@AndrianGA photosynthesis pegs free carbon dioxide levels in the air. At 2ppm outside of an ice ages. When carbon dioxide levels rise, so it obviously doesn't cause global warming. Go wash your mind out with quick drying cement
Green plants have ensured that there has been no increase in free carbon dioxide over last two centuries. There has been an increase in life on earth.
@JonThm@JonThm This is the only other comment I will make in regards to this: unless you have done an analysis on total primary productivity (i.e. the amount of biomassas, as can be detected by satellite and other measures) - and the current ones show no massive change of the kind that would be expected if there was indeed "no increase in free carbon" - then you are a LIAR. And you have no business even discussing this iss
Basic biology takes carbon dioxide at two ppm. Only local, transient, meaningless increases in this gas in the air is possible. No effect on the weather. But man has increased life on earth.
@JonThm Then how do you address the fact that, when plants die, microbes metabolize them and release carbon dioxide?
It's obvious that you have no intention of having any meaningful discussion on here. I am proceeding to delete your comments and videos, except for those comments where you have directly engaged the others on the board with specific answers to questions. Any and all other comments will be removed.
The world has been cooling for 13 years-according to 100 leading American academics. Free carbon dioxide has remained static for 200 years. There was never any man made global warming
Explain to me why you say "[carbon dioxide] has been static since the little ice age, when it was higher...", and then "In the little ice age carbon dioxide was 4ppm". It's 380 ppm now, you crackhead.
@BeachofDreams green plants convert any additional carbon dioxide into additional life. Except in an ice ages, when there are fewer growing green plants. Basic biology.
@JonThm You still refuse to engage in the matter at hand. You keep on repeating the same thing over and over, and we have addressed it, and then you continue. You do not to deserve to comment here further. I will continue to delete your videos and your comments.
This is the original design, at a home improvement store it might run you well over $100
goo . gl / 6wYDw
My design is electronic which includes an infrared camera and a candle after some calibration my device measures accurately the CO2 concentration in a volume.
I cannot explain it in 500 chars, but here you can buy for home use for about the same price as the parts to build it:
goo . gl / GFsVE
With that you can make your own measurements and then apologies for being a moron
@JonThm This is your last chance to answer the questions posed DIRECTLY to you. If you post another generalized thesis or video than talks about plants and the carbon cycle I will report you for spamming and will delete your posts here.
@BeachofDreams high school biology teaches that green plants metabolise carbon dioxide to the lower limit of 2 ppm. In the little ice age carbon dioxide was at 4 ppm. For last 200 years the gas concentration in the air has been static. Only very stupid people fail to understand biology's carbon cycle
if you can't answer the questions posed to you, especially by myself, the video's author, I will treat you as a spammer and promptly remove most of your comments as they are repetitive, annoying, and for all accounts are the result of trolling.
So, are you going to answer the questins posed to you like an intelligent and honest participant in the discussion?
High school in biology prevents man affecting the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Man is additional carbon dioxide has resulted in additional life, no additional carbon dioxide in the air; so no effect on the weather
Green plants had taken in all man is additional carbon dioxide, resulting in more life on earth; but no increase in free carbon dioxide to impact on the weather potentially.
@AndrianGA man made climate change is an oxymoron. There has been no increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide for last 200 years-since the little ice age ended. When there was more carbon dioxide in the air.
"The level of carbon dioxide in the air has remained constant for last 200 years due to the actions of green plants. Life on earth has increased though"
You stupid, egotistic, cockroach shitbag, cumface retard asswipe of a donkey balls crabs spermatozoid tail flick.
F Y very much.
You did not provide the study that supports your claims you continue to assert your claims and you did not address my evidence.
Harvard University did a global analysis of carbon dioxide levels. They found there have been no increase over last 200 years. Though there have been an increase in life. Exactly as told by high school biology. Local variations in carbon dioxide have no meaning. It is the global average that would have affected the weather, had there been any and every Asian. Man made climate change PR by nuclear power to scare the stupid.
I've asked you 15 times to explain the CO2 readings taken on Mauna Lao observatory. Not one did you show ANY understanding of what that is, instead you continue to say the same thing over and over again.
You continue to pretend that there is no such thing. I've even given you the link.
So in summary, you're a ego-maniac douchebag who thinks that is smarter then the smartest people in the field of Earth climate.
@AndrianGA global warming and climate change are in direct contradiction to our high school biology retard. Man cannot control the level of carbon dioxide in the air, and the photosynthesis can
@AndrianGA You don't even have to point to Muana Loa. The carbon dioxide that gives plants "life" (and it does contribute to tissue growth) is not sequestered but is released upon decay of said tissues). This is basic carbon cycle logic that he doesn't get, and probably never will.
@JonThm Re: show me the Harvard study and I may take you seriously. You have no understanding of the global carbon cycle. All that carbon that gives plants "life" - where do you think it goes when these plants die and decay?
@BeachofDreams it is highly school biology: green plants take in all the available carbon dioxide. You can argue with Harvard, but he can't argue with high school fact.
Highly school biology teaches that green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide to create life on earth. Harvard University confirm this August 2010. Your high school biology teacher confirmed it if he ever went to high school
Biology teaches that man can not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Which he is determined solely by the efficiency of photosynthesis. So global CO2 has remained static for last 200 years. Do you understand high school biology?
@AndrianGA local variations have no impact on the weather. So volcanoes and forest fires have no effect. Mankind's additional carbon dioxide has increased life on earth but not resulted in a global change in the air. So obviously cannot affect the weather. Your reading use a stupid. And contradicts basic high school biology. Go and get educated
@AndrianGA I explained. All the additional carbon dioxide ended up as additional life on earth. Had he read my messages to year. And writer educate you. So all I realise others have tried and so obviously failed
@AndrianGA 10th time of answering: the only global which affects the weather is the global carbon dioxide reading. Some of us cœur reading from he knows where he has no impact on the global weather. They it is the global carbon dioxide level, which has been static for 200 years answer does not affect the weather.
Passe school biology teaches that green plants convert all the available carbon dioxide in the air into life on earth. Which is why there is more helium in the air and carbon dioxide: nature does loads of molecular nuclear fusion.
Harvard University found that global carbon dioxide in the air have not increased for 200 years: this is exactly what is taught by high school biology. Life on earth has increased. Any idiot who thinks man can affect there carbon dioxide in the air needs to reset their high school
Carbon dioxide powers biology. More carbon dioxide in the air converts into more life on earth. There has been no increase in carbon dioxide in the air for 200 years as a result. There has been an increase in life on earth.
The level of photosynthesis in the air is fixed by green plants doing photosynthesis. He's has remained static for last 200 years. This is high school biology.
I see, so the oceans don't absorb CO2? and the green biomass stays constant, there isn't deforestations and populations of plancton also remain constant. Hmmm
"He's has remained static for last 200 years." CO2 is a he now????
I'm going to say this name for the third time, Mauna Lao observatory
@AndrianGA Outside of an ice-age, photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide from the air. So for last 200 years CO2 has been fixed at 2 ppm in the air. Carbon dioxide can only rise in an ice-age.
'free carbon dioxide'is the gas left in the air after photosynthesis. That might have affected the weather is it had not remained constant for 200 years.
So 500million yrs ago when CO2 levels were 13x higher, why wasn't there the run away greenhouse effect? And what about times when we had higher CO2 levels and there were ice ages? And what about CO2 TRAILING temp changes by 800 years? Alarmists respond by coming up with other hypotheses to prop up the AGW hypothesis. When your original hypothesis depends on several other hypotheses to stay afloat, then your original hypothesis is not very credible.
@nlpjohn I'm baffled as to why you think that "we" think that GHG is the only thing that drives climate changes. Of course, there are other drivers of climate - forcings such as solar irradience, landscape changes; and feedbacks such as water vapour (also a GHG). But in THIS case, they are not the primary agent, as is shown directly through this research.
@BeachofDreams Strawman...I never said GHG are the only thing that drives climate. And I expect more from a person that claims that graduated MCL in Philosophy. I believe logical falicies were covered in your curriculum. Yes? If CO2 is such a boogy-man then CO2 levels 13x higher than today is significant...Yes? If you want to trivialize CO2 as being a tertiary driver of climate, then you prop up sceptic arguments that CO2 is a insignificant variable. Pick your poison...
@nlpjohn No, I'm saying that you think that I think that GHG is the only driver of climate. I don't. This doesn't imply that GHG are insignificant now any more than it implies that GHG were insignificant during the Cambrian.
@BeachofDreams Point taken...however. You still have not addressed my points about adverse data. If increased CO2 triggers positive feedback, then 13x (or 20x pre industrial) should have sent temps soaring out-of-control. Which did NOT happen. The simple truth is that positive feedback systems are VIRTUALLY non-existent in nature...yet we are suppose to believe our climate is driven by positive feedback? And based on what? 0.7C over 150 years of data? If we get to 1.5C, then I'll worry...
@nlpjohn Well, it's true that there is usually never any case of a sustained positive feedback, simply because in a complex system such as that of earth's, negative feedbacks exist too and would, eventually, halt any positive feedback.
@nlpjohn Also, keep in mind that 500 million years ago, most carbon was either in the atmosphere or in rocks, while plants had not even evolved to produce oxygen (according to the most utd rsearch). And it was far hotter than today. The earth system was virtually an alien one to today's, so comparisons are not neccessarily valid from the outset.
@BeachofDreams The purpose of the 500mya example is to show that the hypothesis of the runaway greenhouse effect is garbage. We have also had ice ages w/ higher CO2 levels than today. Then we afterwards we can discuss the GROSS violations of the scientific method by alarmists. From publishing research results which can NOT be replicated, to dodging FOIA requests. I can respect the "luke warmers" (they reject pos itive feedback only). I can NOT respect those who ignore the scientific method.
@nlpjohn Well, of course it is possible to have cooler than average temperatures with more average carbon dioxide than today; can you cite the event that apparently shows this? I'm not disputing it, although I am skeptical you've characterized it correctly - simply because most recent glaciations have happened over the past few million years, around the time that carbon dioxide levels were falling, and below what they are today. We're still technically in an "ice age", btw.
@BeachofDreams The start of the industrial age began as we were leaving a climate phenom called "The Little Ice Age". We expected the temps to rise NATURALLY. Warmists are relying on extreme cherry-picking to claim that industry caused the temps to rise. The study of climate should use time periods of at least 1000years. Yet we take a tiny 150year data set and claim it is CO2's fault. Using such a TINY data slice should STINK to any of us who have bothered to take a Stat-101 class.
@nlpjohn I'm sorry, but how does the "medieval warm period" or the "little ice age" (blips compared to the rate and magnitude of today's changes) discount the the simple physics referred in the video above? Also, reconstructed temperature - going back millions of years - is the RESULT of a rigorous statistical method.
@BeachofDreams You are misinformed. Pro Bob Carter youtube videos show time periods w/ greater rates of change than today's warming. And cited proxy studies from CO2science/com shows the MWP to have greater warming than today's warming. Even Phil Jones of CRU conceded the MWP temps to be about the same as today's temps. And using a 150 year sample size is NOT a rigorous sample size w/ regard to the study of climate. I say a 0.7 C degree increase is nothing. Wake me if it gets to 1.5C...
@nlpjohn "Pro Bob Carter youtube videos show time periods w/ greater rates of change than today's warming." Are these the "little ice age" and "medieval warm period"? If not, then what Bob Carter says here is irrelevant.
At any rate, 2 things: 150 yrs is not the sample size, and (2) again, how do these points address the video above?
@BeachofDreams The industrial revolution began about 150 yrs ago and that is our sample size for studying the AGW hypothesis and the 0.7 C temp increase. As for the video, yes CO2 is considered a GHG and CO2 levels have been increasing. But lets not chase red herrings. The true issues are positive feedback and the amount of influence of CO2 on warming. There are hundreds of factors that affect climate and there are many examples that show at best CO2 has a sub-tertiary effect on climate.
@nlpjohn Actually no, the last 150 years is often cited as the time frame with which we compare past instances of climate change; it is not the full sample of what is used to determine climate sensitivity, for instance.
Also, I don't think you've read the paper very carefully (or the video). The research singles out "long-lived GHG" (i.e. not water vapour and other "feedback" associated gases). Feedbacks are important, but long term they aren't responsible for perturbing climate.
@BeachofDreams The null hypothesis is that mother nature drives the climate. To over-rule the null hypothesis evidence must be shown the climate over the 150 yr period of the industrial revolution is NOT caused by mother nature. 150 years as a sample size is NOTHING. I wouldn't even consider the AGW hypothesis unless we get 1.5C rise in temps as oppose to the 0.7C temp rise we have experienced... This is not me talking. This is the math talking. This is Statistics-101 material...
@AndrianGA Oh dear...First strawmans and now ad hominen attacks. I don't mind a bit of dirty fighting if my debate opponent can offer some good red meat in a debate. However...you offer nothing of value that I can see that will counter-balance your poor manners. The simple truth is I am out of your league with regard to debating AGW. I regret I don't believe a rational debate is possible w/ you so I must say good-bye forever...
As I said before that wasn't an ad hominen, it was an insult.
"However...you offer nothing of value that I can see that will counter-balance your poor manners."
My manner is only appropriate to your ego.
"The simple truth is I am out of your league with regard to debating AGW."
The debate of AGW is similar to the debate of evolution of the 1930, in other words it was debated by those that knew nothing of it, others however made progress
Your insistence that an "ad hominen" is the same as an insult shows just how vacuous your intellect is.
As I said before, the real debate on AGW is done in academia among people that work in the field, your "debate" is a charade that offers nothing to anyone, it's a waste of resources.
Your misunderstanding of logical fallacies is further proof of your weak intellect. Your arrogance unfortunately does not allow you to learn.
@AndrianGA Oh dear. First strawmans and now ad hominens. And you ask us to believe an insult is not an ad hominen. This statement alone tells me you lack rationality. I don't mind a bit of rough play during debates but in these cases I do require that some red meat be contributed. You offer nothing but carrot sticks and celery. The simple truth is I'm out-of-your league w/ regard to the AGW debate. Find someone else to play w/ that matches your intellectual level. Buh-bye forever...
@ahmology CFC's, a type of greenhouse gas, have been shown to modify and destroy the ozone layer. These have not even been fully phased out yet, which is terrifying.
For the honest Global Warmers, here's some proof of the Oil Corporations in on the Cap and Trade scam that Randomlaughingman on her Hicks account is lying about. Google "British Petroleum and ECX"
The hated BP involved in the carbon trading racket, the "solution" for Global Warming that these AGW Oil shills are promoting.
Wow, how psychotic does a poster have to be before YouTube bans them? Dayversion has proven himself to be mentally disturbed on more than one occasion, & is most definitely a CYBER-STALKER. I've seen bowls of mixed nuts that were less NUTTY than this psycho. If he hates the oil industry as much as he claims, then I'm guessing he doesn't own or drive a car. Is that true, Dayversion, or are you a hypocrite as well as a complete psychopath?
The thing I love about Dayversion's psychotic rants is that anyone without their head up their you know what is well aware that the oil industry opposes *all* action aimed at reducing CO2 emissions-including Cap & Trade-& spends millions of dollars on Denialist Propaganda. That Dayversion helps spread this propaganda proves that he is on the Oil Industry pay-roll. He's probably a racist Bill O'Reilly/Glen Beck fan too.
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman, on some accounts you hate jews and gays and love nazis, on others like Goog2k/stopglobalwarming08 you pretend to hate nazis, love gays, but on both alter MPD styles, you love promoting Global warming for the Oil corporations. You lie, insult, rant and rave, and will even jack your posts with your slew of accounts all to promote carbon taxes. You are not star stuff, but dog scat
@Dayversion "You lie, insult, rant and rave". Hm, well actually I *tried* to have an intelligent conversation with you, but you were the one who started the ranting, raving & insults. You are also the one who behaves like a psychotic little stalker-following people you don't like to *every* video they ever comment on & leaving insulting comments. This, of course, proves two things: (1) your a nut-job & (2) that your entire argument is utterly without basis-just a desperate bid to promote Mobil!
@Dayversion Anyway, as entertaining as its been to watch your devolution into complete insanity, I'm going to end this with the following questions for you: Do you own a car? Do you drive your car more than 3 times a week? Do you drive an SUV? Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support Deep Sea Oil drilling? If the answer to even *one* of these questions is "yes", then you've done more to support the Oil Industry than I ever have-a support you boost by denying global warming exists!
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman, that was classic, 4 comment rants to my 1 comment, but your record is 5. So what Oil Corporation uniform did you wear today BP? Or did you mix and match between BP and Exxon? What day do you wear Shell, just on Fridays? Did you decide for Halloween between the National Socialist SS, BP uniform, or just go as Clara Massa the village idiot?
@Dayversion Wow, you're practically frothing at the mouth there Dayversion. What's the matter, don't like being shown up for the psychotic, Oil-Industry spruiking stalker that you really are? A couple of things (a) I'm not a woman, (b) unlike you, I don't knowingly tell lies, (c) unlike you, I don't resort to insults & psychotic rants as a first resort., (d) I have always only had *one* account here-& don't know who Randomlaughingman is ((s)he's pissed you off good, so I'd probably like him/her)
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman, the real greens, Greenpeace Uk recently hacked your favorite Oil corporation British Petroleum's Carbon trading website, they know this is a scam, but your to insane to realize it. Do you switch out your oil corp uniform you wear each day? did you wear BP yesterday, and Exxon today Clara?
@Dayversion Oh Dayversion, you're really quite hilarious. You keep calling me Clara (though I'm a bloke); you keep making paranoid accusations about me; you rant, rave & spit abuse like a chronic Tourettes sufferer & you stalk people on YouTube-yet you accuse *me* of being insane? Oh mercy, that's just too funny. You're not just insane, you're downright certifiable-which is why you probably can't understand the very simple link between greenhouse gases & global warming.
Most of the country will see a colder-than-usual winter while summer and spring will be relatively cool and dry, according to the time-honored, complex calculations of the "Old Farmer's Almanac."
The 2011 issue of the almanac, which claims to be the nation's oldest continuously published periodical, was released Tuesday. It predicts that in the coming months, the Earth will continue to see a "gradual cooling of the atmosphere"
@Dayversion Hate to shatter your illusions, but average *global* temperatures for June 2000 to June 2010 have risen at a rate of +0.0138 degrees per year, or about +0.14 degrees for the entire decade. 2010 has seen some of the *hottest* temperatures recorded in over 100 years & 2010 is looking to be the warmest year on record-surpassing even 2005 or 1998-in spite of the fact that solar activity has been at lows unseen in over 100 years. I think you need a new Almanac
@MrHicks091 Hi is your name from Bill Hicks the comedian? Because Randomlaughingman is a big fan
• 2007 Year of Global Cooling
Washington Times
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
@Dayversion Wow, you are truly a pathetic moron, aren't you? Yeah, 07-08 was cooler than 05-06 (I never claimed otherwise), but a single year does *not* make a trend. 07-08 was a strong La Nina year-when large amounts of atmospheric heat got taken up by the oceans. It got re-released in 2009-2010, making both years tied with 2005 as the hottest on record. Only person who needs to check sources-like GISS, which shows a warming *trend* of +0.01 degrees per year for the last decade!
@Dayversion BTW, just because Longevity is a sign of success, doesn't make it a sign of *accuracy*. It might well be cooler in 2011 than it was in 2009 or 2010-if there is a La Nina again-but I'll bet good money that 2011 will be *warmer* than 2007 or 2008, & that the warming trend for 2010 to 2019 will be higher than for 2000-2009.
@MrHicks091 That's not logical at all, its more right than wrong, which is obvious since its been around so long and farmers have been depending on it for years. That carries more weight than MrHicks who was possibly inspired with that name by the comedian Bill Hicks who Randomlaughingman is also a big fan of. She always signs off on that nazi racist account with "kill yourself" sound familiar?
@Dayversion Nothing you've said detracts from the fact that you know *nothing* about inter-annual variability in the climate. What happened in 07-08 doesn't alter the longer-term warming trend of +0.014 degrees per year for 2000-2010. Its funny that you consider the Almanac authorative, when its climate info almost certainly comes from the same people predicting long-term global warming! *No* the "Kill youself" sign off does not sound familiar. You obviously know it though, which is disturbing.
@MrHicks091 I like Comedian Hicks also, same as Randomlaughingman, and same as you. In many ways you remind me of her or the other guy, the one who claimed to have a PhD and was uncovered as a liar. I wonder, you have many similarities to the racist psycho nutjobs, and your also a big fan of Bill Hicks like they are, plus have a fanaticism for Global Warming even trying the putdowns and lies like them. I wonder if your Clara or perhaps the fraud Doctor.
@Dayversion The only fraud around here is *you* Dayversion. You don't even know the simplest things about how our climate operates, yet you try & sound "authoritative". Yet like so many Denialist Frauds on the blogosphere, you resort to pathetic ad hominem attacks when your complete lack of knowledge is exposed. This, plus your fanaticism for the Denialist Cult expose you as yet another Right Wing nut-job who puts fossil fuel profits ahead of the needs of the general population.
@MrHicks091 Your a liar on so many fronts Clara. Have you made an PhD claims lately? Is it because you adore Dr Who or to make yourself feel superior when lying for your Oil Corporations so they can get Cap and Trade passed?
@Dayversion Wow, you really are a sick, psychotic freak, aren't you? Not only do you hate to be proven wrong, but then you trawl YouTube stalking those who have made you look stupid. The only people lying for the Oil Corporations are Denialist Cult members like yourself. The fact that you've provided no evidence to back your claims, & resort instead to ad hom & creepy, stalker like behaviour exposes you as one of the Oil Industries more fanatical minions. Seriously, get a LIFE you moron!
@MrHicks091 Perfect self description, but I would add MPD suffering freak, with an alter randomlaughingman that is a racist, homophobic, nazi loving insane freak. Have you played "Dr" lately? What unifrom did you decide to wear this Halloween BP or Exxon? Or perhaps you could go half brownshirt and half Oil corporation?
@Dayversion Wow, the "takes one to know one defense", how very *mature*. Your oil industry mates must pay you an awful lot of money, given how much free time you have to stalk those who show you up. BTW, who is this Clara & Bill Hicks you're obsessing about? Are they the ones treating your psychosis? Or are they simply the people you only see & hear when you're off your meds-like today? You really are a pathetic little twit who has obviously spent far too much time listening to Glen Beck.
@MrHicks091 Nice rate jacking skills randomlaughingMan. Whatcha wearing today BP or Exxon uniform you freak? Allot of tarts like Classic music, soothes the insanity, so they say. How come no 80's music favorited, trying to switch your style on this? But duh you name yourself after Bill Hicks, act like a tart, lie, rate jack, and insult so very similar to Randomlaughingman/Nightversionn. You lead me to a bigger fish, you stupid ass, just like you always are no matter what account or MPD alter
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman/Nightversionn, what little support you have, will evaporate once the average and honest Global Warmer finds out the truth that the very Oil and other corporations you have been lying about despising are pushing Global warming to get Cap and Trade past. You are the oil shill, but more than that, you are the freak randomlaughingman who is a racist, psycho, MPD freak with a 1001 accounts and who knows how many MPD personalities you have.
@Dayversion Coming to you from Dayversion fashion house, these lovely tin-foil hats. Perfect for the paranoid schizophrenic who hasn't been taking their meds lately. I have only *one* account here, you psychotic little TWERP, & the only one pushing the Oil Industry Agenda are Global Warming denialists-like yourself-who clearly oppose any action on CO2 that will hurt the profits of your beloved Oil Industry-who are clearly paying you a LOT of money to run interference for them.
@MrHicks091 You accuse others of engaging in "pathetic ad hominem attacks" yet...you say things like this: "Denialist Frauds", "fanaticism", "Denialist Cult", "Right Wing nut job", and then as the cherry-on-top you accuse others of being stooges for the fossil fuel industry. What is that word in the dictionary that begins with an "H" that means a person who condemns an activity while shamelessly engaging in that same activity? I believe it is hypocrit?. Perhaps you know this word... Yes?
intelect? common sense? intelligence quotient? < Alias IQ" All just went down the toilet! I must now run out and rev the crap out of my car engine! My plants need C02 and I need fresh Oxygen from laughing so hard!
The governments of the world are going to use up all the oil and gas in the ground until there is none left. The Green brigade have done nothing to slow this down in fact its pace is increasing. But then plenty of legislation about carbon dioxide being a poison, hang on a minute isn't that what we breathe out. What I'm the polluter of the world along with all the other animals even dolphins. Not by using all the plastic and other junk that we have no choice to use, but just by existing.
@ste6666666 For the record, all *natural* sources of CO2-including from human respiration-are accounted for by the planet's natural CO2 sinks (the so-called Carbon Cycle). When CO2 is a problem is when we start pumping out the stuff that hasn't existed in the atmosphere for over 500 million years. For the record, even though the sun was at least 1% cooler then than today, global temperatures are believed to have been about 5 degrees warmer than at any point in the last 10,000 years.
@RandomConcepts Funny the cavemen had higher co2 levels then the hillbillies of today!!! 7000ppm when life exploded on earth yes it was warmer perhaps no ice perhaps higher sea levels and life was thriving all over the globe. we are at 350ppm if anything this so called global warming could be preventing a ice age. So if global warming is real are humans causing it if so why worry? sea levels rise or ice sheets cover north America. Should we fear warming or cooling 350ppm being to high or 7000
@drgreenmwdf "Funny the cavemen had higher co2 levels then the hillbillies of today!!! "
No, they didn't. And they were cavemen, remember.
At any rate, we are in the midst of a relatively cold period in earth's history (we are, in fact, living in an ice age; we are just not living in a "glacial period"), but that doesn't mean that turning up the temperature to pre-ice age levels will be good!
The cheapest way to provide electricity is by building modern nuclear power plants. As many as possible. It is arrogant to think, that we can change what the planet will do by changing a small portion of the 0.036% CO2 in the air.
Just recently, Eyjafjallajökull had released some volcanic ash into the atmosphere, paralyzing air travel in Europe. Mother Earth is laughing at us!
CO2 is necessary for plant growth, without it we would all die of starvation.
CO2 becomes toxic at 1% in our atmosphere. Now we have 0.036%.
The dominant greenhouse in our atmosphere is water vapor: 0-4%!!!!
H2O has a practically unlimited supply in the oceans, therefore we are at a dynamic quasi-equilibrium, there is no chance of having a runaway greenhouse situation because of some more CO2.
Neither I nor the library I access from has a subscription to GRL, so I can't comment fully, but from the abstract and from what I've read in comments on the paper, the paper is about climate sensitivity to changes in the radiation budget and the uncertainties brought about by the mathematical assumptions of climate models. It isn't about the causes of global warming...
@BeachofDreams Yeah, an interesting inconsistency, something to look at more in detail. I was interested in the paper your description. Got any more on the radiation budget? My interest is in the degree of warming, as we know CO2 is a very good greenhouse gas but has a diminishing return when concentrations increase. The radiation changes are a great way to test the theories and models.
...However, they merely point to an inconsistency between the data they have observed and the model results. They state explicitly that they are not sure why there is an inconsistency, which is short for "there may be a problem with our data or there may be a problem with the model - we can't tell". Can't comment further.
Dr. Lindzen showed that, the climate sensitivity is such that, when the Earth surface gets hotter by delta T temperature, the energy radiated at T is larger with increasing T. In contrast, all the IPCC climate models are wrong in assuming that with increasing T the energy radiated out is decreasing.
On top of that, Dr Miskolczi shoved that we have been at a dynamic energy equilibrium and a runaway warming is impossible due to increasing CO2 concentration.
@luveraaab oh no now California won't burn in the summer dam global warming
It is not that we don't believe in global warming it is that we believe humans are not the cause nor do we think it is bad. If humans did have effect it is out weighed by nature making it still irrelevant, One volcano erupts and makes man made co2 look like childs play.
@drgreenmwdf One larger eruption of a volcano releases C02 measured in the megatonnes. Burning fossil fuels and land use changes gives off C02 measured in the gigatonnes. Thousands of times more.
It may have been hotter. The so called MWP was a warmer period as compared to the centuries before and after, but it is NOT established that it was hotter than today. At any rate, whatever warm period that occured is likely due either to internal climate mechanisms or to greater solar energy absorption on the surface of the earth.
You know, the climate can warm due to things other than greenhouse gas, but greenhouse gas does cause warming. The video shows how we prove that.
@BeachofDreams you are a DORK! NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING! We started measuring AFTER the BOTTOM of the really hot period, which means from the coldest point. DUH! It had NO WHERE TO GO BUT UP! plus, they totally took the MWP right out of the propaganda - to generate what is known as the "hockey stick" graph, where the rapid upturn of the blade is supposed to MISLEAD US INTO THINKING THAT global warming is a crisis - I'm a doctor-researcher-scientist Who the fck are you - moron!
@vhsjvc Only dork around here is *you* buddy. Temperature measurements started in the mid 19th century, well into the most recent warming period (from the mid 18th century to mid 20th century). Even with significant increases in solar radiation reaching Earth, the planet only warmed at +0.05 degrees per decade from 1880-1950 (when the solar maxima peaked). From 1950 to the present, solar maxima have been in gradual decline, but the planet has warmed at a rate of +0.11 degrees per decade!
@vhsjvc Point 2, the MWP was, like the warming period of the 18th to 20th centuries, underpinned by significant increases in solar maxima (which can be ascertained using Be-10 & C-14 isotope levels), & was significantly slower than warming of the last 60 years (a rate of barely +0.01 to +0.02 degrees per decade-1/5th of the rate of modern warming). The MWP also peaked at about 0.1 degrees *below* the levels seen in the last 20 years. However, if you were really a scientist, you'd know that!
Biology converts additional carbon dioxide into extra life on earth. Not extra carbon dioxide in the air. That is a lie by nuclear power
JonThm 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
"Biology converts additional carbon dioxide into extra life on earth. Not extra carbon dioxide in the air. That is a lie by nuclear power"
Fuck you and "That is a lie by nuclear power"
You're a gigantic moron in prime time of prime moron stuff.
"Don't argue with an idiot, people will think you are one too"
On thins note, I wish you had no right to vote, go fuck yourself
Bad bye
AndrianGA 5 months ago
The global air is controlled by photosynthesis not man. It has remained static for last 200 years. As any idiot realises
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
"It has remained static for last 200 years."
Fuck you
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA high school biology predicts this. With no profanity. But there again you are failing stupid aren't you
JonThm 5 months ago
@AndrianGA photosynthesis pegs free carbon dioxide levels in the air. At 2ppm outside of an ice ages. When carbon dioxide levels rise, so it obviously doesn't cause global warming. Go wash your mind out with quick drying cement
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
You had shown no willingness in a conversation, only desire to impose your "ideas" on others.
I have no desire for that, and I do not want to litter this page with anymore curse words. The author of this video does not deserve that.
Your imposing desire and unwillingness to engage in a two way conversation is appalling.
I really hate you and in an unlikely chance that we'll ever meet I will assault you.
You're a disgusting human being.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
Green plants have ensured that there has been no increase in free carbon dioxide over last two centuries. There has been an increase in life on earth.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
"no increase in free carbon dioxide over last two centuries."
Fuck you
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm @JonThm This is the only other comment I will make in regards to this: unless you have done an analysis on total primary productivity (i.e. the amount of biomassas, as can be detected by satellite and other measures) - and the current ones show no massive change of the kind that would be expected if there was indeed "no increase in free carbon" - then you are a LIAR. And you have no business even discussing this iss
BeachofDreams 4 months ago
Basic biology takes carbon dioxide at two ppm. Only local, transient, meaningless increases in this gas in the air is possible. No effect on the weather. But man has increased life on earth.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
If CO2 concentration was 2ppm in Earth troposphere then at night the temperature would drop below freezing, just an FYI.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you that direct measurement of CO2 concentration proves you wrong.
It's like driving in the same car the odometer says 30 km/h and you keep saying it's 3 km/h.
Every one in the car (except you) sees that we're going faster then the people walking on the side walk.
Is your vision THAT much impaired?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm Then how do you address the fact that, when plants die, microbes metabolize them and release carbon dioxide?
It's obvious that you have no intention of having any meaningful discussion on here. I am proceeding to delete your comments and videos, except for those comments where you have directly engaged the others on the board with specific answers to questions. Any and all other comments will be removed.
BeachofDreams 5 months ago
High school biology teaches that green plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide. Excreting oxygen. And supporting more life on earth.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
Direct measurement of CO2 concentration shows you wrong.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm
Direct measurement of CO2 concentration contradicts your statement.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm
"Green plants prevent a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. Ever."
Dumb ass
AndrianGA 5 months ago
The world has been cooling for 13 years-according to 100 leading American academics. Free carbon dioxide has remained static for 200 years. There was never any man made global warming
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
"Free carbon dioxide has remained static for 200 years. There was never any man made global warming"
Fuck you
AndrianGA 5 months ago
Explain to me why you say "[carbon dioxide] has been static since the little ice age, when it was higher...", and then "In the little ice age carbon dioxide was 4ppm". It's 380 ppm now, you crackhead.
BeachofDreams 5 months ago
@BeachofDreams green plants convert any additional carbon dioxide into additional life. Except in an ice ages, when there are fewer growing green plants. Basic biology.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm You still refuse to engage in the matter at hand. You keep on repeating the same thing over and over, and we have addressed it, and then you continue. You do not to deserve to comment here further. I will continue to delete your videos and your comments.
BeachofDreams 4 months ago
Plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide. Is has been static since the little ice age, when it was higher!
JonThm 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
"Plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide. Is has been static since the little ice age, when it was higher!"
Source please, paper name author.
Do you realize that you didn't even look at the evidence I've brought to the table?
I've given you my sources that you conveniently ignored, what are your sources?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm
goo . gl / UOnJj
Do you know what a capnograph is? It is very simple to build.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA Tell me!
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
This is the original design, at a home improvement store it might run you well over $100
goo . gl / 6wYDw
My design is electronic which includes an infrared camera and a candle after some calibration my device measures accurately the CO2 concentration in a volume.
I cannot explain it in 500 chars, but here you can buy for home use for about the same price as the parts to build it:
goo . gl / GFsVE
With that you can make your own measurements and then apologies for being a moron
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm This is your last chance to answer the questions posed DIRECTLY to you. If you post another generalized thesis or video than talks about plants and the carbon cycle I will report you for spamming and will delete your posts here.
BeachofDreams 5 months ago
@BeachofDreams high school biology teaches that green plants metabolise carbon dioxide to the lower limit of 2 ppm. In the little ice age carbon dioxide was at 4 ppm. For last 200 years the gas concentration in the air has been static. Only very stupid people fail to understand biology's carbon cycle
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
"high school biology teaches that green plants metabolise carbon dioxide to the lower limit of 2 ppm"
Source please, Book name, chapter etc...
"In the little ice age carbon dioxide was at 4 ppm."
Source please, book name chapter etc...
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm I mean, where do you come up with these bogus numbers? Do you get them from playing Soduku (assuming you have the wit to do so)?
BeachofDreams 5 months ago
@JonThm
if you can't answer the questions posed to you, especially by myself, the video's author, I will treat you as a spammer and promptly remove most of your comments as they are repetitive, annoying, and for all accounts are the result of trolling.
So, are you going to answer the questins posed to you like an intelligent and honest participant in the discussion?
BeachofDreams 5 months ago
High school in biology prevents man affecting the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Man is additional carbon dioxide has resulted in additional life, no additional carbon dioxide in the air; so no effect on the weather
JonThm 5 months ago
Green plants had taken in all man is additional carbon dioxide, resulting in more life on earth; but no increase in free carbon dioxide to impact on the weather potentially.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
goo . gl / SkNxG
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA man made climate change is an oxymoron. There has been no increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide for last 200 years-since the little ice age ended. When there was more carbon dioxide in the air.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
goo . gl / 3QqnO
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm
goo . gl / QH7a1
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm
"The level of carbon dioxide in the air has remained constant for last 200 years due to the actions of green plants. Life on earth has increased though"
You stupid, egotistic, cockroach shitbag, cumface retard asswipe of a donkey balls crabs spermatozoid tail flick.
F Y very much.
You did not provide the study that supports your claims you continue to assert your claims and you did not address my evidence.
Go fuk yourself you putrid brain of a shit fly.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
Carbon dioxide is life.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
"Carbon dioxide is life."
Hey, deepshit egomaniac
WTF, please tell me, tell the world WTF makes you think that climate researchers don't know this???
AndrianGA 5 months ago
Harvard University did a global analysis of carbon dioxide levels. They found there have been no increase over last 200 years. Though there have been an increase in life. Exactly as told by high school biology. Local variations in carbon dioxide have no meaning. It is the global average that would have affected the weather, had there been any and every Asian. Man made climate change PR by nuclear power to scare the stupid.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
You know at least hit the reply button so I know you are still talking to me.
Where can I read about the study you speak of? Who were the people that conducted that study.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA any high school biology teacher in the world will be happy to teach you about the carbon cycle.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
You're a total moron.
I've asked you 15 times to explain the CO2 readings taken on Mauna Lao observatory. Not one did you show ANY understanding of what that is, instead you continue to say the same thing over and over again.
You continue to pretend that there is no such thing. I've even given you the link.
So in summary, you're a ego-maniac douchebag who thinks that is smarter then the smartest people in the field of Earth climate.
You're a Retard with a capital R
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm
To call you a retard is an insult to retards.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA global warming and climate change are in direct contradiction to our high school biology retard. Man cannot control the level of carbon dioxide in the air, and the photosynthesis can
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
"global warming and climate change are in direct contradiction to our high school biology"
Prove it!!!!!
YOU IGNORED THE EVIDENCE GIVEN BY MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY
GO FUK YOURSELF, you selfish shitbag
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA You don't even have to point to Muana Loa. The carbon dioxide that gives plants "life" (and it does contribute to tissue growth) is not sequestered but is released upon decay of said tissues). This is basic carbon cycle logic that he doesn't get, and probably never will.
BeachofDreams 5 months ago
@JonThm
goo . gl / LpSHQ
Copy paste this into your browser remove the spaces.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@JonThm Re: show me the Harvard study and I may take you seriously. You have no understanding of the global carbon cycle. All that carbon that gives plants "life" - where do you think it goes when these plants die and decay?
BeachofDreams 5 months ago
@BeachofDreams it is highly school biology: green plants take in all the available carbon dioxide. You can argue with Harvard, but he can't argue with high school fact.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm
WHERE THE F&*K IS THAT PAPER THAT YOU KEEP BRINGING UP.
CAN YOU USE WIKIPEDIA??? BECAUSE CARBON CYCLE IS EXPLAINED THERE QUITE WELL AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS YOU WRONG F&*KFACE
AndrianGA 5 months ago
Highly school biology teaches that green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide to create life on earth. Harvard University confirm this August 2010. Your high school biology teacher confirmed it if he ever went to high school
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
What do the measurements of CO2 concentration taken at Mauna Loa obersvatory show?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
Biology teaches that man can not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Which he is determined solely by the efficiency of photosynthesis. So global CO2 has remained static for last 200 years. Do you understand high school biology?
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
WTF does biology have to do with Mauna Loa Observatory readings?
For the 9-th time explain those readings?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA thebiology the world over takes in carbon dioxide. Your ask your readings are just crazy. Go ask a fought in your world how Life Works.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
"Your ask your readings are just crazy."
I'm sorry you're not making any sense
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA Harvard University said that global carbon dioxide has not changed for 200 years, after a worldwide survey. Kill argue with Harvard.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
Harvard University said no such thing...
You're avoiding the issue of Mauna Loa observatory readings of CO2 concentrations.
I'm done talking to you. I cannot understand you and obviously you don't care about understanding me so this is a waste of time.
If you want to talk, then explain Mauna Loa observatory readings of CO2 concentrations, this is the 12-th attempt.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
Biology sinks carbon dioxide in all languages
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
8-th time
Please explain Mauna Lao Observatory readings of CO2.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA local variations have no impact on the weather. So volcanoes and forest fires have no effect. Mankind's additional carbon dioxide has increased life on earth but not resulted in a global change in the air. So obviously cannot affect the weather. Your reading use a stupid. And contradicts basic high school biology. Go and get educated
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
"Mankind's additional carbon dioxide ..."
Didn't you say that CO2 stayed constant?
You're contradicting yourself.
Why are you talking about weather?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA I explained. All the additional carbon dioxide ended up as additional life on earth. Had he read my messages to year. And writer educate you. So all I realise others have tried and so obviously failed
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
Please, PLEASE, PLEASE
Explain Mauna Loa Observatory readings of CO2 concentration. This is the 10-th attempt
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA 10th time of answering: the only global which affects the weather is the global carbon dioxide reading. Some of us cœur reading from he knows where he has no impact on the global weather. They it is the global carbon dioxide level, which has been static for 200 years answer does not affect the weather.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
Out of all that gibberish I can only make out "which has been static for 200 years"
It has not, this is why I keep asking you to explain Mauna Loa Observatory readings of CO2 concentration.
Also CO2 affect CLIMATE not weather, please remember climate isn't weather
AndrianGA 6 months ago
Passe school biology teaches that green plants convert all the available carbon dioxide in the air into life on earth. Which is why there is more helium in the air and carbon dioxide: nature does loads of molecular nuclear fusion.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
PLEASE EXPLAIN MAUNA LAO READINGS OF CO2
Do you understand the English language???
How do you explain the Mauna Lao observatory readings on CO2?
Are you going to ignore this for the 7-th time?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
Harvard University found that global carbon dioxide in the air have not increased for 200 years: this is exactly what is taught by high school biology. Life on earth has increased. Any idiot who thinks man can affect there carbon dioxide in the air needs to reset their high school
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
MAUNA LAO OBSERVATORY!!!!
MAKE YOUR OWN CAPNOGRAPH, MAKE YOUR OWN MEASUREMENTS
AndrianGA 6 months ago
It is a biologically impossible for man to affect for carbon dioxide level in the air
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
5th time
MAUNA LAO OBSERVATORY CO2 READINGS
EXPLAIN THAT....
AndrianGA 6 months ago
Carbon dioxide powers biology. More carbon dioxide in the air converts into more life on earth. There has been no increase in carbon dioxide in the air for 200 years as a result. There has been an increase in life on earth.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
FOR THE EFFING 4th TIME
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF MAUNA LAO OBSERVATORY?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
The level of photosynthesis in the air is fixed by green plants doing photosynthesis. He's has remained static for last 200 years. This is high school biology.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
You're making less and less sense.
"photosynthesis in the air"????
"is fixed by green plants doing photosynthesis"
I see, so the oceans don't absorb CO2? and the green biomass stays constant, there isn't deforestations and populations of plancton also remain constant. Hmmm
"He's has remained static for last 200 years." CO2 is a he now????
I'm going to say this name for the third time, Mauna Lao observatory
Can you explain those readings?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA Outside of an ice-age, photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide from the air. So for last 200 years CO2 has been fixed at 2 ppm in the air. Carbon dioxide can only rise in an ice-age.
JonThm 6 months ago
'free carbon dioxide'is the gas left in the air after photosynthesis. That might have affected the weather is it had not remained constant for 200 years.
JonThm 6 months ago
@JonThm
No need to put this message on my channel. It is off topic there.
CO2 isn't used only by photosynthesis, so your made up definition isn't sufficient.
Also climate isn't weather. Please remember that Climate Isn't Weather, please remember that.
The additional CO2 modifies the Climate, and again, climate isn't weather.
And you are correct CO2 hasn't stayed constant as shown by the Mauna Lao Observatory readings.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
So 500million yrs ago when CO2 levels were 13x higher, why wasn't there the run away greenhouse effect? And what about times when we had higher CO2 levels and there were ice ages? And what about CO2 TRAILING temp changes by 800 years? Alarmists respond by coming up with other hypotheses to prop up the AGW hypothesis. When your original hypothesis depends on several other hypotheses to stay afloat, then your original hypothesis is not very credible.
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn I'm baffled as to why you think that "we" think that GHG is the only thing that drives climate changes. Of course, there are other drivers of climate - forcings such as solar irradience, landscape changes; and feedbacks such as water vapour (also a GHG). But in THIS case, they are not the primary agent, as is shown directly through this research.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@BeachofDreams Strawman...I never said GHG are the only thing that drives climate. And I expect more from a person that claims that graduated MCL in Philosophy. I believe logical falicies were covered in your curriculum. Yes? If CO2 is such a boogy-man then CO2 levels 13x higher than today is significant...Yes? If you want to trivialize CO2 as being a tertiary driver of climate, then you prop up sceptic arguments that CO2 is a insignificant variable. Pick your poison...
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn No, I'm saying that you think that I think that GHG is the only driver of climate. I don't. This doesn't imply that GHG are insignificant now any more than it implies that GHG were insignificant during the Cambrian.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@BeachofDreams Point taken...however. You still have not addressed my points about adverse data. If increased CO2 triggers positive feedback, then 13x (or 20x pre industrial) should have sent temps soaring out-of-control. Which did NOT happen. The simple truth is that positive feedback systems are VIRTUALLY non-existent in nature...yet we are suppose to believe our climate is driven by positive feedback? And based on what? 0.7C over 150 years of data? If we get to 1.5C, then I'll worry...
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn Well, it's true that there is usually never any case of a sustained positive feedback, simply because in a complex system such as that of earth's, negative feedbacks exist too and would, eventually, halt any positive feedback.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@nlpjohn Also, keep in mind that 500 million years ago, most carbon was either in the atmosphere or in rocks, while plants had not even evolved to produce oxygen (according to the most utd rsearch). And it was far hotter than today. The earth system was virtually an alien one to today's, so comparisons are not neccessarily valid from the outset.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@BeachofDreams The purpose of the 500mya example is to show that the hypothesis of the runaway greenhouse effect is garbage. We have also had ice ages w/ higher CO2 levels than today. Then we afterwards we can discuss the GROSS violations of the scientific method by alarmists. From publishing research results which can NOT be replicated, to dodging FOIA requests. I can respect the "luke warmers" (they reject pos itive feedback only). I can NOT respect those who ignore the scientific method.
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn Well, of course it is possible to have cooler than average temperatures with more average carbon dioxide than today; can you cite the event that apparently shows this? I'm not disputing it, although I am skeptical you've characterized it correctly - simply because most recent glaciations have happened over the past few million years, around the time that carbon dioxide levels were falling, and below what they are today. We're still technically in an "ice age", btw.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@BeachofDreams The start of the industrial age began as we were leaving a climate phenom called "The Little Ice Age". We expected the temps to rise NATURALLY. Warmists are relying on extreme cherry-picking to claim that industry caused the temps to rise. The study of climate should use time periods of at least 1000years. Yet we take a tiny 150year data set and claim it is CO2's fault. Using such a TINY data slice should STINK to any of us who have bothered to take a Stat-101 class.
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn I'm sorry, but how does the "medieval warm period" or the "little ice age" (blips compared to the rate and magnitude of today's changes) discount the the simple physics referred in the video above? Also, reconstructed temperature - going back millions of years - is the RESULT of a rigorous statistical method.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@BeachofDreams You are misinformed. Pro Bob Carter youtube videos show time periods w/ greater rates of change than today's warming. And cited proxy studies from CO2science/com shows the MWP to have greater warming than today's warming. Even Phil Jones of CRU conceded the MWP temps to be about the same as today's temps. And using a 150 year sample size is NOT a rigorous sample size w/ regard to the study of climate. I say a 0.7 C degree increase is nothing. Wake me if it gets to 1.5C...
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn "Pro Bob Carter youtube videos show time periods w/ greater rates of change than today's warming." Are these the "little ice age" and "medieval warm period"? If not, then what Bob Carter says here is irrelevant.
At any rate, 2 things: 150 yrs is not the sample size, and (2) again, how do these points address the video above?
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@BeachofDreams The industrial revolution began about 150 yrs ago and that is our sample size for studying the AGW hypothesis and the 0.7 C temp increase. As for the video, yes CO2 is considered a GHG and CO2 levels have been increasing. But lets not chase red herrings. The true issues are positive feedback and the amount of influence of CO2 on warming. There are hundreds of factors that affect climate and there are many examples that show at best CO2 has a sub-tertiary effect on climate.
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn
"yes CO2 is considered a GHG and CO2 levels have been increasing."
and there is no Global Warming, therefore CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation.
Makes perfect sense thank you my Messiah
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@nlpjohn Actually no, the last 150 years is often cited as the time frame with which we compare past instances of climate change; it is not the full sample of what is used to determine climate sensitivity, for instance.
Also, I don't think you've read the paper very carefully (or the video). The research singles out "long-lived GHG" (i.e. not water vapour and other "feedback" associated gases). Feedbacks are important, but long term they aren't responsible for perturbing climate.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
@BeachofDreams The null hypothesis is that mother nature drives the climate. To over-rule the null hypothesis evidence must be shown the climate over the 150 yr period of the industrial revolution is NOT caused by mother nature. 150 years as a sample size is NOTHING. I wouldn't even consider the AGW hypothesis unless we get 1.5C rise in temps as oppose to the 0.7C temp rise we have experienced... This is not me talking. This is the math talking. This is Statistics-101 material...
nlpjohn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nlpjohn
You're rambling are becoming less coherent.
"I wouldn't even consider the AGW hypothesis unless we get 1.5C rise in temps as oppose to the 0.7C temp rise we have experienced."
Because in your opinion that temperature change is statistically insignificant.
Previously you said:
"yes CO2 is considered a GHG and CO2 levels have been increasing."
The only conclusion is that you do not believe that CO2 absorbs infrared.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@nlpjohn
If you believe that CO2 is on the rise and you believe that CO2 absorbs infrared, then you believe that global warming is happening.
We can talk about the degree to which is happening, but the fact that is happening is closed.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@nlpjohn
"The null hypothesis is that mother nature drives the climate. To over-rule the null hypothesis ..."
No one is saying that humans are driving the climate.
That is a strawman argument.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@nlpjohn
Are you implying that Earth could support 8 billion people 500 million yrs ago?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA Strawman... Buh-bye...
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."
/wiki/Strawman_argument
You being and infant isn't an ad hominem it's an insult well deserved.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA Oh dear...First strawmans and now ad hominen attacks. I don't mind a bit of dirty fighting if my debate opponent can offer some good red meat in a debate. However...you offer nothing of value that I can see that will counter-balance your poor manners. The simple truth is I am out of your league with regard to debating AGW. I regret I don't believe a rational debate is possible w/ you so I must say good-bye forever...
nlpjohn 6 months ago
@nlpjohn
"First strawmans and now ad hominen attacks."
As I said before that wasn't an ad hominen, it was an insult.
"However...you offer nothing of value that I can see that will counter-balance your poor manners."
My manner is only appropriate to your ego.
"The simple truth is I am out of your league with regard to debating AGW."
The debate of AGW is similar to the debate of evolution of the 1930, in other words it was debated by those that knew nothing of it, others however made progress
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@nlpjohn
"First strawmans and now ad hominen attacks."
Your insistence that an "ad hominen" is the same as an insult shows just how vacuous your intellect is.
As I said before, the real debate on AGW is done in academia among people that work in the field, your "debate" is a charade that offers nothing to anyone, it's a waste of resources.
Your misunderstanding of logical fallacies is further proof of your weak intellect. Your arrogance unfortunately does not allow you to learn.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA Oh dear. First strawmans and now ad hominens. And you ask us to believe an insult is not an ad hominen. This statement alone tells me you lack rationality. I don't mind a bit of rough play during debates but in these cases I do require that some red meat be contributed. You offer nothing but carrot sticks and celery. The simple truth is I'm out-of-your league w/ regard to the AGW debate. Find someone else to play w/ that matches your intellectual level. Buh-bye forever...
nlpjohn 6 months ago
No change in free CO2 for 200 years. GW spurious, nuclear inspired rubbish! From paid stooges
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
What is free CO2?
Ever heard of Mauna Lao CO2 readings?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
it`s very useful for homework!!!!!!!!!!!
thanks for the facts
jennybhie10 1 year ago
so does global warming have any effects on the ozone layer??
ahmology 1 year ago
@ahmology CFC's, a type of greenhouse gas, have been shown to modify and destroy the ozone layer. These have not even been fully phased out yet, which is terrifying.
BeachofDreams 6 months ago
For the honest Global Warmers, here's some proof of the Oil Corporations in on the Cap and Trade scam that Randomlaughingman on her Hicks account is lying about. Google "British Petroleum and ECX"
The hated BP involved in the carbon trading racket, the "solution" for Global Warming that these AGW Oil shills are promoting.
Dayversion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, how psychotic does a poster have to be before YouTube bans them? Dayversion has proven himself to be mentally disturbed on more than one occasion, & is most definitely a CYBER-STALKER. I've seen bowls of mixed nuts that were less NUTTY than this psycho. If he hates the oil industry as much as he claims, then I'm guessing he doesn't own or drive a car. Is that true, Dayversion, or are you a hypocrite as well as a complete psychopath?
MrHicks091 1 year ago
The thing I love about Dayversion's psychotic rants is that anyone without their head up their you know what is well aware that the oil industry opposes *all* action aimed at reducing CO2 emissions-including Cap & Trade-& spends millions of dollars on Denialist Propaganda. That Dayversion helps spread this propaganda proves that he is on the Oil Industry pay-roll. He's probably a racist Bill O'Reilly/Glen Beck fan too.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman, on some accounts you hate jews and gays and love nazis, on others like Goog2k/stopglobalwarming08 you pretend to hate nazis, love gays, but on both alter MPD styles, you love promoting Global warming for the Oil corporations. You lie, insult, rant and rave, and will even jack your posts with your slew of accounts all to promote carbon taxes. You are not star stuff, but dog scat
Dayversion 1 year ago 2
@Dayversion "You lie, insult, rant and rave". Hm, well actually I *tried* to have an intelligent conversation with you, but you were the one who started the ranting, raving & insults. You are also the one who behaves like a psychotic little stalker-following people you don't like to *every* video they ever comment on & leaving insulting comments. This, of course, proves two things: (1) your a nut-job & (2) that your entire argument is utterly without basis-just a desperate bid to promote Mobil!
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@Dayversion Anyway, as entertaining as its been to watch your devolution into complete insanity, I'm going to end this with the following questions for you: Do you own a car? Do you drive your car more than 3 times a week? Do you drive an SUV? Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support Deep Sea Oil drilling? If the answer to even *one* of these questions is "yes", then you've done more to support the Oil Industry than I ever have-a support you boost by denying global warming exists!
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman, that was classic, 4 comment rants to my 1 comment, but your record is 5. So what Oil Corporation uniform did you wear today BP? Or did you mix and match between BP and Exxon? What day do you wear Shell, just on Fridays? Did you decide for Halloween between the National Socialist SS, BP uniform, or just go as Clara Massa the village idiot?
Dayversion 1 year ago 4
Humm now Randomlaughingman is rate jacking her stupid lies. I caught a bigger fish on this exchange with the nazi loving mpd lunatic.
Dayversion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dayversion Wow, you're practically frothing at the mouth there Dayversion. What's the matter, don't like being shown up for the psychotic, Oil-Industry spruiking stalker that you really are? A couple of things (a) I'm not a woman, (b) unlike you, I don't knowingly tell lies, (c) unlike you, I don't resort to insults & psychotic rants as a first resort., (d) I have always only had *one* account here-& don't know who Randomlaughingman is ((s)he's pissed you off good, so I'd probably like him/her)
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman, the real greens, Greenpeace Uk recently hacked your favorite Oil corporation British Petroleum's Carbon trading website, they know this is a scam, but your to insane to realize it. Do you switch out your oil corp uniform you wear each day? did you wear BP yesterday, and Exxon today Clara?
Dayversion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dayversion Oh Dayversion, you're really quite hilarious. You keep calling me Clara (though I'm a bloke); you keep making paranoid accusations about me; you rant, rave & spit abuse like a chronic Tourettes sufferer & you stalk people on YouTube-yet you accuse *me* of being insane? Oh mercy, that's just too funny. You're not just insane, you're downright certifiable-which is why you probably can't understand the very simple link between greenhouse gases & global warming.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
• Farmer's Almanac: Global cooling to continue
Most of the country will see a colder-than-usual winter while summer and spring will be relatively cool and dry, according to the time-honored, complex calculations of the "Old Farmer's Almanac."
The 2011 issue of the almanac, which claims to be the nation's oldest continuously published periodical, was released Tuesday. It predicts that in the coming months, the Earth will continue to see a "gradual cooling of the atmosphere"
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion Hate to shatter your illusions, but average *global* temperatures for June 2000 to June 2010 have risen at a rate of +0.0138 degrees per year, or about +0.14 degrees for the entire decade. 2010 has seen some of the *hottest* temperatures recorded in over 100 years & 2010 is looking to be the warmest year on record-surpassing even 2005 or 1998-in spite of the fact that solar activity has been at lows unseen in over 100 years. I think you need a new Almanac
MrHicks091 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrHicks091 Hi is your name from Bill Hicks the comedian? Because Randomlaughingman is a big fan
• 2007 Year of Global Cooling
Washington Times
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Dayversion 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 Did you get your name from the comedian Bill Hicks? because Randomlaughingman/Nightversionn are big fans of Hicks also.
Google "2007 year of Global Cooling" You may have to "Checkyoursources"
Longevity being a sign of success, than the Farmers Almanac stands at the head of the class. Does this sound familiar "Kill yourself"?
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion Wow, you are truly a pathetic moron, aren't you? Yeah, 07-08 was cooler than 05-06 (I never claimed otherwise), but a single year does *not* make a trend. 07-08 was a strong La Nina year-when large amounts of atmospheric heat got taken up by the oceans. It got re-released in 2009-2010, making both years tied with 2005 as the hottest on record. Only person who needs to check sources-like GISS, which shows a warming *trend* of +0.01 degrees per year for the last decade!
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@Dayversion BTW, just because Longevity is a sign of success, doesn't make it a sign of *accuracy*. It might well be cooler in 2011 than it was in 2009 or 2010-if there is a La Nina again-but I'll bet good money that 2011 will be *warmer* than 2007 or 2008, & that the warming trend for 2010 to 2019 will be higher than for 2000-2009.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 That's not logical at all, its more right than wrong, which is obvious since its been around so long and farmers have been depending on it for years. That carries more weight than MrHicks who was possibly inspired with that name by the comedian Bill Hicks who Randomlaughingman is also a big fan of. She always signs off on that nazi racist account with "kill yourself" sound familiar?
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion Nothing you've said detracts from the fact that you know *nothing* about inter-annual variability in the climate. What happened in 07-08 doesn't alter the longer-term warming trend of +0.014 degrees per year for 2000-2010. Its funny that you consider the Almanac authorative, when its climate info almost certainly comes from the same people predicting long-term global warming! *No* the "Kill youself" sign off does not sound familiar. You obviously know it though, which is disturbing.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 I like Comedian Hicks also, same as Randomlaughingman, and same as you. In many ways you remind me of her or the other guy, the one who claimed to have a PhD and was uncovered as a liar. I wonder, you have many similarities to the racist psycho nutjobs, and your also a big fan of Bill Hicks like they are, plus have a fanaticism for Global Warming even trying the putdowns and lies like them. I wonder if your Clara or perhaps the fraud Doctor.
Dayversion 1 year ago 2
@Dayversion The only fraud around here is *you* Dayversion. You don't even know the simplest things about how our climate operates, yet you try & sound "authoritative". Yet like so many Denialist Frauds on the blogosphere, you resort to pathetic ad hominem attacks when your complete lack of knowledge is exposed. This, plus your fanaticism for the Denialist Cult expose you as yet another Right Wing nut-job who puts fossil fuel profits ahead of the needs of the general population.
MrHicks091 1 year ago 3
@MrHicks091 Your a liar on so many fronts Clara. Have you made an PhD claims lately? Is it because you adore Dr Who or to make yourself feel superior when lying for your Oil Corporations so they can get Cap and Trade passed?
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion Wow, you really are a sick, psychotic freak, aren't you? Not only do you hate to be proven wrong, but then you trawl YouTube stalking those who have made you look stupid. The only people lying for the Oil Corporations are Denialist Cult members like yourself. The fact that you've provided no evidence to back your claims, & resort instead to ad hom & creepy, stalker like behaviour exposes you as one of the Oil Industries more fanatical minions. Seriously, get a LIFE you moron!
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 Perfect self description, but I would add MPD suffering freak, with an alter randomlaughingman that is a racist, homophobic, nazi loving insane freak. Have you played "Dr" lately? What unifrom did you decide to wear this Halloween BP or Exxon? Or perhaps you could go half brownshirt and half Oil corporation?
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion Wow, the "takes one to know one defense", how very *mature*. Your oil industry mates must pay you an awful lot of money, given how much free time you have to stalk those who show you up. BTW, who is this Clara & Bill Hicks you're obsessing about? Are they the ones treating your psychosis? Or are they simply the people you only see & hear when you're off your meds-like today? You really are a pathetic little twit who has obviously spent far too much time listening to Glen Beck.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 Nice rate jacking skills randomlaughingMan. Whatcha wearing today BP or Exxon uniform you freak? Allot of tarts like Classic music, soothes the insanity, so they say. How come no 80's music favorited, trying to switch your style on this? But duh you name yourself after Bill Hicks, act like a tart, lie, rate jack, and insult so very similar to Randomlaughingman/Nightversionn. You lead me to a bigger fish, you stupid ass, just like you always are no matter what account or MPD alter
Dayversion 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 Randomlaughingman/Nightversionn, what little support you have, will evaporate once the average and honest Global Warmer finds out the truth that the very Oil and other corporations you have been lying about despising are pushing Global warming to get Cap and Trade past. You are the oil shill, but more than that, you are the freak randomlaughingman who is a racist, psycho, MPD freak with a 1001 accounts and who knows how many MPD personalities you have.
