All of this talk is silly and stupid. Spencer used TERRA satellite OLR Anomalues...OLR in all regards as increased fromnthe 1990's to the 200's over 3W/m^2, and in which case would be a result of reduced SW reflection. You can't mix that up and/or fudge it because the raw data is public.
To add on, global warming thing is based on atmospheric feedback processes to CO2's RF at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling and 1.6W/m^2 since 1850, and much of it is either assumption or flat out wrong dynamically. it isn't the CO2 doing the majoity of the warming, it is the feedback response by the climate system. The mechanism is different as well, one regarding the TOA imblance by increasing CO2, the natural mthos of lessening cloud cover along with stratospheric ozone depletion allows no imbalance.
@court1100 Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result.
@checkyoursources science isn't about proof? spoken like a true "global warmist". You're entire argument is based on what someone SAYS. It's not based on science whatsoever. Your response to court1100 only proves that you don't understand the science and you never intend to. I's all faith based. It's a religion. Global warming proponents are the only "scientists" that would say something as ridiculous as "science isn't based on proof". Black holes and evolution have proof. Global warming doesn't
@666wickedjack To quote einstein and make you look silly in one quote: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." i.e. no experiment is ever "proven" outright as that suggests that no amount of contradictory evidence can change the explanation. A poorly written flawed paper such as the one by Braswell and Spencer 2011 had been disproven, look up Falluso and Trenbeths response. The spencer paper wasn't even replicable-it fails.
@LastCynicStanding You don't understand science and haven't heard of falsifiability if you actually believe that outright "proof" can be applied to a theory. Only religious people would suggest such a thing. If a theory was "proved" that would mean that no amount of contradictory evidence could disprove it.
In suggesting that scientific theory can be "proved" you are indictaing your lack of knowledge of the scientific process. Science helps decide who is most likely to be correct, not "proof"
@checkyoursources did you see the news? "Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming" he said: "The claim is that the temperature has changed from 288.0 to 288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable" he also said "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" global warming is clearly a hoax
@666wickedjack Dr. Ivar Giaever (an expert in metal superconductors, not climatology) is unaware that there are only 6 degrees of chnage between today and an ice age and we have covered one sixth of that in 150 years when it would normally take 10,000! To call 0.8 degrees C insignificant is foolhardy.
@checkyoursources Is 33 degrees Fahrenheit the difference between a blistering heat wave and an Ice Age? I'm sure to a global warming cultist that math works out just fine, but it was still hotter during the Pax Romana and the Medieval Warm period than it is today. He's a physicist, and has much more impressive credentials than Al Gore. Every single day a new piece of information comes out that exposes the global warming hoax. What caused the ice ages to recede in the first place?.
@666wickedjack Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing. "He's a physicist, and has much more impressive credentials than Al Gore"- where did I say i support Al Gore?
Ivar Giaever has never ever published a paper on climatology, his resignation is insignificant to anyone but fox news.
@checkyoursources "humans are now the most likely dominant forcing" and where did you get that? So you don't know what caused the Ice Age(s) to recede? Could it have been my last cigarette? Too many Ford F150s? If only the Kyoto Treaty had existed back then!!
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
-Voltaire
There's too much evidence against man-made global warming to simply say "the evidence is incontrovertible".
@666wickedjack Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; that humans are now the most likely dominant forcing is pretty straightforward.I can explain it to you but i cannot understand it for you. Ice ages are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition.With GHG's increasing we have a warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases that is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors.See (Archer 2005)
@checkyoursources so natural factors can cause a cooling and warming effect, but that can't possibly be the answer here because big bad mankind exists now. You still haven't said what caused the Ice Age's to recede.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
-Voltaire
There are plenty of other factors that are just as plausible, if not more so, than man-made warming. Simply declaring the argument finished and refusing to debate anyone (as climatologists do) is ridiculous.
@666wickedjack You asked what caused Ice ages, now your asking what caused them to recede, similar answer: Changes are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition. Please feel free to name a more likely explanation than Anthropogenic global warming (based on the available evidence) for the majority of warming since the 1970's?
@checkyoursources a more likely explanation? Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt ,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition. CO2 made up the majority of the atmosphere in the Pre-Cambrian period btw. I'm not arguing for one reason or the other, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say "man is 1000%, totally and completely responsible for global warming, it's certain, incontrovertible, and is not debatable or up for any discussion." that's what the global warming fanatics say.
@666wickedjack Where have i said will 100% certainty that humans are the only cause?
What i have been trying to explain to you all along is that Science is about what is MOST LIKELY, not about what is "proved".
What we do know with 95% plus confidence is that humans are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. Why would you bet on the other 5% as you are doing?
@checkyoursources so i provided sources. But let me remind you the TSI is irrelevant if it's something different that's causing the warming. Gravity friction maybe? There was a supernova not long ago. Nova's tend to put out an enormous amount of energy. The existence of "mini-black holes" is even thought to be the cause of the "Tunguska event". General relativity itself has often been challenged. Don't propose to know definitively what ANYTHING is when the universe itself is not understood.
@checkyoursources you're saying 95% confidence. You couldn't get 95% of the people on Earth to agree on what planet we live on, and that's no exaggeration. Trying to say "im not saying its 100% certain, I'm only saying its 95% certain..." seriously? Why, exactly, do we sleep? Whether you believe it or not (and I know this is gonna sound totally stupid unless you really delve into it), even electricity isn't 100% (or even 95%) understood by scientists. And plate tectonics are BARELY understood.
Please feel free to come up with a more likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's than AGW? p.s. It's not the sun: Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." p.s. I won't be replying to replies for a week or two.
@666wickedjack Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study See BBC news 21/10/2011 The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
@checkyoursources Total Rubbish your comments are. How can it be determined with 95% confidence? Just how is that done? Why not 92% or 96.785% confidence? Your statement is preposterous. We had a medieval warming period where it was warm enough to grow grapes as far north as Scotland. This we know this with 100% certainity. It was much warmer then than now. Just what caused the warming? Was it human activity? And then it got cold again, human activity? Again your statement is garbage.
@juscurious 1) While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions, see: National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. 2) The IPCC has 95% confidence in the empirical evidence that humans are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. See 3) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing.
After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors, we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained – an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized, adjusted and used the liberally unprincipled component method, and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (>95% likelihood) that we are all being totally screwed.
@1000frolly More than 10 Independent researchers have produced very similar results to the original hockey stick despite using other proxies and data.
@checkyoursources a more likely explanation? Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt ,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition. CO2 made up the majority of the atmosphere in the Pre-Cambrian period btw. I'm not arguing for one reason or the other, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say "man is 1000%, totally and completely responsible for global warming, it's certain, incontrovertible, and is not debatable or up for any discussion." that's what the global warming fanatics say.
@checkyoursources Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius, much faster than Earth. This is an undeniable fact. That's way too much of a coincidence to say man is causing global warming at all, let alone that "the evidence is incontrovertible and the issue is closed."
@666wickedjack You said: "Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius, much faster than Earth."-A source for your outlandish claim would be nice after all you suggested we cannot measure the Earths temps so how could me measure Mars'?
@666wickedjack p.s. If you meant Lori Fentons paper, she "attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo", not to changes in TSI as you suggested. Fenton used two images of Mars:one from 1977 and one from 1999. However there are problems with this method as just two photos will reveal the weather on two days, not the "climate". Would you judge the Earth's climate from 2 images, decades apart?
p.s. The TSI has fallen since the 1970's by the way, not increased.
@666wickedjack To quote your source from skeptical science: The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
@checkyoursources the correlation between the sun and the climate on Earth ended in the 70's? Holy sweet jesus! I was under the impression that the sun provided heat for the planet and we needed it to survive! But since the sun doesn't have any effect on Earth whatsoever, I guess we should start thinking about getting rid of it! It's not like it's the biggest object in our solar system or anything.
@666wickedjack 1) The Suns TSI varies 2) generally when it falls so does the average long term temp on Earth. 3) However since the 1970's the temp on Earth has risen more than it has fallen on average while the Sun's TSI has fallen on average. 4) This indicates that the Sun has not been the PRIMARY driver of accumulated heat on Earth since the 1970's. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
@666wickedjack Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming. The evidence that Mars is warming is based on just 2 photos taken 22 years apart! p.s. Why is Uranus cooling?
In addition the correlation between sun's TSI and climate on Earth ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
I am a scientist, and am insulted by the posts here, a 2010 study cannot debunk a 2011 study. Spencer/Braswell Paper was designed to refute dessler 2010 and it did just that. The question is climate sensitivity based on RF release between RF forcing peak & trough. It needs to be taken into account that CO2 can only possible have led to 0.5W/m^2 in increased RF from 2010-2011, and SW increase during this time from reduced cloud cover may be on the order of 1.2W/m^2 to 2.4W/m^2.
@court1100 A study from 2010 can debunk a paper that is poorly written in 2011 with errors that range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs).
@checkyoursources and you still haven't disputed what he said. All of your arguments are based on "this guy said that". You refuse to dispute the science behind it.
@666wickedjack Court1100 was wrong and here is why: CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750. I have already explained the flaws including cloud cover ones above.
@666wickedjack Uranus is cooling and the other planets have different orbits, not to mention the fact that solar output has fallen since the 1970's means the suggestion that the Earth is warming up due to the Sun getting hotter is ridiculous. The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations. (Szwast 2006), (Kahn 1992),Fenton 2007.
@checkyoursources "the correlation between the sun and climate ended in the 70's" That statement should be the motto of the Church of Global Warming. The fanatics honestly think that we have more control over our climate than the Sun. You honestly expect anyone to believe you when you say things like "the sun and the climate have no correlation"? And btw, temperatures on Earth have been falling since 2000. June readings from NASA satellites show temperatures below 1980 levels.
@666wickedjack In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. WMO 2011
The last decade was the warmest on instrumental records.
@666wickedjack The solar output has fallen since the 1970's. See any of these papers that explain why the sun has not been the primary driver of warming since the 1970's: Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." Benestad 2009, Lean 2008, Ammann 2007, Foukal 2006, Usoskin 2005,Haigh 2003, Frolich 1998.
@checkyoursources from the Science & Public Policy Institute: THE CHIEF REASON for skepticism at the official position on “global warming” is the overwhelming weight of evidence that the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, prodigiously exaggerates both the supposed causes and the imagined consequences of anthropogenic “global warming”; that too many of the exaggerations can be demonstrated to have been deliberate; and that the (cont)
@checkyoursources (cont) and that the IPCC and other official sources have continued to rely even upon those exaggerations that have been definitively demonstrated in the literature to have been deliberate.
@checkyoursources have you seen the new nasa study that just came out? the earth isn't heating up at all. Far more energy is being lost in space than the global warming alarmists thought. The paper is called "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance"
@666wickedjack It's not a NASA paper! It was by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, two well known deniers who didn't even publish in a climatology journal! In their "paper" you find no statistical significance of results, no error bars or uncertainties are given, either in the figures or discussed in the text. Try reading this to see how incorrect the spencer paper is: T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37.
@checkyoursources of course. Read a paper from 2010 that clearly debunks a paper from 2011. That makes perfect sense. And it WAS from NASA. NASA satellite data from 2000 to 2011. And omg! They didn't publish a climatology journal!?!? Hey! Just like all the "scientists" behind Climategate misrepresented and hid data! Like i've said before, Global Warming is its own religion, no matter how many relevant facts you throw at the alarmists, they just ignore it.
@666wickedjack The 2010 more than debunks it, it demolishes the idea that the paper you gave, (which was written by spencer and braswell, it was NOT published by NASA despite your best efforts to suggest it was) and as stated, in their "paper" you find no statistical significance of results, no error bars or uncertainties are given, either in the figures or discussed in the text. p.s. Please state where in their paper it says the earth isn't warming?
@666wickedjack You said: "a 2010 study CANNOT debunk a 2011 study" Yes it can, if the people who wrote the 2011 study were no aware of the 2010 study or ignored it or just plaina nd simply wrote a poor quality paper. You comment is akin to saying that nothing that is said after an event can be wrong.
@666wickedjack You said:"of course. Read a paper from 2010 that clearly debunks a paper from 2011.". If a creationist published a paper in 2011 saying that the earth was flat, would a paper from 2010 saying it was rounded, not flat, not debunk it?
The scientists in cliamtegate were cleared by 5 separate inquiries.
@666wickedjack The Spencer and Braswell model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round!
@666wickedjack The spencer and Braswell article contains a number of errors that have since been identified by climate scientists. These errors range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs).
@checkyoursources haven't read a word of your drivel since my last post. Stop giving me credit for beclowning you. I wasn't the one who proved you wrong. Court1100 shoved logic and solid evidence of global warming being a scam into your face. Take it up with him. He showed you the 2010 paper was utterly debunked, co2 isn't heating the atmosphere, and Global Warming is a scam. He gave solid facts. You lose. Case closed. Period. The End. I wasn't the one who did it, stop talking to me.
@666wickedjack I suggest you look at my replies to court1100 who made the same mistake you did. Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result.
@checkyoursources read what the guy below me said. And like i said before, those 5 separate inquiries were all conducted by organizations with blatant conflicts of interest
@666wickedjack A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
@checkyoursources I'm shifting this argument onto him. As far as I'm concerned, he's just proven everything you've said is wrong and you refuse to dispute him because you don't understand it. Spencer/Braswell Paper was DESIGNED to refute dessler 2010 and it did just that. Some of what he said is stuff i've before said but you've just ignored. CO2 isn't warming the Earth. Global Warming is a giant scam. Case closed. Period. The end. Take your complaints up with him and leave me alone.
@666wickedjack 1) Science is not about "proof", its about what explanation is most likely to be correct based on the evidence. 2) Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result.
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998-WMO 2011
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
Please feel free to suggest a more likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's if its not anthropogenic global warming as you suggested?
@checkyoursources well, what do you think the explanation is for the Medieval Warm Period? or the warm period during the Pax Romana? Since there's, you know, a big ball of nuclear fire that our planet orbits around... I'd say a good explanation for "global warming" would be the Sun.
@666wickedjack While past changes are well explained by the Sun and oribital wobbles, the current change cannot. This is mainly due to the fact that the suns output (TSI) has fallen for the last 35 years yet temps continue to rise. The most likely explanation for this is AGW. Here are some scientific papers that show the Sun is not responsible for the majority of warming since the 1970's: Frolich 1998, Stott 2003,Haigh 2003, Usoskin 2005, Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2008, Erlykin 2009, Benestad 2009.
Some of the more memorable Left wing hysterias in my lifetime have indluded: Global warming, global cooling, secondhand smoke, heterosexual AIDS epidemic in America, silicone breast implants, alar in apples, DDT (thank you very much Rachel Carson), nuclear proliferation, bottle feeding, just to name the ones that immediately come to mind. But what the Left is most afraid of is conservatives especially Christian conservatives.
@duanescot I hardly think its fair to compare an educational system to a brutal fascist regime that taught children to carry guns and kill Jews... children here are being taught the truth about our world. We're here in our comfy homes while American and British governments (and many, many others) are just killing people throughout the world. Not just in wars, but with globalisation and exploitation of natural resources. Yes, Al Gore exaggerated slightly, but the core point of what he said is
Carbon footprint doesn’t mean jack. Ask China about Carbon Footprints. When will this Global Warming LIE finally DIE! Al Gore should be ashamed of himself. He is such a buffoon.
The earth will cool and heat as it needs to. IT ALWAYS HAS!! These LIBERAL GLOBAL WARMING scare tactics won't work EVER!
I stop eating 3 years ago as recommended by environmentalists. There's been no major negative effects so far apart from my nails turning purple and falling off.
...a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.
High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration." (abcnews.com, 2007)
that does not sound like brainwashing to me. the way you characterize the film, however) is much worse than your complaint of it.
@wwefanworld The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
@checkyoursources actually its still there. and cleared of what? there wasn't anything illegal going on. no one accused them of a crime. How can you "clear" someone if no crime has been committed? A mock investigation doesn't change the fact that they were making everything up and admitted it
@666wickedjack You said "How can you "clear" someone if no crime has been committed". If an alledged crime didn't actually happen then of course they are "cleared". How else would you phrase it
@checkyoursources and btw, it was only 3 investigators. one of which was head-chaired by Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, he led organizations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem. conflict of interest. Another, Pennsylvania State University, was "investigating" one of their own professors. They would look like idiots if it was found that he was making shit up. Conflict of interest.
@666wickedjack Climategate is not skepticism; its conspiracy theory. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings. A few Climate scientists were criticized for their disorganized methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency, but none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged.
@checkyoursources it was 3 committees. 2 with conflicts of interest, and 1 that wrote their report after 1 day of oral testimony. The "scientists" admitted that they changed, misrepresented, and left out data.. I suppose you have completely forgotten the petition signed by 31,000 scientists, including 9000 PHD's which says that the global warming hoax is just that, a hoax. The only conspiracy theory here is global warming. Its a fraud, based on junk science, with no evidence to back it up at all
@666wickedjack House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US). The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.
@666wickedjack Not in peer reviewed papers they aren't, as they can be checked by anyone. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. (Oreskes 2004). 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010).
@checkyoursources May I remind you that there is still no solid evidence of man-made global warming. The Earth has heated up on its own long before man was here and long before combustion engines. Global warming fanatics ignore this. But there's no way other to test it, there's no other control group. The problem with global warming "science" is that it's not dis/provable. Just like God or the flying spaghetti monster. You can't prove that it does or doesn't exist.
@666wickedjack 1) Not all climate chnages have the same cause 2) The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones which is why it is of more concern. 3) The most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's is Anthropogenic GW.
@checkyoursources "The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones" and how do you know that? time travel? cite sources
@666wickedjack The EPA has an excellent article on past changes but if you type in evidence for past climate change into google scholar you will fnd several thousand for you to look througha t your leisure
Reto Knutti and Gabriele C. Hegerl (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, also have a very good paper on past climate sensitivity.
I repeat:The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones.
@checkyoursources They all say something different, there's no consensus. Just like there's no real consensus on what killed the dinosaurs. Hence, nobody knows. But one thing is for certain, that there is NO way to tell whether climate change is caused by the same things that caused past ones. To say "The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones" is honestly, really stupid. You have no way of knowing that, and neither does anyone else.
@666wickedjack The argument is whether the current change is most likely being driven mostly by natural or human factors. The majority of the evidence suggests it is not natural. To give an example look at the solar output in the last 3 decades (see PMOD data plots from the world radiation centre in Switzerland). On average it has fallen, yet temps continue to rise. Explain this continued rise in temps without AGW?
@checkyoursources sun output is just a measure of radiance. Something that can be influenced by many different things. There's also been increasing sunspot activity, something humans are certainly not responsible for. Even rising co2 levels doesn't mean that humans did it. There were higher than normal c02 levels during the prehistoric era and during the medieval warm period. There is no solid evidence of what causes climate change, no matter how hard you want to believe it so. (cont)
@666wickedjack TSI has been falling since the 1970's according to PMOD from the World radiation centre, they take empirical readings. You seem unaware of how science works, it looks for the most likely explanation based on the evidence against other theories, not "proof" of this or that". Read Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
@checkyoursources You THINK that humans are "the most likely dominant force". considering the fact that there's a giant ball of nuclear fire not too far away, i'd have to disagree and say the Sun heats the Earth. Mars and Venus have also been heating up. So far, you're main reason for believing global warming is "everyone says so" but you still have no solid scientific data. "Everyone says so" isn't a reason to believe in something. It's just mob mentality
@666wickedjack Over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly (see PMOD data): it is radiating less heat. We can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures. Uranus is cooling, mars isn't warming globally actually, ask NASA.
@checkyoursources Actually, I asked NASA, they said Mars is warming. The polar caps are melting and the temperature is rising, same goes for Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto and others. Don't you ever get the feeling, far in the back of your mind, that you're just avoiding all these pesky facts? That's what worshiping junk science does.
@666wickedjack Please quote NASA direct. Has it occured to you that the other planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn takes 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846. p.s. The sun's output has fallen in the last 35 years.
@666wickedjack Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.
@666wickedjack According to your source: "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist. The comparatively large eccentricity of the Martian orbit also has a significant effect. Mars also has the largest dust storms in our Solar System. They tend to occur when Mars is closest to the Sun, and have been shown to increase the global temperature-(July 16, 2001). "Planet Gobbling Dust Storms". Science @ NASA.
@666wickedjack To quote the article you sourced: "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
Should have read the article in full shouldn't you......
@checkyoursources (cont) global warming is a matter of faith. It's a religion. Based around worship of the Earth. You can't prove whether or not global warming is caused by man or whether it's even happening. Just like you can't prove whether God or a flying spaghetti monster exist. It truly is junk science. It's all based around theory. There's nothing certain, its flawed all over. And there is NO solid evidence of it being caused by man. The medieval warm period was far hotter than today.
@666wickedjack No scientific theory is "proven" and to ask for "proof" is as unscientific as religion. To suggest any theory can be "proven" is to suggest that no amount of contradictory evidence can change a theory i.e. denial.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing.
