founding members[9] of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and a member[10] of the industry-funded[11] Institute of Public Affairs which also founded the Australian Environment Foundation. He is also a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.”
.
I've asked him to explain it. We'll see if he can.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
bob carter has NEVER completed about how humans affect climate. I asked. He studies ANCIENT climates using marine sediment. He's a marine geologist.
So, in the face of have NO respected studies or scientific institutions to support then naysaying position maybe you deniers should get a grip on reality, try some critical thinking because We The Reasonable think you to be delusional.
But, maybe start with learning.
Google: Island-scale study reveals climate-change effects
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
Oktoberfesting 1 year ago
2/2 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
watch?v=bgKr480RYc4
Oktoberfesting 1 year ago
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
.
Allen West 2012
Oktoberfesting 1 year ago
What were they thinking in 2008 :D
Eimuxxx 1 year ago
In case you didn't know, this scientist's salary is paid by exxon mobil.
baumann96 1 year ago
@baumann96
I love how you say that with NO evidence. Do you even know where Townsville is? This guy is professor of a friend of mine. Yeh Exxon mobil funds a guy who lives in bumkin Townsville in a standard apartment... You idiot
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
So, we don't know whether we're in a cooling or warming state; there's too much noise in the climate system to determine how we are affecting the climate, if at all, and what of it is natural and what's us, but! "We will have one degree of cooling and we've experienced 75% of it so far" -Facts and figures from Bob's crystal ball. An impressive interview...
AmbientSmiley 1 year ago
‘Last month was the coldest December documented for the UK since nationwide records began 100 years ago, the Met Office has confirmed.
However, the first analysis released of global temperatures shows 2010 was one of the WARMIST years on record.
The UK's harsh weather was caused by ANOMALOUSLY high air pressure that blocked mild westerly winds and brought cold air south from the Arctic.’
w w w.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12119329
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@blackadderthe4
Yeah the British Brainwashing Corporation is a real unbiased source. Good one!
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@TaqiyyaExposer
'Its simply a matter of trusting elite banking families or corporate CEO's.' or perversely trusting the vast majority of climatologists.
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
Bob Carter is on the board of conservative think-tanks which have idealogical & financial grounds for their views (they are funded by fossil fuel companies). See source w a t ch. c o m. The official policy for these organizations is to delay government decisions and sow doubt, and question that there is a consensus. See Naomi Oreskes book "Merchants of Doubt"- the same organisations (and often the same people)successfully used the same tactics to delay action on tobacco for the tobacco lobby.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1
Yeah and the Rothschild's fund and promote the Global Warming agenda. Its simply a matter of trusting elite banking families or corporate CEO's.
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
The assertion that "most climate scientists sit in the middle" is a lie. More than 97% of published climate scientists say that CO2 is to blame, and that increasing CO2 levels may lead to disastrous effects on the planet. Check out skeptical science. com.Bob Carter does not talk about the interaction between CO2 and water vapor and the oceans. And as far as "temperature rising is just an opinion", maybe it is also "just the opinion" of satellite and global temperature measurements stations.
indulis1 1 year ago
@indulis1
Was there such a thing as a climate scientist BEFORE the global warming fear? There were some, but since the hysteria there are thousands. Their paycheck relies on CO2 being the blame and you know it. I mean, Why would a climate scientist say otherwise. The fact is every day less and less people believe this bullshit. I can almost say "What! They still make people like you?"
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
@phantomscolts2
Your focus is money (misinformed at best). Try shifting to what's really at stake; habitability. Without it you have nothing else. If you think it is wrong to use the best science available to defend it then you are delusional.
.
Google: Getting warmer: Climatologist says it's time to act on global warming
.
Google: Climate change calculations put millions at risk, says new report
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
What... are there still people who believe that the sky is falling? Dude, you're going to be okay. Take a deep breath, step out of the circle, now exhale slowly...... there we go, feeling a bit better now?
TaqiyyaExposer 1 year ago
Many just want someone to tell them that they have nothing to worry about, that every thing is just fine. That form of willing delusion may make them more comfortable but ignoring the overwhelming evidence would be at the expense of those that come after. carter is one of the few scientists that is a contrarian on this issue. He has nothing of substance to back up his claims. NO STUDIES! Again, he may sound good to some as he reinforces what they WANT to hear. I prefer no such delusion.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@phantom .
No, I have never tried to "play" scientist. That should be left to those that have studied the science. bob carter has NEVER completed a study on how humans affect climate. I asked him. His field of study has been ancient sea floor deposits and associated climates. So yes, just because you hear carter talking like he has a clue doesn't mean he does. Rely on those that currently study the issue. Among them there is no credible debate. Any respected contrary evidence? No, none.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal . Busted for more fudged data , . . . . . . . . . . Kiwi records show no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared . . . . Its not Science its an agenda
ozzycriss 1 year ago
Bob Carter lies in the first 2 minutes, I can't stand to watch much further!
manwichstick 1 year ago
@manwichstick Prove that he's wrong ! Check the scientific papers, don't read the conclusions on the news(papers), read it yourself, check the facts and come back and prove it right here in a few words that he lies.
detrolleur 1 year ago
@detrolleur
" Check the scientific papers"
Of course.
The IPCC does not think the earth goes up "about one degree" with a doubling of CO2. He is ignoring feedbacks, which the IPCC does not.
manwichstick 1 year ago
@manwichstick elaborate please point by point what you consider to be untrue?