Dayversion 1 year ago 2
@Dayversion Coming to you from Dayversion fashion house, these lovely tin-foil hats. Perfect for the paranoid schizophrenic who hasn't been taking their meds lately. I have only *one* account here, you psychotic little TWERP, & the only one pushing the Oil Industry Agenda are Global Warming denialists-like yourself-who clearly oppose any action on CO2 that will hurt the profits of your beloved Oil Industry-who are clearly paying you a LOT of money to run interference for them.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@MrHicks091 You accuse others of engaging in "pathetic ad hominem attacks" yet...you say things like this: "Denialist Frauds", "fanaticism", "Denialist Cult", "Right Wing nut job", and then as the cherry-on-top you accuse others of being stooges for the fossil fuel industry. What is that word in the dictionary that begins with an "H" that means a person who condemns an activity while shamelessly engaging in that same activity? I believe it is hypocrit?. Perhaps you know this word... Yes?
nlpjohn 5 months ago
Have a listen to a song in My Videos called "Five minutes to midnight", which is about climate change.
2days2morosyestrday 1 year ago
intelect? common sense? intelligence quotient? < Alias IQ" All just went down the toilet! I must now run out and rev the crap out of my car engine! My plants need C02 and I need fresh Oxygen from laughing so hard!
shazizz 1 year ago
The governments of the world are going to use up all the oil and gas in the ground until there is none left. The Green brigade have done nothing to slow this down in fact its pace is increasing. But then plenty of legislation about carbon dioxide being a poison, hang on a minute isn't that what we breathe out. What I'm the polluter of the world along with all the other animals even dolphins. Not by using all the plastic and other junk that we have no choice to use, but just by existing.
ste6666666 1 year ago
@ste6666666 For the record, all *natural* sources of CO2-including from human respiration-are accounted for by the planet's natural CO2 sinks (the so-called Carbon Cycle). When CO2 is a problem is when we start pumping out the stuff that hasn't existed in the atmosphere for over 500 million years. For the record, even though the sun was at least 1% cooler then than today, global temperatures are believed to have been about 5 degrees warmer than at any point in the last 10,000 years.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
Great ambient music.
drmodestoesq 1 year ago
@RandomConcepts Funny the cavemen had higher co2 levels then the hillbillies of today!!! 7000ppm when life exploded on earth yes it was warmer perhaps no ice perhaps higher sea levels and life was thriving all over the globe. we are at 350ppm if anything this so called global warming could be preventing a ice age. So if global warming is real are humans causing it if so why worry? sea levels rise or ice sheets cover north America. Should we fear warming or cooling 350ppm being to high or 7000
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
@drgreenmwdf "Funny the cavemen had higher co2 levels then the hillbillies of today!!! "
No, they didn't. And they were cavemen, remember.
At any rate, we are in the midst of a relatively cold period in earth's history (we are, in fact, living in an ice age; we are just not living in a "glacial period"), but that doesn't mean that turning up the temperature to pre-ice age levels will be good!
BeachofDreams 1 year ago
@BeachofDreams Nor does it mean it will be bad! Depends on your location.
You going to live in a cave if not shut up about co2 and stop breathing!!!!
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
@drgreenmwdf You might be suprised to know but I think C02 is essential for life on earth. Who'da thought, huh?
BeachofDreams 1 year ago
@BeachofDreams Yeah, like water also. Despite that, you can really drown in too much water!
robheusd 1 year ago
The cheapest way to provide electricity is by building modern nuclear power plants. As many as possible. It is arrogant to think, that we can change what the planet will do by changing a small portion of the 0.036% CO2 in the air.
Just recently, Eyjafjallajökull had released some volcanic ash into the atmosphere, paralyzing air travel in Europe. Mother Earth is laughing at us!
judomagyar 1 year ago
CO2 is necessary for plant growth, without it we would all die of starvation.
CO2 becomes toxic at 1% in our atmosphere. Now we have 0.036%.
The dominant greenhouse in our atmosphere is water vapor: 0-4%!!!!
H2O has a practically unlimited supply in the oceans, therefore we are at a dynamic quasi-equilibrium, there is no chance of having a runaway greenhouse situation because of some more CO2.
judomagyar 1 year ago
Hey BeachofDreams, any thoughts on this paper?
On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
Richard S. Lindzen,Yong-Sang Choi
Revised on July 14, 2009 for publication to Geophysical Research Letters
nickeSnijoas 1 year ago
@nickeSnijoas
Neither I nor the library I access from has a subscription to GRL, so I can't comment fully, but from the abstract and from what I've read in comments on the paper, the paper is about climate sensitivity to changes in the radiation budget and the uncertainties brought about by the mathematical assumptions of climate models. It isn't about the causes of global warming...
BeachofDreams 1 year ago
@BeachofDreams Yeah, an interesting inconsistency, something to look at more in detail. I was interested in the paper your description. Got any more on the radiation budget? My interest is in the degree of warming, as we know CO2 is a very good greenhouse gas but has a diminishing return when concentrations increase. The radiation changes are a great way to test the theories and models.
nickeSnijoas 1 year ago
@nickeSnijoas
...However, they merely point to an inconsistency between the data they have observed and the model results. They state explicitly that they are not sure why there is an inconsistency, which is short for "there may be a problem with our data or there may be a problem with the model - we can't tell". Can't comment further.
BeachofDreams 1 year ago
@nickeSnijoas
Dr. Lindzen showed that, the climate sensitivity is such that, when the Earth surface gets hotter by delta T temperature, the energy radiated at T is larger with increasing T. In contrast, all the IPCC climate models are wrong in assuming that with increasing T the energy radiated out is decreasing.
On top of that, Dr Miskolczi shoved that we have been at a dynamic energy equilibrium and a runaway warming is impossible due to increasing CO2 concentration.
judomagyar 1 year ago
H2o condensate, clouds, also produce green house effect (not to mention the glass on REAL greenhouses.)
Empirically, multiple SNOW HURRICANES in the northeast???
Rain, heavy rain, in CA in the summer time???
Some people would say, "What global warming?", even if it came up and bit off thier back side!
luveraaab 1 year ago
@luveraaab oh no now California won't burn in the summer dam global warming
It is not that we don't believe in global warming it is that we believe humans are not the cause nor do we think it is bad. If humans did have effect it is out weighed by nature making it still irrelevant, One volcano erupts and makes man made co2 look like childs play.
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
@drgreenmwdf One larger eruption of a volcano releases C02 measured in the megatonnes. Burning fossil fuels and land use changes gives off C02 measured in the gigatonnes. Thousands of times more.
BeachofDreams 1 year ago
@luveraaab
It was hotter 1000 years ago when CO2 was LOWER . That is called the MWP. Google - MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD PEER REVIEW
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago 3
@drgreenmwdf
It may have been hotter. The so called MWP was a warmer period as compared to the centuries before and after, but it is NOT established that it was hotter than today. At any rate, whatever warm period that occured is likely due either to internal climate mechanisms or to greater solar energy absorption on the surface of the earth.
You know, the climate can warm due to things other than greenhouse gas, but greenhouse gas does cause warming. The video shows how we prove that.
BeachofDreams 1 year ago
@BeachofDreams you are a DORK! NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING! We started measuring AFTER the BOTTOM of the really hot period, which means from the coldest point. DUH! It had NO WHERE TO GO BUT UP! plus, they totally took the MWP right out of the propaganda - to generate what is known as the "hockey stick" graph, where the rapid upturn of the blade is supposed to MISLEAD US INTO THINKING THAT global warming is a crisis - I'm a doctor-researcher-scientist Who the fck are you - moron!
vhsjvc 1 year ago
@vhsjvc Only dork around here is *you* buddy. Temperature measurements started in the mid 19th century, well into the most recent warming period (from the mid 18th century to mid 20th century). Even with significant increases in solar radiation reaching Earth, the planet only warmed at +0.05 degrees per decade from 1880-1950 (when the solar maxima peaked). From 1950 to the present, solar maxima have been in gradual decline, but the planet has warmed at a rate of +0.11 degrees per decade!
MrHicks091 1 year ago
@vhsjvc Point 2, the MWP was, like the warming period of the 18th to 20th centuries, underpinned by significant increases in solar maxima (which can be ascertained using Be-10 & C-14 isotope levels), & was significantly slower than warming of the last 60 years (a rate of barely +0.01 to +0.02 degrees per decade-1/5th of the rate of modern warming). The MWP also peaked at about 0.1 degrees *below* the levels seen in the last 20 years. However, if you were really a scientist, you'd know that!
MrHicks091 1 year ago