photosynthesis production with 10% of oil profits by international law? is that also worth defeating with misinformation? if so it a choice od doom over stable income. nal law
at best you can enter this data in the computer model. no data disproves events of fact. personally i agree with dyson deforestation is the coupled cause with more co2 releases.
That 100 cubic miles of fossil fuels that has been converted into CO2 has released FAR more than any natural event since at least 600,000 years ago, according to ice core data. Ppm is only some 40% more in the air, but the actual release is much more (as according to historic human CO2 emission data based on how much FF we burned). Therefore, not only is it supposed to be cool to change the very air, is it supposed to be cool to change the very acidity of the oceans?! Irresponsible, eh?
This is obviously an old video since he claims we can't measure the temperatures over the oceans - well NASA does this since more than 15 years very very accurately...
@fireofenergy CO2 is created by cyclic warming of Earth surface, probably in relation with solar activity, internal re-structuring of Earth, etc. It is therefore a *consequence* of the cyclic warming not its cause.
@angelpbj I don't know why you people keep bring this up. Anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and the resultant release of CO2 IS NOT a natural effect of a warming atmosphere. You claiming that it is is completely insane. Human emissions = 30gt per years; Atmospheric increase - 15gt per year.
@WaxItYourself Yes it is, the result of strong radiation from the Sun warming the oceans, etc. BUT, CO2 has *no important effect* on climate, except for small modulations of the great driver of Earth's climate, which *is* the Sun. The modulations caused by the ocean anomalies are far greater than CO2. Let's have this conversation in 4 or 5 years and you'll see what I'm talking about. Shall we?
@angelpbj The point is, human emissions are greater than natural emissions. The oceans are currently absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting. As humans increase the partial pressure of that CO2 above the oceans they are trying to maintain equilibrium via Le Chatelier's Principal. The Sun's energy is shortwave. Co2 absorbs at a band centered at roughly 15 microns or 700 cycles/cm, longwave. Measurements show these are the frequencies associated with the current warming. (Griggs, 2006)
One mistake, CO2 dries the atmosphere and, as Dyson is explaining in this video, also the cooling of the stratosphere. This has important consequences on the Jet Stream and "flash freezing" phenomena that has been happening so frequently in the last few years. In 4-5 years all these phenomena will be greatly enhanced because the solar cycles will be lower now for some time. Let's pay attention to the *facts*, not models.
@angelpbj Global warming deals with the Earth's energy imbalance. As greater retention of energy occurs this energy balance changes. Oceanic oscillations, such as ENSO, deal with redistribution of heat. They do not 'create heat as that energy that provides that heat is still within the system. ENSO and other oscillations deal with short term variation which is greater than the long term trend. However, what this means is that the lows will be higher due to that long term trend.
Land use will not change enough to absorb all that extra CO2 we are espousing unless that "use" safely sequesters it... which is doubtful unless a new scientific breakthrough is developed that enables it to become part of actual rocks for much less energy as is required to do so today... (forgot the term for it).
Truly, the scope of the amount of FF's we convert over is TOTALLY MIND BLOWING...
Nice to hear real scientists speak on this topic instead of Gore & DiCaprio. Dyson was a math major, not a physics major in undergrad college, so I expected him to shine to the computer models. But no. He likes the real thing. Good for him.
It's always nice to hear a real scientist to speak. Thanks for both videos! Isn't it a fact the the ozone layer of the stratosphere is presently NOT very damaged? I don't know the answer, but looks like Dyson is very worried about it.
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
@fireofenergy Dyson suggests forest management and irrigation to control CO2 levels (to avoid problems with the ozone layer) and that the effects of CO2 on the "ground temperature" are in fact NOT known (a "fiction"). I believe that he agrees that "pollution" is a bad thing but he also says that the whole GW idea is "misleading". I agree with him. We must focus on real problems.
@fireofenergy There's also no denying that filling a space with an excess of CO2 can cause one to suffocate. However, no one's worried that our planet is going to choke to death from manmade CO2...that would be silly.
For similar reasons, it's pretty silly to be worried about manmade atmospheric CO2 and global warming. It's just a small part of earth's carbon dynamic. Just as human action put the extra carbon there, human action could remove quite a lot. No one's trying to do so yet.
This guy was hot in his days when scientists was train to classicism. Back in these days science was as much about methodology as about classical rhetorics. In a certain way, a good scientist had to be a good contradictor, that is someone who could argue with a touch of philosophical dissertation. Today, science is something else. It is essentially fact-based.
the real problem is everybody want's to be part of the exciting part of the debate which is having control over policy's , but they don't want the boring part i.e. taking the time to learn the facts for themselves & fact check what is being erroneously spoonfed prechewed by the media. our democracy is beingn operated by the ingnorance & misinformation of the people. this has got to stop for pushing science by political agenda is not democratic or platos republic.
it seems to me that rather than turn to intellectuals and their mystical methods of observation and discriminatory judgments, govornments find it a better use of resources to look to the oracles of current climate modeling and their ever-assured, sound predictions.
"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, ABOUT WHICH I DO NOT KNOW MUCH, but rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism a lot of them have." He worked with computer models of the climate 30 years ago. He is certainly a bright guy, but way out of date and out of his field of study. Why don't scientists working on the climate today say anything like this? Because they know better.
@TheSailer99 I personally approve of your argumentation. One may not approve of Dr. Hansen' political activism, but his science is sound and fact-based.
How about we explore strategic land use to absorb co2 if necessary, and also reduce our consumption of oil and coal. Fossil fuels are in finite supply. There may enough unexploited resources to last many generations, but eventually our energy producing technologies will have to evolve. It is possible other technologies will either extend or replace these resources before a crisis is reached. But should we sit back in the comfort of our oily complex, reassured that we'll muddle through?
there's not one study that can be produce that shows co2 is a harmful gas. Its a natural gas prouded by all living things. people who believe co2 goes up they have no scientific justification. climate changes all the time get use to it
By coincidence I am reading his book A Many Colored Glass and it is terrific. He has a chapter on carbon dioxide and climate change which relates to this talk.
1) there's no correlation between co2 levels and rising temperature
2)mars is 95% co2 and it's a freezing planet.
3) other planets have been warming lock and step with increased sun activity from the sun - nothing to do with CO2.
4)melting ice caps don't cause the ocean sea level to rise. If this were true when you left out a drink with ice in it the drink would overflow from the ice melting.
2) Not only does Mars barely even have an atmosphere, Mars is on average about 1.5 times as far away from the sun as Earth. That tends to make it a wee bit colder.
4)The ice caps people that people are worried melting are sitting on top of land, you know Antarctica, Greenland. If a snowbank melts next to a puddle the water level of the puddle rises...
@leifa1 I believe point 1 is correct you can't say a direct correlation has been found, 2 and 3 agreed mars is completely different to earth, but there has been noted warming the goes with earths warming this is not proof just interesting, 4 When it come to public perception most of the ice that has been covered in the media is floating ice which we do know can't raise sea levels and glaciers do not melt in the antarctic its much to cold they move via pressure from the weight of ice ontop
@leifa1 Check out nzclimatescience. net look for GLACIERS: SCIENCE & NONSENSE - HERE ARE THE FACTS on the main page its a good read on glacier movement
Air....is an excellent insulator until it breaks down into..'plasma'..so..? short pulses shot through 'extreme matter' will form 'static cling' in the shape of an observed apparitions..? ring.. like ghosting..'light years' so..oo..ooo plasma is a gas?.......why is it smelly?
Global warming will continue for about 3,000 years until the wobble brings us back to another cooling period.
What drives AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory is carbon credits.
Green technology is more efficent (good) but all electronics is based on rare earth mining and processing (bad). China is the world's leading producer of rare earths. It is an extremely toxic business with pollutants going directly into the water table.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
The amount of carbon buried in the Earth's crust, as an accumulation of carbon bound to living organisms over several billion years, is about 26000 times higher than there is carbon bound to whole biosphere at present. So the effect of containing CO2 levels with vegetation and so forth, is negligable if at the same time we continue to use the buried carbon at present or increasing rate. (Ref.: Oxygen - The Molecule that Made the World by Nick Lane)
Its so fucking sad how ignorant... scratch that, stupid the human race is. Humanity knows the science, it knows its killing the earth, but it doesn't give half a shit. It's nowhere more apparent than right here in the youtube comments.
Generation X will not have great grandchildren if the trends continue, but as long as they have their goddamn xbox they could fucking care less. McDonalds, Monsanto, Halliburton and WalMart are murdering Mother Earth. Do you give a shit?
Eat shit. I'm probably older than you are. I've seen both sides of this argument, and I've seen first hand the wanton destruction that the selfish, irresponsible human race has inflicted on the planet. I've seen them make excuse after excuse after excuse to justify their irresponsibility. I'm the one here telling people to be more responsible, and yet, I'm the "stupid kid".
Funny, shirking responsibility is a childlike thing to do, and so is making excuses to justify it! Stupid kid...
Whether global warming is true or not is completely irrelevant. We now have less than 10% of the world's rainforest left, and mass extinctions are occurring because of habitat destruction. The global ecology is collapsing and people think the economy is more important. Scientists have been warning us for decades about these things, and people plug their ears because it threatens their throw away lifestyle. What good does a booming economy do us if we have no air, water or food?
Its the basis for an entire movement, a religion almost, for government policies.
That makes its extremely relevant as to its validity.
You dont convict someone on the basis of false allegations, neither should you base polices that impact on people negatively without being absolutely sure of your facts.
Whether or not GLOBAL WARMING is true is irrelevant. That's the point I'm making. We KNOW we are fucking up the earth regardless of whether or not we're changing the temperature.
We should institute policies of responsibility regardless of anything we know because it is the intelligent thing to do!
Or we could continue to be irresponsible morons like yourself.
Ever heard of better safe than sorry?
Your grandchildren will wish we had been more responsible, I promise you that.
Leukemia is caused by certain chemicals entering the body of a fetus through the pregnant mother. My point on this was that POLLUTION is the problem. Synthetic chemicals are fucking us all up regardless of whether or not "climate change" is real.
Did you even read my fucking comments? Either you didn't or you didn't comprehend them. Know the issue before arguing. Jackass.
Yes fine. Specify your "Pollutants" but dont link it to a change in glabal temperatures if and when that happens or not.
Synthetic chemicals are not "fucking us all up" either.
Look up the word "synthesised".
It means an artificially made substance / whatever. Just cos its synthetic it means nothing. Lots of synthetic chemicals are identical to common ones found in nature with the nasty side of the naturally occuring ones removed.
Pollution- i agree with you, but not with the generalisation.
Psychentist sorry but with respect that is a VERY bad attitude. It's like saying, "we know the patient is sick, we don't know which organ has failed, so we'll operate on all of them just in case".
I agree we need to clean up our act and there are many things we can easily target now.
We should not target something which we are not sure about and we CANT PROVE!
I love how you think GenXer's play xbox. Wow and McDonalds and Walmart are destroying the earth? What about the Chinese factories and their horrible poluting practices. For the record I agree with Dyson, there is no science here.
cooling since 99 .......but in reality since the sunspots and therefore solar activity have chilled ....the temperatures are easy to sense both in northern hemisphere as cooling.
But then global warming is the religion of the left. Don your global warming monk robes and say humeda humeda humeda hummmm
Thank you Sidewinder for posting this. Dr. Dyson makes valid points about the limits of computer models with so much complexity to deal with. I agree with the more observations part. He is not denying there is a problem with CO2, he says we still need to act. Land management, and I would add ecological restoration, reforestation, etc... would go far in improving people's lives. 4 stars, this is pretty cool.
Freeman Dyson is actually not Dr. Dyson but Freeman Dyson BA (Mathematics). This may seem strange since he is such an eminent scientist, but it is true. It does not in any way lessen the importance of his contribution to science. What the world needs is not necessarily more PhDs but more brains like his.
I have been hearing that it is actually the sun spots that are causing the changes..
Look at what God PROMISED...
Revelation 16.
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
Man is destroying the planet; I pray for a world-wide epidemic which will kill off (painlessly) 75% of the world's population. Only a rapid decrease in the number of people and stabilization of the population at a much lower level than today will give our poor raped world a chance to recover from Man's depredations.
I disagree. We can significantly reduce our ecological footprint without decreasing our population. The US for example is responsable for a great deal of emissions but does not contain a proportional amount of people.
By recycling, reusing, reducing, by changing the amount of fuel we use for transportation, by changing the amount of energy we use for our homes, to change the types of energy and fuel we use, we make a fundamental difference.
Here's the thing, this planet has been around for billions of years. It has seen the coming and going of many species. It has endured catastrophic cosmic events. We are arrogant to think that our actions will "destroy the planet". However, our arrogance and irresponsibility as a species will likely lead to our downfall. And when we have selected ourselves out of existence through foolish behavior, this planet will happily continue spinning, unconcerned that we are gone.
I agree this is not only about CO2, but about all the other stuff we are doing to this place. We just have to stop being greedy and start being smart.
Freeman Dyson is my hero. He dares to question the prevailing and now fashionable Climate Change agenda. Don't simply let John Holdren and Al Gore's agenda turn you into a non-thinker by using alarmist propaganda. Question the links and understand it for yourself before going along with the establishment dogma.
This interview sounds as if it were doe quite some time ago. Much of what he says is out of date and recently his statements about stratospheric cooling, long believed, were overthrown.
Mr. Dyson, do you feel that the birds and butterflies are going to feel the physical effect of global warming before we do the human race, and will global warming change there anatomy or cause them not to be able to fly?
This guy was voted 25th world intellect in the 1990s. He has received many honours including fellowship of the Royal Society of London. The National Academy of Sciences (United States). The Paris Academy of Sciences. The Lorentz Medal by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences. The Hughes Medal by the Royal Society, The Max Planck Medal by the German Physical Society, The Enrico Fermi Award by the U.S. Department of Energy.
How to make the country ungovernable? You pass on all the regulatory enforcement to the next administration which will probably be Obama. This is why republicans have been raiding the treasury, spending every dollar it could because it already knew about climate change and peak oil & that the jig is up. Take the money, spread the corruption-such great patriots- all because the expense of court ordered CC regulation would make Bush look bad. Obama is stepping right into the trap.
Dyson is exactly right. There is no way to measure average ground temp, and it varies so much from point to point. We need to understand the biomass relation to the whole atmosphere. Not only is it a land management issue, but with nanotech it will be very easy to manage! We are destined to be the master of our destiny.
All you need for this are sufficient prediction models(you could even use pattern recognising evolutionary algorithms, to let the system itself lern and get rid of the need of finding a theory yourself), a global weather obervation system (not a problem) and a method to change air temprature in a fast and controlled way within a specific area(which doesn't sound like an unsolvable problem).
Disease then. Famine, flooding, earthquakes, volcanoes. The hubris of humanity in attempting to control every aspect of the natural world will be its undoing. We are "of" the world. Not "in charge of" it.
Those are all separated issues that can be researched and broken up into basic problems of information gathering, analyse and action.
Famine - combines with weather control, better crops and ways to analyse the ground and supply water and nutrients, as well as storing large amounts of conserved food at various storage places all over the earth.
Flooding - weather control. No problem if you can freeze or evaporate large amounts of water and predict/control rain patterns.
Disease - any guess where this is going? Yeah right: find it, analyse its DNA and working mechanisms and come up with a cure. Not that hard, just a matter of better technology
Despair is not an acceptable reaction to the world. Smallpox, Polio, Rubella, Tetanus, Bubonic Plague, Gangrene -- these were all sources of terror and despair two centuries ago. Today they are practically nonexistent in the developed world thanks to science.
That is not to say we have all the answers and should be complacent, but rather that there is hope for finding solutions when we put our minds to it.
I'm realistic. Few humans will change their habits to make a change in C02 emissions. More humans will be born who need to be fed, warmed, employed, transported, housed, etc. The world population will keep growing. Rather than try to obsess on how to reverse "GW", we'll need to learn how to deal with its effects, such as any climatic or weather problem we must face. Life goes on.
"Research Finds That Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point"
"Antarctica lost much more ice to the sea than it gained from snowfall according to a NASA survey done between 1992 and 2002. It also had a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documented for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves." Credit: NASA/SVS
All things being equal, it would make sense that governments would HAVE to collaborate on keeping the peace during such and event. There are protocols in place to between govs to handle large impacts from space but if this video were factual then there would also be independent sources confirming the? sightings. I'm not denying the possible existance just that this video shouldn't make sense to any reasonable person. If you'll indulge me more I'll post more of my thoughts.
Freeman Dyson is in his mid 80's for crying out loud & probably answered Big Oil's $10,000.00 to anyone with a Phd to refute Climate Change. Dyson is a Physicist not a
Your logic is ludicrous. When would his age have allowed his credibility to be more legitimate in your hallowed opinion? You must pat your grandparents on their heads and tell them to go sit back in the corner each time they offer up any pearls of wisdom to you eh. This is what should be called Inconvenient truth- inconvenient to every global warming sucker like yourself who has fallen for it hook line and sinker. I'm sure you know all the "serious" people in the "field", right? Right. Haha.
I listen to non-scientist old guys who have to get the science right because their bottom lines depends on it. RUPERT MURDOCH, Warren Buffet, Boone Pickens. I listen to James Hanson the guy Bush, Pastor Hagee & Inhofe want to keep quite. Big oil uses the same tactics that big tobacco USED to get away with. They didn't even try to hide the $10,000.00 bribe to Phd's like Dyson. They just put it right on their websites because they know guys like you don't read & could care less.
Wake up. Hansen campaigned for Gore and served as consultant to Gore. He campaigned for Kerry and received a $250k cash prize from the Heinz (Kerry) foundation. He was funded $720k from George Soros to promote global warming. He received a $25k from Scripps. Yet you think a PhD would jeopardize their career and name for $10k? Why don't you tell us how you know Dyson was paid $10k by big oil?
You don't even try to show Dyson took money--you just insinuate (btw, Exxon's a public co--they would have to report it). The big money is on the side of the alarmists. Just the grant money during Bush has been over $30 billion. Exxon spending against GW the past 20 years isn't even a 10th of AL Gore's new GW ad campaign. Gore has made $100 million off GW, has his carbon offset business, and doesn't even live the lifestyle.
You don't read. The money is just the beginning. After that comes grants or... WELCOME TO THE FOLD benefits for the department or the university or the corporation. Don't give me the Gore mansion private jet garbage. That shows talking points desperation AND YOU KNOW IT. The debate is over because there never was any. Confuse the public (you), create controversy(Inhofe), keep changing the subject when your talking point is answered. Big Tobacco and intelligent designers perfected it first.
danger0usknowledge: You are talking the "talking points"--I'm only rebutting yours. The huge money is in change--hundreds of billions have already been spent, and we haven't started. BTW, I'm not the one confused. If the warmers' co2 forcing figures were correct, it would already be *much* hotter now. The IPCC hedges that the discrepancy might be due to poorly understood factors, such as particulates--but they decline to investigate, only excuse their flawed models.
But there's a difference. You're upholding a propaganda campaign by Big Oil and oil men like Bush and Inhofe and religious fanatics who hold that the earth & weather are soley the province the Lord & mere man is incroaching on His(& Pastor Hagee's) territory. Co2 is just one forcing component. Sulfate & nitrate aerosols,land use, volcanic aerosols are forcings that promote a cooling effect and are what you see when you use multiple coupled models in the long term warming picture.
>You're upholding a propaganda campaign by Big Oil...
>religious fanatics who hold that the earth & weather
>are soley the province the Lord...
By disagreeing with you? Not buying the hoax? Talk about "talking points"--anyone who doesn't believe is bought by big oil or is a religious fanatic?
It hasn't gotten hotter in a decade, scientists are calling for a decade of cooling. 0.7 C coming out of the little ice age--medieval warm period? Holocene optimum? Where were the cars?
>multiple coupled models in the long term warming picture
None of the models match reality (by observation), and you can't use multiple models--they are uncorrelated! It's scientifically unsound to use multiple models--if they are all wrong, there is nothing gained by averaging them or combining them; if one is right the results are only polluted by combining them with those that are not.
>They use the raw data and that overwhelmingly proves CC.
You got that right. The climate changes, and the data shows it does.
But there is *no* evidence it's outside of norms, and *no* evidence that it's from co2. AGW is all about observing a small trend over a specific period, attributing it to man, and extrapolating that it will keep going. All this despite temperature having a poor correlation to co2 levels over time. And that "proves" it?
Ah, from a man who's mantra is "big oil, big tobacco". I'd be happy to debate you on actual science. Two years ago I believed, too. I only looked into the science in depth because I wanted an idea of how truly bad of a disaster I should expect, since everyone had a different opinion. Within a few months, I realized it seemed overblown. A few more months and I realized that it wasn't accidental--it's deception with a purpose. AGW is the emperor's new clothes.
The fatal flaw in that argument is that you'd have to acknowledge that without co2, we'd be 2-2.5C *colder* than we are now (hello little ice age), if not for co2 saving our butts. You can't have it both ways. It's either should be hotter (to match the anticipated co2 forcing), or it's not a problem.
The ocean current driven new ice age is not taken seriously by weather scientists and ocean currents cannot offset warming due to shifting currents. Broecker has been misinterpreted by the popular media. No new ice age is a-coming. Anyone following this should check out the governments and Bush's own EPA website which states unequivocally that climate change is principally man made. One would think that a Bush EPA appointee wouldn't let that happen.
>check out the governments and Bush's own EPA website
>which states unequivocally that climate change is principally
>man made.
The world issue is entirely political--the IPCC is a UN-founded 130+ member-nation political bureaucracy. For the masses, it's driven by Al Gore, a politician. The current admin just listed the polar bear as "threatened", despite being at multi-decade highs in population. Why not stick to science--is it real for you because the government says so?
We are in warming period that has slices of cooling like in the 1970's. Another slice of cooling will happen but the general trend will be warming whether humans are here or not.
Nah, having a PHD in a special Subject is about as useless as a Masters in English Degree in England (Or any Specialist Master Degree)
All you really can do with non medical Doctorates or Masters is teach the subject as a Professor. If you teach with a Bachelors or Associates then you would be a "Instructor"..but if you are teaching or researching outside your specialty your a "Instructor" anyway
**but if you are teaching or researching outside your specialty your a "Instructor" anyway**
Example: Andrew Weaver, one of the CO-Autors of the IPCC repiort has a PHD in Physics but is with the OCeanic INstitute and studies climatology, While Being a Enviromental Activist. THis makes him a "Instructor" in Envoromental Sciences....a "expert" in "Man Made Global warming" as it were
Now if he had a PHD in Meteorology instead and wasn't a advent "tree Hugger" he would know better...lol
photosynthesis production with 10% of oil profits by international law? is that also worth defeating with misinformation? if so it a choice od doom over stable income. nal law
DastreagusLetobeiter 2 months ago
at best you can enter this data in the computer model. no data disproves events of fact. personally i agree with dyson deforestation is the coupled cause with more co2 releases.
DastreagusLetobeiter 2 months ago
That 100 cubic miles of fossil fuels that has been converted into CO2 has released FAR more than any natural event since at least 600,000 years ago, according to ice core data. Ppm is only some 40% more in the air, but the actual release is much more (as according to historic human CO2 emission data based on how much FF we burned). Therefore, not only is it supposed to be cool to change the very air, is it supposed to be cool to change the very acidity of the oceans?! Irresponsible, eh?
fireofenergy 6 months ago
This is obviously an old video since he claims we can't measure the temperatures over the oceans - well NASA does this since more than 15 years very very accurately...
usu15550 8 months ago
FREE BOOK SEE CHANNEL , PEACE
matmicmj 9 months ago
to totally, we have upped the co2 count by over 50%. If you think that's silly, should think again
fireofenergy 9 months ago
@fireofenergy CO2 is created by cyclic warming of Earth surface, probably in relation with solar activity, internal re-structuring of Earth, etc. It is therefore a *consequence* of the cyclic warming not its cause.
angelpbj 9 months ago
@angelpbj I don't know why you people keep bring this up. Anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels and the resultant release of CO2 IS NOT a natural effect of a warming atmosphere. You claiming that it is is completely insane. Human emissions = 30gt per years; Atmospheric increase - 15gt per year.
WaxItYourself 8 months ago
@WaxItYourself Yes it is, the result of strong radiation from the Sun warming the oceans, etc. BUT, CO2 has *no important effect* on climate, except for small modulations of the great driver of Earth's climate, which *is* the Sun. The modulations caused by the ocean anomalies are far greater than CO2. Let's have this conversation in 4 or 5 years and you'll see what I'm talking about. Shall we?
angelpbj 17 hours ago
@angelpbj The point is, human emissions are greater than natural emissions. The oceans are currently absorbing more CO2 than they are emitting. As humans increase the partial pressure of that CO2 above the oceans they are trying to maintain equilibrium via Le Chatelier's Principal. The Sun's energy is shortwave. Co2 absorbs at a band centered at roughly 15 microns or 700 cycles/cm, longwave. Measurements show these are the frequencies associated with the current warming. (Griggs, 2006)
WaxItYourself 17 hours ago
One mistake, CO2 dries the atmosphere and, as Dyson is explaining in this video, also the cooling of the stratosphere. This has important consequences on the Jet Stream and "flash freezing" phenomena that has been happening so frequently in the last few years. In 4-5 years all these phenomena will be greatly enhanced because the solar cycles will be lower now for some time. Let's pay attention to the *facts*, not models.
angelpbj 17 hours ago
@angelpbj Global warming deals with the Earth's energy imbalance. As greater retention of energy occurs this energy balance changes. Oceanic oscillations, such as ENSO, deal with redistribution of heat. They do not 'create heat as that energy that provides that heat is still within the system. ENSO and other oscillations deal with short term variation which is greater than the long term trend. However, what this means is that the lows will be higher due to that long term trend.
WaxItYourself 17 hours ago
Land use will not change enough to absorb all that extra CO2 we are espousing unless that "use" safely sequesters it... which is doubtful unless a new scientific breakthrough is developed that enables it to become part of actual rocks for much less energy as is required to do so today... (forgot the term for it).
Truly, the scope of the amount of FF's we convert over is TOTALLY MIND BLOWING...
(check out "NO MATTER WHAT" on my channel)...
fireofenergy 10 months ago
Nice to hear real scientists speak on this topic instead of Gore & DiCaprio. Dyson was a math major, not a physics major in undergrad college, so I expected him to shine to the computer models. But no. He likes the real thing. Good for him.
DexterHaven49 11 months ago
It's always nice to hear a real scientist to speak. Thanks for both videos! Isn't it a fact the the ozone layer of the stratosphere is presently NOT very damaged? I don't know the answer, but looks like Dyson is very worried about it.
angelpbj 1 year ago
It should be back to basics... "Don't mess with mother nature"... because there is no denying that co2 is an infrared absorber. Thus the need to develop a very cheap source of clean energy (before we run out of oil to do so).
fireofenergy 1 year ago
@fireofenergy Dyson suggests forest management and irrigation to control CO2 levels (to avoid problems with the ozone layer) and that the effects of CO2 on the "ground temperature" are in fact NOT known (a "fiction"). I believe that he agrees that "pollution" is a bad thing but he also says that the whole GW idea is "misleading". I agree with him. We must focus on real problems.
angelpbj 1 year ago
@fireofenergy There's also no denying that filling a space with an excess of CO2 can cause one to suffocate. However, no one's worried that our planet is going to choke to death from manmade CO2...that would be silly.
For similar reasons, it's pretty silly to be worried about manmade atmospheric CO2 and global warming. It's just a small part of earth's carbon dynamic. Just as human action put the extra carbon there, human action could remove quite a lot. No one's trying to do so yet.
totallyunderpowered 9 months ago
This guy was hot in his days when scientists was train to classicism. Back in these days science was as much about methodology as about classical rhetorics. In a certain way, a good scientist had to be a good contradictor, that is someone who could argue with a touch of philosophical dissertation. Today, science is something else. It is essentially fact-based.
isocrate27 1 year ago
the real problem is everybody want's to be part of the exciting part of the debate which is having control over policy's , but they don't want the boring part i.e. taking the time to learn the facts for themselves & fact check what is being erroneously spoonfed prechewed by the media. our democracy is beingn operated by the ingnorance & misinformation of the people. this has got to stop for pushing science by political agenda is not democratic or platos republic.
circusboy90210 1 year ago
it seems to me that rather than turn to intellectuals and their mystical methods of observation and discriminatory judgments, govornments find it a better use of resources to look to the oracles of current climate modeling and their ever-assured, sound predictions.
[/satire]
attheveryend 1 year ago
"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, ABOUT WHICH I DO NOT KNOW MUCH, but rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism a lot of them have." He worked with computer models of the climate 30 years ago. He is certainly a bright guy, but way out of date and out of his field of study. Why don't scientists working on the climate today say anything like this? Because they know better.
sanphaka04 1 year ago
This guy has clearly not had any thing to do with modern science. Go to the NASA web site and look up world temperatures.
TheSailer99 1 year ago
@TheSailer99 I personally approve of your argumentation. One may not approve of Dr. Hansen' political activism, but his science is sound and fact-based.
isocrate27 1 year ago
senile dick head
klnine 1 year ago
How about we explore strategic land use to absorb co2 if necessary, and also reduce our consumption of oil and coal. Fossil fuels are in finite supply. There may enough unexploited resources to last many generations, but eventually our energy producing technologies will have to evolve. It is possible other technologies will either extend or replace these resources before a crisis is reached. But should we sit back in the comfort of our oily complex, reassured that we'll muddle through?
KrassoSzoreny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there's not one study that can be produce that shows co2 is a harmful gas. Its a natural gas prouded by all living things. people who believe co2 goes up they have no scientific justification. climate changes all the time get use to it
FoxtrotBrother95 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy was offered a university degree at age 19.He is an absolute genius.You may want to listen.
BTW, Have an iPhone? Check out POCKETPOON d0 t COM for the BEST iPhone and iPod p0rN app on the net!! Word
iPhoNeNfoRmer 1 year ago
By coincidence I am reading his book A Many Colored Glass and it is terrific. He has a chapter on carbon dioxide and climate change which relates to this talk.
jackdav34 1 year ago
1) there's no correlation between co2 levels and rising temperature
2)mars is 95% co2 and it's a freezing planet.
3) other planets have been warming lock and step with increased sun activity from the sun - nothing to do with CO2.
4)melting ice caps don't cause the ocean sea level to rise. If this were true when you left out a drink with ice in it the drink would overflow from the ice melting.
x11115 2 years ago
Seriously?
1) I'm pretty sure you just made that up.
2) Not only does Mars barely even have an atmosphere, Mars is on average about 1.5 times as far away from the sun as Earth. That tends to make it a wee bit colder.
4)The ice caps people that people are worried melting are sitting on top of land, you know Antarctica, Greenland. If a snowbank melts next to a puddle the water level of the puddle rises...
leifa1 1 year ago
The fourth point you are making is true, but you have to remember that the temperatures in Greenland were over a degree hotter during 6000-2000 B.C.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@leifa1 I believe point 1 is correct you can't say a direct correlation has been found, 2 and 3 agreed mars is completely different to earth, but there has been noted warming the goes with earths warming this is not proof just interesting, 4 When it come to public perception most of the ice that has been covered in the media is floating ice which we do know can't raise sea levels and glaciers do not melt in the antarctic its much to cold they move via pressure from the weight of ice ontop
glennimmortal 1 year ago
@leifa1 Check out nzclimatescience. net look for GLACIERS: SCIENCE & NONSENSE - HERE ARE THE FACTS on the main page its a good read on glacier movement
glennimmortal 1 year ago
@x11115 You couldn't possibly know anything about point 3.
nilbud 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Terrific new NASA YouTube:
Our Earth has a FEVER! - the Climate Change puzzle
/watch?v=XzfRs74b-qw
For excellent data & scientific info. on Climate Change search:
1) Climate Change: Key indicators
2) Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth (These are the BEST sites)
3) NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
4) Climate change odds much worse than thought MIT
-- and for some other great scientific YouTubes see the greenman3610
& potholer54 channels.
goog2k 2 years ago
Air....is an excellent insulator until it breaks down into..'plasma'..so..? short pulses shot through 'extreme matter' will form 'static cling' in the shape of an observed apparitions..? ring.. like ghosting..'light years' so..oo..ooo plasma is a gas?.......why is it smelly?
Freya5000 2 years ago
The last ice age was 18,000 years ago.
Global warming will continue for about 3,000 years until the wobble brings us back to another cooling period.
What drives AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory is carbon credits.
Green technology is more efficent (good) but all electronics is based on rare earth mining and processing (bad). China is the world's leading producer of rare earths. It is an extremely toxic business with pollutants going directly into the water table.
AcePilot2009 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Duh??
goog2k 2 years ago
The amount of carbon buried in the Earth's crust, as an accumulation of carbon bound to living organisms over several billion years, is about 26000 times higher than there is carbon bound to whole biosphere at present. So the effect of containing CO2 levels with vegetation and so forth, is negligable if at the same time we continue to use the buried carbon at present or increasing rate. (Ref.: Oxygen - The Molecule that Made the World by Nick Lane)
Hamiltoni23 2 years ago
When all the trees are dead and gone, all we'll have left to eat is money.
Fantastor 2 years ago
Comment removed
maryandeva 2 years ago
open mouth, insert foot? Oh! You were talking about Monopoly money? How stupid of me.
1jcl1 2 years ago
The big thing now is Climate-Gate .
Opdehoede 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check my channel for some videos on climategate.
cristop5 2 years ago
Its so fucking sad how ignorant... scratch that, stupid the human race is. Humanity knows the science, it knows its killing the earth, but it doesn't give half a shit. It's nowhere more apparent than right here in the youtube comments.
Generation X will not have great grandchildren if the trends continue, but as long as they have their goddamn xbox they could fucking care less. McDonalds, Monsanto, Halliburton and WalMart are murdering Mother Earth. Do you give a shit?
Psychentist 2 years ago
Hahahaha...another illiterate zombie following the Global Warming cult! hahahahahaha....
KarlDaggerfield 2 years ago
You're a dumb fuck. Not only is your claim that I'm illiterate completely baseless, but I didn't say shit about global warming, did I?
There is a fucking island of plastic trash the size of goddamn Texas, and you people think that there is nothing wrong?
Holy fucking shit.
Psychentist 2 years ago
@Psychentist
Watch your language you stupid kid, and listen to both sides of the arguments before you make up your mind.
SirSethirothSama 2 years ago
Eat shit. I'm probably older than you are. I've seen both sides of this argument, and I've seen first hand the wanton destruction that the selfish, irresponsible human race has inflicted on the planet. I've seen them make excuse after excuse after excuse to justify their irresponsibility. I'm the one here telling people to be more responsible, and yet, I'm the "stupid kid".
Funny, shirking responsibility is a childlike thing to do, and so is making excuses to justify it! Stupid kid...
Psychentist 2 years ago
Whether global warming is true or not is completely irrelevant. We now have less than 10% of the world's rainforest left, and mass extinctions are occurring because of habitat destruction. The global ecology is collapsing and people think the economy is more important. Scientists have been warning us for decades about these things, and people plug their ears because it threatens their throw away lifestyle. What good does a booming economy do us if we have no air, water or food?
Psychentist 2 years ago
@Psychentist
Whether or not its true is completely relevant!
Its the basis for an entire movement, a religion almost, for government policies.
That makes its extremely relevant as to its validity.
You dont convict someone on the basis of false allegations, neither should you base polices that impact on people negatively without being absolutely sure of your facts.
The facts are -Theyre not sure!
Tacair1 2 years ago
Whether or not GLOBAL WARMING is true is irrelevant. That's the point I'm making. We KNOW we are fucking up the earth regardless of whether or not we're changing the temperature.
We should institute policies of responsibility regardless of anything we know because it is the intelligent thing to do!
Or we could continue to be irresponsible morons like yourself.
Ever heard of better safe than sorry?
Your grandchildren will wish we had been more responsible, I promise you that.
Research Leukemia.
Psychentist 2 years ago
I have a panel of 50 illuminated buttons in front of me.
All are identical.
By pressing only ONE can i prevent little Johnny over there from drowning by shutting off the water rising around his ankles.
If any other button than the right one is pressed, the water will flood in faster.
Which one do i press?
Same with the atmosphere.
Know what youre doing before reacting.
Leukemia's got nothing to do with climatic change so stick that one where the sun dosent shine.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Leukemia is caused by certain chemicals entering the body of a fetus through the pregnant mother. My point on this was that POLLUTION is the problem. Synthetic chemicals are fucking us all up regardless of whether or not "climate change" is real.
Did you even read my fucking comments? Either you didn't or you didn't comprehend them. Know the issue before arguing. Jackass.
Psychentist 2 years ago
Yes fine. Specify your "Pollutants" but dont link it to a change in glabal temperatures if and when that happens or not.
Synthetic chemicals are not "fucking us all up" either.
Look up the word "synthesised".
It means an artificially made substance / whatever. Just cos its synthetic it means nothing. Lots of synthetic chemicals are identical to common ones found in nature with the nasty side of the naturally occuring ones removed.
Pollution- i agree with you, but not with the generalisation.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@Psychentist
dude, chillax man
don't undermine your argument by getting so hot-headed
goindownwitit 2 years ago
Psychentist sorry but with respect that is a VERY bad attitude. It's like saying, "we know the patient is sick, we don't know which organ has failed, so we'll operate on all of them just in case".
I agree we need to clean up our act and there are many things we can easily target now.
We should not target something which we are not sure about and we CANT PROVE!
XMrAverageX 2 years ago
what does plastic have to do with Climate change?
pdeboer1987 2 years ago
I love how you think GenXer's play xbox. Wow and McDonalds and Walmart are destroying the earth? What about the Chinese factories and their horrible poluting practices. For the record I agree with Dyson, there is no science here.
pdeboer1987 2 years ago
Most of you bubs dont know much do you?
dallis16 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah sun burn at the Pole due to the ozone hole. Thank god there isn't a population up there other than cabin fever suffering enviroscientists.
...Oh and now the ozone hole has also combined with Global warming to create god zilla!
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
hah that isn't even close to scary when you learn theres a giant ass hole in our magnetosphere over the mid atlantic.
and its spewing radiation over that spot.
plus heres the kicker, its moving towards the united states at about 8 miles a year. should be here by 2064 is what they say.
ganymedeIV4 2 years ago
fruitloops like u love butholes...
KarlDaggerfield 2 years ago
only on the chick im cheating on my 1st chick with
mwuahahhahaha
ganymedeIV4 2 years ago
This guy was offered a university degree at age 19.
He is an absolute genius.
You may want to listen.
8302linda 2 years ago 18
Argument from Authority fallacy.
A86 2 years ago
@8302linda This is an argument of authority (sophism) and has no place in real science.
isocrate27 1 year ago
@8302linda and...................
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
Comment removed
GlobalCooling2009 2 years ago
cooling since 99 .......but in reality since the sunspots and therefore solar activity have chilled ....the temperatures are easy to sense both in northern hemisphere as cooling.
But then global warming is the religion of the left. Don your global warming monk robes and say humeda humeda humeda hummmm
phxfreddy 2 years ago 2
@phxfreddy Yep, religion or not GW stopped since 1998-1999. You're totally right and Dyson too!:-)
angelpbj 17 hours ago
The world has been cooling since 2005.
JonThm 2 years ago
Says it can be managed by planting trees and not by stopping burning coal and oil!
shartne 2 years ago 2
Finally some good climate science!
I was waiting so long for somebody to talk about it so rationally and with such a wide scope. Excellent.
mrmaciejm 2 years ago
Thank you Sidewinder for posting this. Dr. Dyson makes valid points about the limits of computer models with so much complexity to deal with. I agree with the more observations part. He is not denying there is a problem with CO2, he says we still need to act. Land management, and I would add ecological restoration, reforestation, etc... would go far in improving people's lives. 4 stars, this is pretty cool.
KnightBiologist 2 years ago 3
Freeman Dyson is actually not Dr. Dyson but Freeman Dyson BA (Mathematics). This may seem strange since he is such an eminent scientist, but it is true. It does not in any way lessen the importance of his contribution to science. What the world needs is not necessarily more PhDs but more brains like his.
lehndal 2 years ago 2
I am a PhD sceintist whos doctorate was in GW. It is nuclear PR - the is nothing funny about that!
JonThm 2 years ago
can you expand on that a little?
blatspanner 2 years ago
See 'JonTHm' on how to do nuclear fusion, on Earth today! Power with no CO2 or toxic death.
JonThm 2 years ago
Comment removed
phospholipasec 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have been hearing that it is actually the sun spots that are causing the changes..
Look at what God PROMISED...
Revelation 16.
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
All making sense now huh?!
sharons813 2 years ago
GW is PR for nuclear power, the enemy to life on Earth.
JonThm 2 years ago
JonThm: You are ridiculous.
yaroukh 2 years ago 3
the world ends on 2012 anyway so it doesent matter.
malnin 2 years ago
the aztecs did beleave that the world endes in 2012 lol you got it all wrong!
mabe aliens will visit that would be cool!
tim0090 2 years ago
Man is destroying the planet; I pray for a world-wide epidemic which will kill off (painlessly) 75% of the world's population. Only a rapid decrease in the number of people and stabilization of the population at a much lower level than today will give our poor raped world a chance to recover from Man's depredations.
DrZenith 2 years ago
"I pray for a world-wide epidemic which will kill off (painlessly) 75% of the world's population"
Another ridiculous statement from the church of AGW. Such compassion you have. May you be the first to be infected.
Granite46 2 years ago
i would love to have a world wide epidemic that kills all people with an IQ less than 130.
tim0090 2 years ago
nazi eugenics f uck!
bluehorse888 2 years ago
lol no nazi eugenics want quite what i was sugesting!
tim0090 2 years ago
Comment removed
reason285 2 years ago
I disagree. We can significantly reduce our ecological footprint without decreasing our population. The US for example is responsable for a great deal of emissions but does not contain a proportional amount of people.
By recycling, reusing, reducing, by changing the amount of fuel we use for transportation, by changing the amount of energy we use for our homes, to change the types of energy and fuel we use, we make a fundamental difference.
Cousigreeno 2 years ago
Here's the thing, this planet has been around for billions of years. It has seen the coming and going of many species. It has endured catastrophic cosmic events. We are arrogant to think that our actions will "destroy the planet". However, our arrogance and irresponsibility as a species will likely lead to our downfall. And when we have selected ourselves out of existence through foolish behavior, this planet will happily continue spinning, unconcerned that we are gone.
SantaCruzOM 2 years ago 16
SantaCruzOM
I agree this is not only about CO2, but about all the other stuff we are doing to this place. We just have to stop being greedy and start being smart.
mrmaciejm 2 years ago
Carlin FTW!
mehhh15 1 year ago
@SantaCruzOM Assclown your idiotic notions are so unfounded in reality it's actually funny.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud Having fun trolling today, are we? Sorry, not going to bite. Go drop your flaming bag of shit on someone else's door step.
SantaCruzOM 1 year ago
@SantaCruzOM Your cognitive hyper-relativism is scientifically unfounded.
isocrate27 1 year ago
@SantaCruzOM totally correct: our problem is not GW, but arrogance.
angelpbj 1 year ago
You realize that you are insane, don't you?
HenryOrientJnr 2 years ago
one of the greatest scientists of the last 50 years. he is the last standing of the princeton greats. feynman, wheeler, and dyson are my favorites.
notreason 2 years ago
Freeman Dyson is my hero. He dares to question the prevailing and now fashionable Climate Change agenda. Don't simply let John Holdren and Al Gore's agenda turn you into a non-thinker by using alarmist propaganda. Question the links and understand it for yourself before going along with the establishment dogma.
T961585 2 years ago 2
The globe started cooling in 2005 - time for an ice age!
JonThm 2 years ago
Reasonable man . I am doing a thesis on Freeman Dyson in class. Our class is researching modern day physicists
everythingperson179 2 years ago
did anybody get the fact that stratospheric cooling effect destroys ozone? nah? got it? ya?
so let us repeat:
co2 cools in upper atmospheres
and destroys ozone
got it?
if any of the deniers claims something here, he must be as dumb as a piece of ****
i recommend going to the antarctic and getting roasted by UV
Chisuz 2 years ago
This interview sounds as if it were doe quite some time ago. Much of what he says is out of date and recently his statements about stratospheric cooling, long believed, were overthrown.
jaymulberry 3 years ago
Wrong. Dyson has an article out on him today in the NY Times where he reiterates it all.
ConservativeAnthem 2 years ago
He sounds very reasonable. Ty for posting this video.
BR177 3 years ago
I think I actually understood that. I'm too "lay" to respond to it, however.
photografr7 3 years ago
Mr. Dyson, do you feel that the birds and butterflies are going to feel the physical effect of global warming before we do the human race, and will global warming change there anatomy or cause them not to be able to fly?
RchHlm 3 years ago
Are you a sci-fi writer? No? You should consider it... that is ... if you stick to writing about worlds that are as far from ours as can be.
holugu 3 years ago
This guy was voted 25th world intellect in the 1990s. He has received many honours including fellowship of the Royal Society of London. The National Academy of Sciences (United States). The Paris Academy of Sciences. The Lorentz Medal by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences. The Hughes Medal by the Royal Society, The Max Planck Medal by the German Physical Society, The Enrico Fermi Award by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I think he knows what he's talking about.
You Muppet.
Thealchemist44 3 years ago 4
I apologise holugu for the confusion, I'm aiming my remarks at RchHlm. No offence intended to you. Take Care
Happy New Year
Thealchemist44 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
thankyou for the information
earthquai 3 years ago
Dyson is exactly right. There is no way to measure average ground temp, and it varies so much from point to point. We need to understand the biomass relation to the whole atmosphere. Not only is it a land management issue, but with nanotech it will be very easy to manage! We are destined to be the master of our destiny.
danno321s 3 years ago
I doubt humans will ever be masters of their own destiny. A simple hurricane proves how impotent humanity is in the face of natural events.
Gorzakk 3 years ago
All you need for this are sufficient prediction models(you could even use pattern recognising evolutionary algorithms, to let the system itself lern and get rid of the need of finding a theory yourself), a global weather obervation system (not a problem) and a method to change air temprature in a fast and controlled way within a specific area(which doesn't sound like an unsolvable problem).
Lihinel 3 years ago
Disease then. Famine, flooding, earthquakes, volcanoes. The hubris of humanity in attempting to control every aspect of the natural world will be its undoing. We are "of" the world. Not "in charge of" it.
Gorzakk 3 years ago
Those are all separated issues that can be researched and broken up into basic problems of information gathering, analyse and action.
Famine - combines with weather control, better crops and ways to analyse the ground and supply water and nutrients, as well as storing large amounts of conserved food at various storage places all over the earth.
Flooding - weather control. No problem if you can freeze or evaporate large amounts of water and predict/control rain patterns.
Lihinel 3 years ago
Earthquakes - predicting the tension of plates, maybe lower them technically, or just evacuate the area/build houses that withstand them.
Volcanoes - a bit like earthquakes, lower the pressure within the volcano, before it is enough to burst itself out.
Got more? Bring it on.
Lihinel 3 years ago
Oh gosh, forgot one:
Disease - any guess where this is going? Yeah right: find it, analyse its DNA and working mechanisms and come up with a cure. Not that hard, just a matter of better technology
Lihinel 3 years ago
*RNA when its a virus, source when its nano particles, or stuff.
Please don't try to deconstruct it, just cause I said DNA, which doesn't apply everywhere.
Lihinel 3 years ago
Despair is not an acceptable reaction to the world. Smallpox, Polio, Rubella, Tetanus, Bubonic Plague, Gangrene -- these were all sources of terror and despair two centuries ago. Today they are practically nonexistent in the developed world thanks to science.
That is not to say we have all the answers and should be complacent, but rather that there is hope for finding solutions when we put our minds to it.
Just giving up is not acceptablen or justifiable.
ferretburger 2 years ago
with a lil smile at the end ;+D
dizzayB 3 years ago
CO2 supports life on Earth. It's level follows plant growth cycles.
JonThm 3 years ago
"Extra plant transpiration-cooling negates all extra co2 heating (i.e. 3.8 W/m2 - 3.8 W/m2 = 0)."
--Piers Corbyn,
solar physisist,
ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS,
WeatherAction, the Long Range Forecasters,
developer, SWT (Solar Weather Technique),
Award of AMEME Hopley Shield 2008
SauceMystery 3 years ago
I'm realistic. Few humans will change their habits to make a change in C02 emissions. More humans will be born who need to be fed, warmed, employed, transported, housed, etc. The world population will keep growing. Rather than try to obsess on how to reverse "GW", we'll need to learn how to deal with its effects, such as any climatic or weather problem we must face. Life goes on.
taofledermaus 3 years ago
mitigation will be much more expensive than prevention
jazzmessenger8 3 years ago
theres science fiction and theres science fact,It's a fucken maze man lol
barb0025 3 years ago
Stooges put out that the 0.00037% CO2 has an effect on the climate: It doesn't. Nuclear power cause death.
JonThm 3 years ago
jus saw this from NASA goddard:
"Research Finds That Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point"
"Antarctica lost much more ice to the sea than it gained from snowfall according to a NASA survey done between 1992 and 2002. It also had a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documented for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves." Credit: NASA/SVS
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
fuk this IDIOT!
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
All things being equal, it would make sense that governments would HAVE to collaborate on keeping the peace during such and event. There are protocols in place to between govs to handle large impacts from space but if this video were factual then there would also be independent sources confirming the? sightings. I'm not denying the possible existance just that this video shouldn't make sense to any reasonable person. If you'll indulge me more I'll post more of my thoughts.
Okino455 3 years ago
Freeman Dyson is in his mid 80's for crying out loud & probably answered Big Oil's $10,000.00 to anyone with a Phd to refute Climate Change. Dyson is a Physicist not a
weather scientist. Maybe he has a sub-
prime mortgage so he took a sub prime bribe
to get laughed at by serious people in the
field. Arctic Ice is getting thicker
in the interior. Warm Arctic weather has a
tendency to create more snow leading to
thicker ice. Along the coast ice is
dropping into the ocean like never before.
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
Your logic is ludicrous. When would his age have allowed his credibility to be more legitimate in your hallowed opinion? You must pat your grandparents on their heads and tell them to go sit back in the corner each time they offer up any pearls of wisdom to you eh. This is what should be called Inconvenient truth- inconvenient to every global warming sucker like yourself who has fallen for it hook line and sinker. I'm sure you know all the "serious" people in the "field", right? Right. Haha.
vivezidane 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge said:
>I listen to James Hanson...
>$10,000.00 bribe to Phd's like Dyson
Wake up. Hansen campaigned for Gore and served as consultant to Gore. He campaigned for Kerry and received a $250k cash prize from the Heinz (Kerry) foundation. He was funded $720k from George Soros to promote global warming. He received a $25k from Scripps. Yet you think a PhD would jeopardize their career and name for $10k? Why don't you tell us how you know Dyson was paid $10k by big oil?
codehead1 3 years ago
Here's the difference Hanson is a goto
WEATHER SCIENTIST. Dyson? You will never
see him debate a weather scientist who is
pro CC & if you do they will defer to
Dyson's seniority but not his views on climate. $10,000.00 is probably just the beginning depending on the credentials of
the Phd(MIT)& their value in the selling of doubt in the PR wars. Climate change denial
is like Big Tobacco propping up & paying
their fake scientists & their fake research. Big Oil is using the same tactics.
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge said:
>$10,000.00 is probably just the beginning
You don't even try to show Dyson took money--you just insinuate (btw, Exxon's a public co--they would have to report it). The big money is on the side of the alarmists. Just the grant money during Bush has been over $30 billion. Exxon spending against GW the past 20 years isn't even a 10th of AL Gore's new GW ad campaign. Gore has made $100 million off GW, has his carbon offset business, and doesn't even live the lifestyle.
codehead1 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge: You are talking the "talking points"--I'm only rebutting yours. The huge money is in change--hundreds of billions have already been spent, and we haven't started. BTW, I'm not the one confused. If the warmers' co2 forcing figures were correct, it would already be *much* hotter now. The IPCC hedges that the discrepancy might be due to poorly understood factors, such as particulates--but they decline to investigate, only excuse their flawed models.
codehead1 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
>You're upholding a propaganda campaign by Big Oil...
>religious fanatics who hold that the earth & weather
>are soley the province the Lord...
By disagreeing with you? Not buying the hoax? Talk about "talking points"--anyone who doesn't believe is bought by big oil or is a religious fanatic?
It hasn't gotten hotter in a decade, scientists are calling for a decade of cooling. 0.7 C coming out of the little ice age--medieval warm period? Holocene optimum? Where were the cars?
codehead1 3 years ago
>multiple coupled models in the long term warming picture
None of the models match reality (by observation), and you can't use multiple models--they are uncorrelated! It's scientifically unsound to use multiple models--if they are all wrong, there is nothing gained by averaging them or combining them; if one is right the results are only polluted by combining them with those that are not.
codehead1 3 years ago
They are not uncorrelated. Wouldn't that
be convenient for you. Besides, as I said
originally the proof is not in computer
models because the weather scientists who
use them don't use them as proof. They
use the raw data and that overwhelmingly
proves CC. What you are using is called
Lawyer Science whether you are one or not.
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
>They use the raw data and that overwhelmingly proves CC.
You got that right. The climate changes, and the data shows it does.
But there is *no* evidence it's outside of norms, and *no* evidence that it's from co2. AGW is all about observing a small trend over a specific period, attributing it to man, and extrapolating that it will keep going. All this despite temperature having a poor correlation to co2 levels over time. And that "proves" it?
codehead1 3 years ago
"Scientifically unsound" my ass. This is
where you regress to a ideological waste of time. Where do you get your points from
Steve Milloy or is it that guy Manzi.
I know Junk Science Milloy used to be a lobbyist for Big Tobacco and he made
the small leap to Big Oil.
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
>Where do you get your points
Ah, from a man who's mantra is "big oil, big tobacco". I'd be happy to debate you on actual science. Two years ago I believed, too. I only looked into the science in depth because I wanted an idea of how truly bad of a disaster I should expect, since everyone had a different opinion. Within a few months, I realized it seemed overblown. A few more months and I realized that it wasn't accidental--it's deception with a purpose. AGW is the emperor's new clothes.
codehead1 3 years ago
>Co2 is just one forcing component. Sulfate
>& nitrate aerosols,land use, volcanic aerosols
>are forcings that promote a cooling effect
The fatal flaw in that argument is that you'd have to acknowledge that without co2, we'd be 2-2.5C *colder* than we are now (hello little ice age), if not for co2 saving our butts. You can't have it both ways. It's either should be hotter (to match the anticipated co2 forcing), or it's not a problem.
codehead1 3 years ago
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
>check out the governments and Bush's own EPA website
>which states unequivocally that climate change is principally
>man made.
The world issue is entirely political--the IPCC is a UN-founded 130+ member-nation political bureaucracy. For the masses, it's driven by Al Gore, a politician. The current admin just listed the polar bear as "threatened", despite being at multi-decade highs in population. Why not stick to science--is it real for you because the government says so?
codehead1 3 years ago
We are in warming period that has slices of cooling like in the 1970's. Another slice of cooling will happen but the general trend will be warming whether humans are here or not.
danno321s 3 years ago
I also listen to non-scientists
who have to get the science right because
their bottom lines depends on it.
RUPERT MURDOCH, Warren Buffet, Boone
Pickens, Lee Scott(Walmart), Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Big oil uses the same tactics and the same
PR people, and the same scientists that big tobacco USED to use. Dyson is not a
liar for hire.
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
"I also listen to non-scientists
who have to get the science right because
their bottom lines depends on it.RUPERT MURDOCH, Warren Buffet, BoonePickens, Lee Scott(Walmart), Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"
They can't even get their own bottom lines right. I don't think these people deserve the admiration you heap upon them.
Getting rich comes from guts, timing and due diligence, not from genius.
ferretburger 2 years ago
ferretburger, they can't get their bottom lines right?
That's not an argument. (You do observe format
rules by using quotes like a lot of ppl on this board.)
All of the ppl I mentioned who recognize climate
change have their own personal bottom lines very
much under control except for maybe Pickens.
BTW, when you read about Dyson's background you
know that going against the grain is a reflex
not necessarily based on fact. He is reclaiming
the ground he covered in the 80's, unsuccessfully.
danger0usknowledge 2 years ago
What a pity you are so narrow minded. Dyson unsuccessfully 80's ?, It called 30 years ahead of his time. Dont look at his background Look at yours.
dallis16 2 years ago
He would not stand a chance against a climate scientist
and he doesn't have to worry about that ever happening
b/c, in any public forum, they would be tripping all over
themselves to be polite, & rightfully so, in deference what he
has accomplished. At least I know he was into this back
in the 80's & he wants to remind everyone of that fact now
that he is in his 80's. He always liked to stick his
finger into the eye of consensus but not stick around
very long due to boredom.
danger0usknowledge 2 years ago
The only problem is that Freeman Dyson
doesn't have a PhD. The reason he doesn't
have a PhD is because he never needed one.
Dyson did not take the 10,000. Dyson is a
great physicist and I wish his old pal
that fine man Feynman were alive so we
could hear them chat on CC. What side
would Feynman take?
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago
**The only problem is that Freeman Dyson
doesn't have a PhD. The reason he doesn't**
Nah, having a PHD in a special Subject is about as useless as a Masters in English Degree in England (Or any Specialist Master Degree)
All you really can do with non medical Doctorates or Masters is teach the subject as a Professor. If you teach with a Bachelors or Associates then you would be a "Instructor"..but if you are teaching or researching outside your specialty your a "Instructor" anyway
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
**but if you are teaching or researching outside your specialty your a "Instructor" anyway**
Example: Andrew Weaver, one of the CO-Autors of the IPCC repiort has a PHD in Physics but is with the OCeanic INstitute and studies climatology, While Being a Enviromental Activist. THis makes him a "Instructor" in Envoromental Sciences....a "expert" in "Man Made Global warming" as it were
Now if he had a PHD in Meteorology instead and wasn't a advent "tree Hugger" he would know better...lol
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago
FakeAngel, I am not impressed. You are one of these
quoting spambots that show up trying to show that
you still own some ground in your fake argument
with yourself. You need to review how to provoke
a false argument while pretending to be a genuine
searcher for truth. To be a real person instead of
a spamer you need to pass the Turing Test.
You failed spammer. You are not a searcher for
anything except manufacturing doubt.
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago 2
**You need to review how to provoke
a false argument while pretending to be a genuine
searcher for truth. To be a real person instead of
a spamer you need to pass the Turing Test.**
Instead of opening your argument with quotes
you need to deviate from the talking points
format. Lets see, start with incomplete quote,
follow up with a fog of words, then launch into
climate change denier cut and paste that we
used to see in Intelligent Design & Big Tobacco.
danger0usknowledge 3 years ago 3
**to be a real person instead of
a spamer you need to pass the Turing Test.**
Always been partial to Carl Sagan's balony detection kit
**You need to review how to provoke
a false argument while pretending to be a genuine**
If you have the field or lab test to prove
1) burning fossil fuels make Co2
2) CO2 can retain more then .10f while uncontained at .038% by volume
3) Co2 can get airbone aside from the precipitation cycle as Co2 is 5x heavier then air.
then I'll admit I'm wrong
TheRealArchAngel 3 years ago