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
Its not true though what hes saying because the NZ climate science coalition does not give the balanced facts.It excludes some facts and hypes others to side with the alarmists.In this video he makes the blanket statement not backed by facts that WE are adding to the atmosphere.When C02 is actually down and lags behind temperature which means temperature drive C02.We humans are not adding to the atmosphere in any legible amounts its been proven and he excluded it.Shill.
IdunCareLesSn00b 1 year ago
Bob Carter is a right-wing tool famous for saying that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not... a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of the research."
To hear him tell it, one man's opinion should be enough. To hell with what everybody else thinks, even if they have been studying the problem for decades. And the question of money is irrelevant? Only a fool would think so.
aerospacejunkie 1 year ago
@aerospacejunkie Another fool who doesn't have the science behind him attacking the messenger with all sorts of irrelevancies.
hetketimun 1 year ago
Protecting the environment is not a feel good thing, unlike the "health of the economy" stuff, ie the more we consume, produce and the economy grows the more happy we are. Basically what Bob Carter is saying is that we don't have to take responsibility for something we can't control, when he just pointed out earlier that the science of greenhouse emissions and climatology tells us we are responsible. Someone sounds like they are in denial!
jemmre 1 year ago
@jemmre
Did you even bother listening to the man? Sounds like you deny evidence that opposes your presuppositions, which therefore makes YOU a denier. Do you also deny the Holocaust? (because that's the implication you ignorant fool)
So what do you have a PHD in?... And which universities can I hear YOUR lectures?
slowerthanjordans 1 year ago
Balanced middle. Sounds like Fox news
jemmre 1 year ago
Humans have no effect ion climate only greenies from Australia would think that ! He is a cretin , call me. ! Urban warming causes a temp rise..highre temp more vapour , more cloud , more solar reflection . We know that because if it wasn't this way we would have been like Mars many millions of years ago . ! All Aussies are total uneducated tossers !
klnine 1 year ago
Time to wake up and demand that utilities move to sustainable energy generation. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the planet has just come through the warmest decade, the warmest 12 months, the warmest six months, and the warmest April, May, and June on record.
Is it too late? We'll probably never know but the only rational, the only moral thing to do is to try.
bob carter does nothing but spread disinformation.
Credible experts say, take action NOW.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs There is no need to force utilitiates to move to sustainable energy production. Eventually, the scarcity of goods will get so high the prices will become unbreable and thus the need to change to sustainable energy production voluntarily.
Yeah, according to what record? Are they talking about the history of the planet Earth? The history of the human race? Or since 1880? What timeframe? "Warmest decade on record" is a vague assertion.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns Same old trick. If you don't want a reply, don't click on "reply", just post.
Sure, eventually we will be forced to move off fossil fuels because their supplies will dwindle. But, that just means business as usual until then. The experts tell us that dumping the rest of the fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere is hazardous to our health.
It will take mandatory reductions otherwise short-term interests will prevail. Didn't we cover externalities, the Cuyahoga River, etc.?
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
The first half of 2010 has been the hottest in history.
jago76 1 year ago
@jago76 What history? What timeframe? In the Holocene period alone there have been three periods hotter than today...so why do the Polar Bears still exist? Why do humans still exist?
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
Bob Carter, pisses me off... He says that most independent scientists lie in the middle. Name them then Bob, give us the number of scientists and their names so we can be sure you're not just pulling figures from your arse.
crypticpickle 1 year ago
The deep freeze is nothing to be laughed at. I assume you're joking when you're laughing because the Brits are not amused. The queen has come to Canada to warm up. Will she be surprised. It's cold and rainy here. Lately we've been getting summer in September. Better late than never.
patioperson 1 year ago
Bob Carter had NO respected scientific institutions that agree with his core position. And, he has NO studies to back up his opinions. I asked him. He's a marine geologist who mainly studies ancient climate. Google these debunkings.
Google: Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air
Google: How Bob Carter diddled his data
For what the credible experts say try the following link.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wiki
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs ,,,, Science is not about consensus, ok!. Science is about rasing a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. The hypothesis is; ‘Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming’. Bob Carter and many other scientists are testing that hypothesis and that hypothesis is simply failing the tests.
aus2045 1 year ago
@aus2045 Science is about research, study, review, testing, etc. ok!
bob carter has NEVER completed a study about how humans affect climate, NEVER. I asked him. He is a marine geologist and has written many papert about ancient climates.
If you can find ONE respected scientific institution that says the warming is an overall "good" thing or that we aren't warming the planet please send me a link.
The "test failing" is that almost all projections have been too conservative.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs the guy is encouraging rigorous scientific debate. theres absolutetly nothing wrong with that.
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
@alexhamster1134 No, the guy presents himself as an expert in how human activity affects climate. It isn't his field of study.
I recommend not using the word "debate". There is no credible debate in the scientific community. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences may well be dire. Any poorly based opinions by people that call themselves experts give credibility to a position where none exists.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wikipedia
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs any "opinions" must surely be backed up, no matter who they come from. i think the guy isnt asserting anything concrete, just saying "this is an area which needs more study". sure finite CO2 emissions are adding to the atmosphere, but how much is this affecting the planet? 1%? 0.0001%? nobody can tell for certain, we only have accurate measurements of temp in the order of 10's of years. extrapolating temps from fossils/rocks/trees is not confirmation or denial of man made cc.
alexhamster1134 1 year ago
@alexhamster1134 .
Yea, I've had an email converstation with bob carter. He has never studied how our current climate can be affected by human activity. He has studied PAST climates based on marine geology. And of course, this area needs more study but what does that mean. Does it discredit all the current studies? No.
As for the composition of the atmosphere, I recommend that you don't try to "play" scientist unless you are qualified. A little knowledge is dangerous.
Studies are clear.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago