Refuting Liberal Talking Points: Anthropogenic Global Warming

[TheEclipsenow]

You were worried about the IPCC's admission that there are some variables in solar they are still tracking down. That they are! But we can be fairly certain that it is not the sun given the increase in temperatures are measurable at night and winter. Also, check this peer-reviewed graph where solar activity drops while the temperature still increases!

skepticalscience[dot]com/solar­-activity-sunspots-global-warm­ing.htm

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "there are some variables" Some? How did they rate their understanding of it? "solar activity drops while the temp increases" There are other variables, such as cloud cover & other albedo iac(dot)es/galeria/epalle/repr­ints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007(do­t)pdf "natural changes in global cloud cover over the 21 yr. period 1983-04 are responsible for at least 3X as much GW as has been attributed to GG over from 1900-2004." The paper also criticizes GCMs for not accounting for this.

[TheEclipsenow]

Lies list 4: (I just thought I'd save you the bother). Warming will cause an ice age in Europe Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming Can we trust the science? Chaotic systems are not predictable We can't trust computer models of climate Many leading scientists question climate change It's all a conspiracy Once again, the above is all rubbish and all debunked here. tinyurl[dot].com/5rn2e8

[TheEclipsenow]

Lies list 3: It's too cold where I live - warming will be great We can't do anything about climate change Is the sun to blame? Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans It's all down to cosmic rays What happened in the past? The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

[TheEclipsenow]

Lies list 2:

Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

[TheEclipsenow]

How about I list the top 28 or so myths for you then? here they are, all lies.

Lies list 1:

Any cooling disproves global warming

Global warming stopped in 1998

Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Polar bear numbers are increasing

The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

The oceans are cooling

Mars and Pluto are warming too

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming" As I said in the vid, according to satellite measurements since 1978, Antarctica en masse is just fine. S. Hem sea ice has been trending up from the 1978-2000 mean. Oh, if you spam like this again, I'll just ban you, it seems you're looking for attention and it's obvious you're quite upset. Try to control yourself.

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector RE: Spam — you have jumped around form accusation to accusation, never clearly finishing one topic. So I thought I'd post the top 28 Denialist myths and that took 4 posts. I'm sorry if you think it's spam, but I was basically replying in kind to the way you jump around and never nail one topic or at least agree what the PEER REVIEWED science says, and then go off and choose to disagree with it! Rather than admit what the science says you just change the subject.

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "RE SPAM" This is rich, just coming from someone parroting links & doing nothing but quote mining. You brought up Sinclair at the start of our discussion and parroted his false data concerning sea ice concentrations in the S. Hem. He obviously (Steve Goddard called him out on this) misunderstands that when it's summer in the Arctic, it's winter in the S. Hem. "name the most compelling argument that mankind is NOT forcing the climate" Negative proof fallacy, take a philosophy class mate.

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: Before I shove off for the night, I wanted to inform you again, that your silly chest-thumping concerning climate change is quite gratuitious. Even the IPCC itself doesn't support your Googled conclusions on climate forcings. You act as if all variables are known, they aren't. Please quit making a fool of yourself. ipcc(dot)ch/publications_and_d­ata/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1(dot)h­tml

[TheEclipsenow]

Let's try it this way: please name the most compelling argument that mankind is NOT forcing the climate by adding billions of tons of Co2 and other greenhouses gases when modern physics CAN measure the Radiative Forcing of these gases and CAN tell us how much extra energy these gases will trap.

Look mate, I'm not even a scientist but even I can tell you're out. When the weak 1500 year myth was your opening salvo, well, what else have you got? Warming stopped in 1998? ;-)

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "what else have you got? Warming stopped in 1998?" You said since 2006 the ice loss in East Antarctica was worse than previously thought. You were using the same argument. Hilarious! Again, the warming since the beginning of the satellite record is a small % of earth's history. East Ant. was warmer 650K years ago, yet CO2 & methane levels were lower. co2science(dot)org/articles/V8­/N49/EDIT(dot)php Still haven't seen a response from you concerning Sinclair's confusion on global sea ice.

[TheEclipsenow]

Please name one National Academy of Science that disagrees with AGW? If there isn't, please explain? Aren't you going to be out there with "Aliens at Area51" or the "Moon Landing was faked" conspirators if there isn't ONE National Academy that disagrees with Co2's role in AGW?

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "name one National Academy of Science that disagrees with AGW" that's an ad populum appeal & your consensus argument is flawed anyways. watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 I didn't think you'd get that desperate that quick. "Moon landing" What kind of ad hominem deviation is this? "Arctic sea ice is trending down" Correct, never said it wasn't. Antarctic sea ice extent for March (height of the melt season) has been trending up for some time.

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector

"name one National Academy of Science that disagrees with AGW"

ad populum appeal works for non-specialists in an area.

EG: You have 30 diagnoses telling you that your cancer required drastic surgery but just 1 that said there was nothing to worry about, you're going with the 1 are you? Oh, I forgot, you couldn't find the 1.

Try again: please name ONE National Academy of Science that disagrees with AGW.

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: Again, see my vid at watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 your consensus argument is dead. Sorry! "Hurricane Katrina" Actually, there is no connection between hurricane activity, tropical cyclone activity & CO2 levels, see my "mccainisthroughx refutation station" and the links underneath it. I never saw a response from you on the NAVY PIPS data I gave you. Your camp's statement that warming since 1978 is laughable, that's less than 0.00000001% of earth's history.

[TheEclipsenow]

We're talking about Stanford University agricultural scientists — are they in on the conspiracy as well? ;-) Again 2 minutes in— same video. Note: with extra Co2, some plants have LESS toxins and so bugs eat them devastating crop yields.

/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI

But some crops have MORE toxins with extra Co2! Confusing, ain't it?

abc.net[dot]au/science/article­s/2009/06/30/2612653.htm

That's why us non-scientists should shut up about our politics and humbly submit to the scientific experts!

[TheEclipsenow]

We're talking about Stanford University agricultural scientists — are they in on the conspiracy as well? ;-)

/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI

[TheEclipsenow]

Some plants love 'taters', some don't! Some crops gain higher levels of 'natural pesticides' or toxins! Forgot to listen to your regular science show did you? Man, just listening to a regular science podcast like "The Science Show" from ABC or Science Talk from Scientific American would have filled you in on these details! Global warming is not a simple story, and you sound like you want it REAL simple. Yes, maybe some crops *will* do better. But once again you've proved you know *nothing*.

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: Incorrect, in all these situations where scientists have increased CO2 far beyond ambient levels (as well as nitrogen levels & precipitation) they have either done very well or had a minimal positive response. In the link under the vid, I also listed all the references to the journals where the information was gleaned. Scientific American predicted hurricane levels would increase with CO2, but that's been proven false (see my "mccainisthroughx refutation station")

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector Wrong again! *Some* crops might enjoy extra Co2, others become more toxic or produce less fruit. 10 minutes please! "Climate Crock" covers this well, and shows the peer-reviewed science behind Co2 and plant food. (About 2 minutes in).

/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI

[TheEclipsenow]

Here's the answer to the "EVERY 1500 YEARS" crap you're holding in your hands! This guy isn't even a climatologist, but hangs out with them and, um, actually READS the science. (Something I suggest you learn to do).

/watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8&feature=r­elated

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: You mad? I wouldn't hang my hat on Sinclair (stevengoddard(dot)wordpress(d­ot)com/2010/11/24/peter-sincla­ir-disastrously-clueless-about­-ice), he made a grievous error when analysing global sea ice. He seemed to be confused about how sea ice in the S. Hem could be increasing (in its winter) while Arctic ice was melting. Apparently he's also unaware how large the area of sea ice is south of the equator.

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: In the Sinclair vid you parroted, he tags ocean acidification, however (nipccreport(dot)org/articles/­2011/may/31may2011a5(dot)html) reconstructed pH levels for the South China Sea (last 7000 yrs) and Flinders Reef (last 300yrs) who a high variability in pH levels. There are countless arguments I could use demonstrating decadal (and longer time scales) variability. In addition, clam mortality was reduced in lower pH levels (nipccreport(dot)org/articles/­2011/jun/8jun2011a5(dot)html)

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector OK, so you've moved on to talking about ocean acidification & clam shells but didn't address the original point on the 1500 year thing? I'm not going to chase every ball you toss out. If you make a claim and I provide a counter-claim, that's the conversation, not everything else you happen to disagree with in the counter claim. So can we do the 1500 year ocean thing please?

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "ocean acidification" It was tagged in the Sinclair vid you parroted. "chase every ball" I don't care. Ocean pH levels are germane to natural climatological oscillations. "some crops have more toxins" I suggest you check " response of potato to elevated atmospheric CO2 in the North American Subarctic: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112: 49-57 -- Energy balance & water use efficiency of rice canopies under free-air CO2 enrichement: Agricultural & Forest Meteorology 133: 226-246

[TheEclipsenow]

There's no respect for science here. I really HOPE that some young scientist hotshot shows THE safety valve that will save us from global warming. But his work would have to be published in the peer-reviewed journals. Denialists publishing outside the peer-reviewed circles aren't heroes but are selling lies to a general public greedy for lies. You've lapped it up.

abc.net[dot]au/catalyst/storie­s/s948858.htm

This results in *pockets* of cooling while Earth cooks.

[TheEclipsenow]

You're also so wrong about Antarctica. Recent science specials on the Australian ABC have shown there IS cooling in parts but warming in other parts. We're talking about adding more energy to the GLOBAL climate system which increases trapped energy and results in some higher wind speeds. In circular vortex storms like the permanent vortex over Antarctica colder air can be trapped.

abc.net[dot]au/catalyst/storie­s/s948858.htm

This results in *pockets* of cooling while Earth cooks.

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "You're so wrong about Antarctica." Uh, S. Hem sea ice (in March, at the height of the melt season) has been trending upwards since 1978. NSIDC would verify this. "the sun is 2% warmer now" I assume by "now" you mean the Holocene? What about the Maunder Minimum during the LIA? If the sun is warmer now, that wouldn't help your argument attributing climate change to CO2.

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector ""the sun is 2% warmer now" I assume by "now" you mean the Holocene?""

No, I mean than back when Co2 was at 2000ppm with the Dinosaurs!

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector Arctic sea ice is trending down as it gets thinner and thinner. (Even though the seasonal regrowth still happens, it's 1 year only, not multi-year thick ice).

en.wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Sea_­ice#Monitoring_and_observation­s

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "thinner and thinner" Actually, NAVY PIPS indicates that ice greater than 2.5 meters thick was increasing. stevengoddard(dot)wordpress(do­t)com/2010/12/31/area-of-thick­-arctic-ice-has-doubled-in-the­-last-two-years "global dimming" So all we have to do is shut down those coal plants and we'll start cooking? Was global dimming running wild during the Maunder Minimum & the LIA? Did the "scrubbers" malfunction in the S. Hem the last 10 years?

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector Now, Antarctica ice.

"Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too ...

....since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought. [12]

tinyurl[dot]com/3mcdwbp

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: "since 2006" you complained about me using small time frames, now you're using them. LOL to that. And no, NSIDC still indicates that S. Hem sea ice extent (March avg) has been increasing for some time. Even your parrot Sinclair admitted that. There was also a massive warm-up (although it wasn't unprecedented, it happened during the MWP too) in the Antarctic Peninsula too, doesn't mean the whole continent is a boiler. co2science(dot)org/articles/V1­3/N47/EDIT(dot)php

[TheEclipsenow]

Greenland air temperatures? Are you kidding us? Dude, learn about the difference between weather, short term climate, and long term climate trends. Weather is like a kid splashing in the bash, short term climate like El Nino & La Nina is like waves in the bath, and AGW is like leaving the tap on. YES sometimes a wave will go over the edge from the kid splashing, but how much worse if we leave the tap on?

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: it's common for your camp to discard any data that runs contrary to your hypothesis (the N. Hem had a cooling from 1958-78, is that long enough?), but your own time frame (since the satellite era) is a very small portion of earth's existence. Anyways, since 78, the warming has mostly occurred in the N. Hem and especially the Arctic. Since 1978, the S. Hem has had warmed very little. Again, this is satellite data. appinsys(dot)com/GlobalWarming­/GW_NotGlobal(dot)htm

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector "the N. Hem had a cooling from 1958-78, is that long enough?" Ever hear of global dimming? Burning coal without chimney scrubbers will add a huge amount of pollution (sulphur particulates) which blot out the sun. It's so successful this is our backup plan if the climate runs away — pump sulfur up 15km high through huge hoses held up by blimps! Any lower, and acid rain becomes a real problem, which is why we cleaned up coal and put scrubbers in. That's why temps rose.

[TheEclipsenow]

@UTubekookdetector "it's common for your camp to discard any data that runs contrary to your hypothesis (the N. Hem had a cooling from 1958-78, is that long enough?)"

Are you kidding? This is the COAL calling the kettle black. Denialists discard the law of physics like spectrometry readings off greenhouse gas molecules. They just wish away these fundamental laws of physics. They also repeatedly, STUBBORNLY ignore peer-reviewed climate journals that explain the global dimming cooling after WW2.

[UTubekookdetector]

ECP: Lubos Motl thinks your argument concerning coal & scrubbers (I had to laugh at your Godwin's Law violation, I knew you couldn't resist) is rather poor, I do too. motls(dot)blogspot(dot)com/201­1/07/did-chinese-coal-cause-co­oling-since(dot)html I also didn't see you respond to my critique of SInclair's apparent '"confusion" as to when winter occurs in the S.Hem, as well as his apparent confusion pertaining to Arctic ice decreases and S.Hem sea ice increases.

[TheEclipsenow]

3. How much worse now than back in the deep pre-history of climate science. The sun is 2% warmer now than back when the dinosaurs ruled. Ever think of that? There's a MAJOR forcing difference.

[TheEclipsenow]

2. So why do I care about global warming? It's all about context. Let's think about water. It is great, it's natural, we need it to live. If in a drought, you pray for it. But in a flood or Tsunami or being forced to drink 10 gallons so you die from "water poisoning"? Not good! No more water please! *Context*. There was no fragile agriculturally dependent civilisation hundreds of millions of years ago, but there was STILL a massive dieoff event! (wiki ELE and see 5.2.5)

[TheEclipsenow]

1. Yes, earth HAS had climate catastrophes from volcanic induced CO2. Even worse (apparently for the climatologists) Co2 once saved life on earth! Google "Snowball Earth Theory". Volcanoes poking up through the ice saved us from freezing over!

[UTubekookdetector]

The user "checkyoursources" was banned because he kept deleting my comments on his channel. He has comment approval up and insists on being able to post on others' vids & channels, but isn't so eager to allow others to post on his channel.

[checkyoursources]

Name a major solar observation dataset that shows a sun showing an increased TSI in the last decade? PMOD from the WRC shows cooling sun, NASA SORCE shows cooling sun. Despite this the last decade was the warmest on modern record according to the WMO. The sun is not the primary driver of recent warming.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: Incorrect, the jury's still out on that. In (Astronomy & Astrophysics 529, A67 (2011) the authors (A.I. Shapiro, S. Nyeki, A.V. Shapiro et al) state in part: "The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for teh natural forcing of past climate changes on time scales of 50-1000 yrs... During the past 10K yrs. the Sun has experienced substantial variations in activity." TSI began to climb about 100 yrs. ago.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector The paper is based on the premise that there are small magnetic fields between the sunspots and there's no doubt that over 30 years the TSI trend was downward.The Shapiro paper even admits on page 5:"We note that our conclusions can not be tested on the basis

of the last 30 years of solar observations because, according to

the proxy data, the Sun was in a maximum plato state in its long term

evolution." try again....

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: You ignore their conclusion that there has in fact been massive variability, they're not claiming it's been peak-trough-peak-trough. TSI began climbing circa 1900, shortly after the end of the LIA. Again, your 30-year snapshot doesn't prove much on an earth that is how old? They also state it's for time scales greater than 30 yrs. You seem to be stuck on these small time frames (e.g. your pasted recital of the 1961-90 base period). Too short a time frame, you do get an "E" for effort

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: You also ignore the role of clouds in albedo. Natural changes in global cloud cover over the 1983-04 time frame are responsible for at least 3X as much global warming than has been attributed to greenhouse gases over the time frame 1900-2004. The paper (iac(dot)es/galeria/epalle/rep­rints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007(d­ot)pdf) finds the decrease in reflectance from clouds over the past 21 yrs. is responsible for a change in solar energy hitting earth. GCMs fail miserably pertaining to clouds

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector 1) Do you accept that the sun has not been a primary driver for 30 years or more?

2) Water vapour is the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming. The radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997).

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: 1) Do you accept the fact that your 30-year snapshot (which is then compared to another roughly 30year snapshot) on an earth that is how old is utterly meaningless as I've pointed out many times. 2) Your point here is undercut by the MWP et al time periods where methane & CO2 levels were much lower. Your statement on positive/negative climate feedbacks is WOEFULLY generalized. " Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years." Yet temps have seen many peaks and troughs.

[checkyoursources]

Climate reacts to whatever is forcing it at the time, Anthropogenic global warming is currently the best explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's as agreed by every major scientific academy on the planet and by the vast majority of peer reviewed articles by actively publishing climatologists. See anderegg 2010 and Doran 2009.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: Still using ad populum appeals? Apparently you didn't check the info I gave in my last post, the consensus argument is DOA. You totally avoiding the few examples I gave you in my last post as well. Most of the warming since the last 70s is N. Hemisphere and especially in the Arctic. The S. Hem. has seen a very small warming since then. In the last decade, we've had a slight cooling. What about those 3 interglacials in the Arctic in just the last 9K years?

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector Why aren't you looking at the GLOBAL picture? e.g. "Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records"-WMO

Interglacials can be caused by many factors as can warming which has been amplified by man made emissions e.g. Lightning can cause fire and so can matches, do you disagree?

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: I had a suspended pretend doctor named mccainisthrough try the same thing. You're using a 30-year base period (on a planet that is how old?) that excludes the 1930s, which were relatively hot. Much of the surface-air temp. record is unreliable due to the UHI and lack of coverage. For example, the WMO states that there is a huge lack of surface-air weather stations in most of Africa and much of S. America. When the USSR fell, the # of stations plummeted.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector We have had satellite coverage for the important time period, namely the last 35 years when most warming is observed to have been occuring in the modern temp record. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions and datasets. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: Incorrect, even the satellite data itself indicates a cooling trend over the last 10 yrs. and since 1978, the warming in the S. Hemisphere (on an earth that is how old?) is minimal. The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed, but Antarctic en masse hasn't. Sea takes longer to warm? No kidding and so what? Are you going to promote a continental drift conspiracy. Again, your snapshot of warming over 30+ years isn't much of a snapshot on an earth that is how old?

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector Nope, every dataset land, space and ocean based shows warming over the last decade WMO: "In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998"

. By comparing the current change to past changes we can se that only AGW fits the current fingerprint for warming best, no natural factor , such as the sun, explains the current warming well enough.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: Again, your 61-90 snapshot isn't much on an earth that is how old? It also excludes the 30s and considering the N. Hemisphere had a cooling trend from 58-78 (this is verified by comparing modern satellite readings with radiosonde data) it doesn't surprise me. Much ado about nothing.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. We have records going back to the 1880's plus proxies going bcak 100's of thousands of years and beyond. Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming. Are you actually denying that humans have had any effect on recent climate even though 97% of climatologisty papers and every major science academy on the planet disagree with you?

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: I see you've come full-circle back to your "consensus" appeal, which I already debunked when you tried it days ago. "We have records going back...plus proxies going bcak 100's of thousands of years." Correct, and a lot of that data makes your hypothesis look silly. I responded on my channel to your quote-mining concerning what the NAS said about the MWP.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect from human emissions of CO2. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: "If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up." Very simplistic. You're ignoring natural carbon sinks, natural climate variability (which is a phrase climatologists use often to avoid things being painted with a broad brush, as you do) & all positive and negative feedbacks via soils, clouds, albedo. Your first sentence is certainly a self-refuting head-scratcher.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector Currently, humans are emitting around 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. Some is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans but approx 43% remains in the atmosphere - this is called the 'airborne fraction'. Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: "Some [CO2] is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans but approx 43% remains in the atmosphere." What about clouds and their positive feedbacks? GCMs haven't figured those out yet. "Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance." No, it just proves there can be massive climate change void of higher CO2 & methane. The "warming" since 1978 isn't much, especially in the S. Hem. appinsys(dot)com/GlobalWarming­/GW_NotGlobal(dot)htm

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: "Interglacials can be caused by many factors as can warming" You certainly don't sound too confident. I am looking at the global picture. Since the late 70s, the warming is mostly in the N. Hemisphere and that is mostly restricted to the Arctic. Your statement about AGW amplification is pure conjecture. There have been 3 interglacials in the Arctic, just in the last 9K years alone.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector Most warming has been in the N. Hemisphere in a variety of regions because it has the most land coverage, (the sea takes longer to warm but it's warming too: )

in addition parts of the Antarctic South America and Southern Africa have also seen significant warming, Overall the globe has warmed according to every interntional dataset, even those few scientists called "skeptics" admit their data shows warming. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time!

[checkyoursources]

1) Every major national science academy on the planet disagrees with you.

2) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time and humans are now the dominant forcing yet your argument is along the lines of- in the past lightning started fires so matches cannot start fires?!

3) What do you consider to be a more likely factor than humans for explaining the majority of warming since the 1970's?

[UTubekookdetector]

CHEC: 1) Ad populum alert. There isn't a consensus and even if there was, it wouldn't prove your point. watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 See the links under "climate change consensus debunked" under the vid. 2) What was the "dominate forcing" concerning the 3 interglacials in the Vostok Core? 3) 1970-2010 would be an awful small sample on an earth that is how old according to you? Even Phil Jones admitted, the US hasn't warmed since 98. Antarctica et al places have seen climate change with lower CO2 levels.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector "proof" and science are not the same, science is about working out the MOST LIKELY explanation. Only religious people ask for "proof".

When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period. Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998!

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: 3) What was the cause... when Mexico saw a sea level rise of over 6.5 ft about 140K years ago? The Arctic to be ice-free or nearly ice-free many times before the auto? The largest area of permafrost in the world (China) was half its current size 6K years ago. The Antarctic Peninsula saw its ice coverage below current levels during the MWP. I consider natural climatological changes (El Nino, La Nina, ENSO), ocean currents, etc to be a better explanation than your simplistic rag

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. No natural factors fit the fingerprint of current warming. Your comment is like saying that only natural factors can cause change or that only lightning can cause a fire, not matches.

[HorseCents]

Yes, liberals want to blame all the world's sins on the Chosen species! Man cannot harm any aspect of nature, let alone make an oven of the air.

It is a fact that sharks cause most of the overfishing that gets blamed on Man, and the wind blows down 7 times more trees each year than people cut with saws.

People also have nothing to do with smog over cities - that's caused by trees (Reagan said so).

Look it up.

[UTubekookdetector]

HORSE: I've seen your vids, they probably impress little children. I see you're staying true to form, no serious dialougue, you're trying to be comedic. Here's what you'll explain in your next post. 1) What caused the numerous interglacials in the Vostok Core? 2) What caused the Arctic to be ice-free or nearly ice-free long before the auto? 3) What caused the 1920-30 temp. rise in Greenland? 4) CO2 levels in the past were up to 4 times higher than today. Stay on topic too. Good luck.

[UTubekookdetector]

HORSE: I'm still waiting for your reply (unless you were just trolling for attention and you're not serious). You do realize logging companies actually replant trees, right. Cutting them all down without replacing them would kind of cost them their jobs, wouldn't it? For those interested, HORSE's video on overpopulation was pure comedy, a bad joke. He hasn't read anything demographers have been saying for the past few decades. watch?v=Khq1YuC4hi4

[HorseCents]

@UTubekookdetector, come October 21, 2011 it will all be for naught anyhow. More trees will fall than you can shake a branch at, and it won't be Weyerhaeuser's fault.

[UTubekookdetector]

HORSE: That's all you've got after a month? In your next post you'll answer the questions I asked you (and quit trying to segue into unrelated topics) or you won't be posting here anymore. No more stalling. How would you explain the MWP, when temps were comporable to today, yet CO2 levels were much lower? Exit question: Do you believe AGW is feuling more frequent & destructive tornadoes & hurricanes? Good luck.

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector The 30-year-average for April tornadoes in the USA is 135. The monthly record was 542.

The preliminary number of tornadoes reported in April 2011 is 875. I'm not saying this is AGW but it's certainly interesting regarding your comment.

The MWP was not globally warmer than today!

When Co2 levels were lower the sun's TSI was higher.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: All generalized nonsense. I've refuted your point on tornadoes at my featured vid. A recent paper published in "Astronomy & Astrophysics" finds that solar activity has increased since the LIA by far more than previous assumed by the IPCC. The MWP was certainly comporable or hotter than today in AK, NY, Finland, Switzerland, China & the Antarctic Peninsula. "When Co2 levels were lower the sun's TSI was higher." Which interglacial are you talking about?

[checkyoursources]

@UTubekookdetector While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions. -National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions.

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

[UTubekookdetector]

CHECK: You've now deevolved to the point of quote mining. Earlier, you tried the ad populum appeal, which has been debunked and your statement "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend" is certainly not consensus. Hey, if you're online, how come you haven't approved my comments on your channel?

[quidproquo2004]

Haha, a conservative making a joke about talking heads pontificating? Don't forget your Limbaughs, your Becks, and your O'Reillys.

[UTubekookdetector]

QUID: Haha, a libtard making a joke about talking heads pontificating? Don't forget your Overbites, Malloys, & Schultz's. What's even more funny is that is the ONLY item you chose to comment on.

[tantpwei]

Search the news - global warming caused a devastating flood in Brazil, while record drought persists in South-western China. Last year in 2009, global warming caused record flood in North Western England, in Jeddah Saudi Arabia, in Singapore and many parts of the world while record drought is seen in India, Australia and Kenya. The climate of the entire world is messed up by Anthropogenic Global Warming. AGW causes El Nino - La Nina cycle to be much shorter and severe.

[UTubekookdetector]

TANT: AGW causes floods and droughts? It seems you're proposing a "theory" that can take credit for anything. It seems the only way you're wrong is if the climate never changes, which is a foolish proposal. The climate has changed many times on this ancient earth and it will always change.

Search the news? I've documented from peer-reviewed journals numerous instances of catastrophic climate change before the automobile.

[UTubekookdetector]

To those who are interested, I've responded to this "JMKL" character before, he heavily relies on climate modeling for many of his points and totally misunderstand natural carbon sinks and the role cloud cover plays in albedo.

freewebs . com/professor_enigma.youtubeko­oks . htm#368989210

[JabbrWockey]

Similarly, stating that there is a need for environmental policy reform does not justify skipping the logic needed. Sure, we may need to diminish our reliance on foreign oil, but the need alone does not offer proof that anthropogenic climate change occurs.

[JabbrWockey]

But many are making the same common mistake. Correllation does not mean causation. If you are going to claim that climate change is anthropogenic, then you need to provide the proof. Simply stating that it is "too complex" to understand or that "there is already heaps proof" is merely a poor effort to shed the burden of proof.

[JmkLcAeJsm]

It's a very simple matter of input-output analysis. We know the amount and fequency distribution of incoming radiation, and we know the same for radiation reflected. We know the exact composition of the atmosphere, and how each component interacts with the various different types of radiation. Then you chew the maths. And you find that increasing levels of CO2 will result in substantial temperature increases, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

[UTubekookdetector]

That sounds good until you begin looking at some of the peer-reviewed literature--such as East Antarctica being warmer during the Holocene, yet CO2 and methan levels were lower.

watch?v=igffQB0QsQk

In addition, this planet has seen CO2 levels more than 4 times today's levels.

[JmkLcAeJsm]

Please tell me you get understand that's completely irrelevant, or does your understanding of science not even encompass the 'all other things being equal' part of my comment?

[UTubekookdetector]

I hate to break this to you, but your pretence that higher CO2 and methane etc. levels drive temperatures higher is not a consensus, in fact there is peer-reviewed literature challenging that very assertion.

That's your problem, you're going off as if this and that are settled, I'm afraid it's not.

[JmkLcAeJsm]

But, there completely is ceteris paribus, find me a paper that says they don't I challenge you.

[UTubekookdetector]

JMK, does your "math chewing" take into account natural sources that sequester carbon (oceans, soils & plants), weak or strong Schwabe cycles, decadal oscillations, or the failures of computer climate modeling?

We've already corrected you on carbon sequestering on soils as well as climate model predictions for monsoon weather and cloud albedo.

[JmkLcAeJsm]

You literally don't understand anything do you?

It's remarkable. What the hell's so difficult to understand about 'all other things being equal'?

[UTubekookdetector]

Maybe you should take a break JMK, you seem to be getting frustrated. I have a challenge for you bub.

Find an anthropogenic source for:

1) 6.5-10ft rise in sea leve in Mexico 120K years ago 2) Largest area of permafrost in the world (China) seeing a 50% reduction in area during the Middle Holocene 3) Greenland Ice Sheet warming during the 1920s (2-4 deg. C) 4) Saharan climate change circa 4K years ago 5) Climate change in Brit. Col. a few thousand years ago. Good luck.

[JmkLcAeJsm]

What do you understand the hypothesis about global warming to be? You seem to be terribly confused about what the contention of climate scientists is.

[UTubekookdetector]

The climate of this planet has changed numerous times in its ancient past and the current period is no exception.

I would say you're the one that's terribly confused my friend, due to your reliance on climate "modeling."

[UTubekookdetector]

I think my video at watch?v=igffQB0QsQk answers a lot of what this JMK character is saying. I've responded to one of his videos twice before, see my "GUNS AND GREENHOUSE GASES" if you are interested.

[JabbrWockey]

I agree with what most of this video says. Mankind is coming to terms with the fact that the climate on this planet changes. We have observed a period of warming, and coincidentally we have observed that anthropogenic levels of CO2 in the atmospher have also risen slightly.

[JackJ1957]

Greenhouse Gases by Percentage: 95% is Water Vapor, 4.72% is Natural Carbon Dioxide (from the ocean, volcanoes, animal activity, plants, decay processes), .28% are Human Additions of Carbon Dioxide... less than one third of one percent. No Science To Date

Shows Carbon Dioxide Driving Climate Change, But Rather That It Follows It!

[UTubekookdetector]

Exactly, and as I explained in the featured video on my channel to a rather vacuous Janitor, in East Antarctica 650K years ago the temperature was higher than today, but CO2 and methane levels were a lot lower than today.

These ecokooks totally avoid all these climatological disasters long before the automobile was around.

[jffryfnt]

And yet, another example of the science so dumbed down that you can make it literally say anything you want. As a matter of fact, you've made it quite clear that your opinion isn't based on the science at all. Your predetermined ideology guided you to find the conclusions you were searching for. Because you're too lazy to seriously peruse the scientific literature. And anyone that seriously considers the literature would be far off from the conclusions that you have, education notwithstanding.

[UTubekookdetector]

Actually, in my global warming articles I cite a plethora of peer-reviewed literature. If you care to take a crack at it, the floor is yours.

My prediction however, is that you're full of Gorewellian hot air. We eagerly await your rebuttal.

[jffryfnt]

Nothing could ever said that would ever change your mind. You're a non-expert with a point of view that is purely political. Your mundane attempt in trying to explain the science is very amateurish and hardly objective. Your naive assumptions that it is all common sense is a testament to that. A divergence in CO2 and temp in a proxy record is proof to you that they are not related when in fact it means that other factors are at play.

[jffryfnt]

Or, if one precedes the other, it means to you that that is the only way that relationship works? Not only is that not true it is illogical to assume it is. Your selection of your so-called 'peer-review' articles really only takes a one-sided stance that only supports your subjective opinion. Which completely ignores the literally thousands of scientifically peer-reviewed literature that tells a much different story. Of course, this should not preclude a science education, which is priceless.

[UTubekookdetector]

It's obvious you've given up on your generalized ploy JFF. Let me try my version:

"Your non-selection of peer-reviewed articles really only takes a one-sided stance... blah blah blah."

In my lestes video which is featured on my channel, I go over evidence severing the link between higher CO2 and higher temps.

East Antarctica was warmer 650K years ago, yet CO2 and methane levels are higher today.

[jffryfnt]

"Generalized ploy"? I think you're a wee bit delusional. We're talking about a complex SYSTEM. I stress the word SYSTEM because it is loaded with feedbacks and 'cross-talk' between individual components. Which, if everything were held equal, then perhaps you could expect a perfect monotonic relationship between CO2 and temp. But it's illogical to ASSUME there is. Climate science does not and has NEVER stated that. Because MANY factors influence the energy balance of the Earth.

[jffryfnt]

Divergence is NOT disproof of the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas! Amateurs with little to no scientific background easily misinterpret proxy records because they don't have a deep conceptual understanding about the many facets of the Earth and it's history. And yet, spread this misinterpretation around like a disease.

[UTubekookdetector]

In addition, we've seen much higher CO2 levels 300 million yeara ago. You're not saying much pertaining to the video.

What's your response to the satellite data concerning Antarctic ice from 1979-2002?

[jffryfnt]

300 million years ago the Earth was a much different place. Not too mention the resolution of proxy records from that far back are very difficult to resolve.

What satellite data are you referring to? Volume of ice and snow? You need to be a little more explicit there.

[UTubekookdetector]

JFF, I am still laughing about your "300 million years ago the Earth was a much different place" comment.

Was it much different because of

a) George W. Bush

b) Too many flights out of Heathrow

c) Exxon-Mobil

d) Natural climate variability

[jffryfnt]

It's literally amazing to see how someone can be so blatantly confident in their ignorance.

You're referring to a period of time of heavy carbon burial, very warm temperatures and yes, high CO2. Hence the name 'Carboniferous'. South America was attached to Antarctica and was at the South pole, which was only a part of Gondwanaland forming Pangea. The Himalayas didn't even exist yet, which has major implications on Earth's climate and long term carbon cycling. But ignorance, is bliss, eh?

[UTubekookdetector]

Still no specifics from you JFF. Did you finally realize that your comment about "earth being a much different place" undercut your own argument.

Was that done on purpose? In addition, your raw temperature data that the IPCC uses (from GHCN, CRU and GISS) has been called into question. The temperature records agree largely before they're "adjusted."

hotair . com/archives/2009/12/09/east-a­nglia-homogenization-falsified­-declines-into-increases/

[jffryfnt]

The specifics lie in the very basic knowledge of the history of the Earth! Do you happen to know WHY the geologic scale is broken up into eons, eras, periods, epochs? They're broken up into time periods based on events in Earth's history. The Earth has only been experiencing periodic NH ice ages for 3 million years, do you happen to know why that is?

[jffryfnt]

My argument is that it would be impossible for anyone to make a proper intellectual assessment of the changes the Earth is undergoing without any foundation, just like a person wouldn't be able to about a person's heart condition if they didn't understand human anatomy and physiology. So let me ask you, what makes you an expert?

[UTubekookdetector]

JFf, I am growing weary of your generalized ad hominem whining, either dispute the peer-reviewed evidence I've presented refeuting your arguments concerning modern anthropogenic global warming or sit down kid.

P.S. I never claimed to be an expert (another straw man), that's why I cited several peer-reviewed articles.

You either don't pay attention or have a nasty habit of projecting on your opponent.

I also saw no reponse from you concerning the raw data coming from Darwin.

[UTubekookdetector]

I guess to get you to an actual point, void of your generalized banter, what is your response to higher temps, yet lower CO2 and methane levels in East Antarctica 650K years ago?

watch?v=igffQB0QsQk

[jffryfnt]

Are you referring to the Vostok ice core data? "Void of your generalized banter"??? THAT's the PROBLEM. I have a degree in Earth Systems. If you lack the conceptual understanding about how the Earth works, what makes you think you have the expertise to 'read' an ice core record? Divergences are PROOF that MANY factors influence Earth's climate, CO2 notwithstanding. Lest I remind thee, that it is a greenhouse gas. Disprove that, then you might have a case.

[jffryfnt]

CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. That means they trap infrared radiation. Solar radiation which hits the Earth is converted to infrared radiation, which is emitted from the Earth's surface. Satellites in space can directly measure the amount of infrared radiation trapped by greenhouse gases. You are going to have to disprove 100 years of basic physical PRINCIPLES to 'sever' the link between CO2 and temp. You're better off trying to disprove GRAVITY!

[UTubekookdetector]

Actually, CO2 is a small part of our atmosphere and a lot of methane comes into the atmosphere via wetlands.

If you want to stop natural climate change, figure out a way to regulate water vapor. Again, in the video I referenced, we pointed to a study showing higher temps in East Antarctica, while CO2 and methane levels are higher today. You're avoiding this.

[jffryfnt]

"CO2 is a small part of our atmosphere..." That argument is moot and has absolutely zero scientific utility. Concentration doesn't matter as much as its potential effects. A microgram of botulinum poison is well more than enough to kill an adult human, yet, it is amount that is barely visible to the eye. Water vapor's concentration is contingent on temperature in the first place, and it's residence time in the atmosphere is about 1 week, therefore it cannot force climate.

[UTubekookdetector]

Again, life survive when CO2 concentrations were more than 4 times higher than today, that totally undercuts your point. I have supplied all the references in the links off to the right side of this vid.

As I pointed out before, much of the methane in our atmosphere is because of wetlands.

[UTubekookdetector]

You're hammering a straw man JFF, nobody said CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, just that it is a small portion of our atmosphere and it has fluctuated quite often in earth's past.

Your subjective chest-puffing about your degree isn't really relevant.

[jffryfnt]

It is relevant because it signifies the difference between being educated in a subject and not. Again, 'a small portion' has ZERO scientific meaning. What YOU are unconsciously arguing, which no climate scientist has ANY contention with that, is that climate sensitivity with respect to...let's say, CO2! CHANGES, depending on Earth's albedo, ocean currents, climate patterns, etc. That is NOT an argument, saying oooo, it's 'small'.

[UTubekookdetector]

You also seem rather angry JFF, I have cited plenty of peer-reviewed research in my articles and the best you have is an ad hominem attack that I'm "purely political."

You'll have to do better than that. My pointing out that CO2 concentrations were 4 times higher than today is not a naive assumption, it comes from a UC-DAVIS study that I referenced at watch?v=FOZ-VS-v11w

[jffryfnt]

Rather selective selection of peer-reviewed literature. A baseless case for your uneducated assumptions of the real state of the science. Okay, google-pert. Is that your degree? From the University of Google? I see those studies and raise you the IPCC report and the endorsement from every single major scientific institution on the planet. As well as every single scientific society in the natural and physical sciences. Yes, there's a consensus.

[UTubekookdetector]

Actually, none of it is googled and I provided all the references. I think you're getting rather desperate JFF.

There is no consensus and that is a fallacious ad populum appeal anyways. Next...

[QuartuvLarry]

With those greenoid fanatics, the world is ALWAYS going to end TOMORROW.

ALWAYS TOMORROW!

I wonder what else is going on tomorrow...OH YEAH! Free beer TOMORROW!

[UTubekookdetector]

You remember when Ted Danson said (I think it was about 20 years ago) we have 10 years to save the oceans?

10 years or it's going to reach critical mass.

[QuartuvLarry]

OMG! I've just had this sudden urge to go to the beach!

[JmkLcAeJsm]

HA! And comments pending approval. Hilarious.

[UTubekookdetector]

In addition JMK, if you think one can cover the entire subject of global warming/climate change in one video than let me say that is hilarious. Check out the links on the right side as well. Good luck.

[UTubekookdetector]

I also found your Guns and Greenhouse Gases video funny. You swallow these climate models without touching on some major flaws with them.

Dr. Roy Spencer discovered that warming cycles do not necessarily create more heat-trapping cirrus clouds. Conventional wisdom tells us that these clouds, in turn would increase any warming caused by man.

In fact, warming cycles in the tropics as observed by Dr. Spencer and his colleagues were not accompanied by more heat-trapping cirrus clouds, but less

[UTubekookdetector]

JMK, I wanted to inform you that I posted a response to the nonsense on your "Guns and Greenhouse Gases" video. There are a lot of problems with these computer climate models, you overlooked all of them.

You'll find it on my channel.

[JmkLcAeJsm]

Can't post respoonses and ratings disabled. Interesting... Perhaps this says something about your confidence regarding your conclusions...

[UTubekookdetector]

Nobody is stopping you from putting up your own videos. I'm not your talking points channel bub. So, I'll give you one more chance to post something relevant to the points I covered in the video above. I will leave your comments up so people can see you whining and wasting your time. One more chance bub, don't waste it crying.

[JabbrWockey]

Says the upset troll