@checkyoursources There's also been increasing seismic and volcanic activity. And volcanic eruptions do FAR more drastic changes to the atmosphere than anything else. Just look at Pinatubo and El Chichon. This would also account for the earthquakes and tsunamis we've been having. It's far more likely that the Earth is doing this to itself than humans. We can't heat the earth anymore than we can cool it. Terraforming is less plausible than teleportation.
@666wickedjack Volcanoes emit sulfate aerosols which reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. A large volcanic eruption such as the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 can have a global cooling effect of 0.1°–0.3°C for several years (Robock 1994, Zielinski 2000). Despite Volcanic activity, temps are still rising.
@checkyoursources so how do you explain rising temperatures during and after volcanic eruptions? because according to NASA, that's exactly what happens. See what I mean? junk science
@checkyoursources and btw, i hope you're not trying to say "volcanoes only emit sulfate aerosols" because volcanoes release ALOT more than that. They also release millions of metric tons of CO2. And underwater volcanoes release even more and are much more common than above water ones.
@666wickedjack Yes volcanoes do release some CO2 but it is dwarfed by Human emissions: Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. EIA/ Morner 2002
@checkyoursources (cont) and the third committee was careful to point out that its report "had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries"
@checkyoursources Wasn't there also a paper which was leaked that showed that environmental scientists were covering up and/or deliberately changing their data in an effort to bias toward the man-made global warming theory? Climategate i believe was the name. And besides, variations in total solar irradiance were unmeasurable with technology available before the satellite era. So you have no way of knowing whether or not past sun activity was a factor in past warm periods
Man makes about one billion tons of CO2 every year. The mass of the earths atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tons. For man to even make one trillion would take a billion years (a trillion is a billion billion) No need to even go into describing what one quadrillion is. The fact is, CO2 on this planet constitutes only 0.038% of the entire earths atmosphere. We can no more raise the level of CO2 on earth that we can douse out the sun with horse piss, and everybody buys into this fuck Al Gores scam.
@JamesTKirkCobain It's methane too, and methane is many times more dense/insulating than carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases make Venus a really hot planet.
Did you know that, for the amount of grain it takes to feed a cow for a year, that that same amount of grain would feed approximately four people for a year?
@handofstand Ya but they would have to eat grain, not very healthy. Cows can, and should eat grass. That makes them taster and healthier to eat. Vegetarianism is not healthy, eating primal is (lots of meat and vegetables). Google primal diet to see the way humans are supposed to eat, or eat lots of grains and die young, it doesn't really bother me.
@handofstand How do we know that? Inuit people who eat almost exclusively red meat are very robust and healthy despite living in very adverse conditions. The supposed dangers of red meat have no scientific backing. Of course eating free range and grass feed beef or wild game is better than industrially raised animals.
I eat lots of red meat, often raw. I am as health as is possible for a human. Of course I also exercise. Oh, that reminds me, time to work out!
@JamesTKirkCobain Using the short scale that we use in the USA; 1 Trillion is one thousand billion, or in other words; 1 million million. The number 1 followed by 12 zeros. 1,000,000,000,000. I agree; CO2 cap and trade is a complete scam that they are trying to profit off of.
seriously guys really? look at the tempurature of venus and mercury (yes the planets) mecury 375 degrees celecious where venus is 464 degress celecious and venus is father from the sun than mercury is How is this possible? green house effect, with so much Co2 in venuses atmosphere (from volcanos) the tempurature skyrockets believe in melting glaciers or not co2 in atmospher = burning plantet (eventualy)
@wowplayer6541011 There is not one human on Venus and it got hot all by its self. There is a 300-400 year lag in the rise of temperature to an increase in CO2. We must determine what humans did back then to end the Little Ice Age that cause the rise in CO2 today.
@cupera1 first of all venus got hot because it had thousands of volcanoes on it emmitting CO2
and please Global warmng is caused by light being trapped by CO2 please explain to me CO2 rises into the atmosphere and decides to not interact with light for 400 hundrend years
and yes i checked the internet the only people that say this believe the algore not evil just wrong
@wowplayer6541011 then look at Gore's own graph of temp VS CO2 and it also shows a 300-400 year lag.
If we did invade Iraq for cheep oil how did oil get up to 145 a barrow? You need to read the congressional resolution that gave Bush the ok to get the terrorist that had set up show in Iraq.
ever scene the video where bush lies about his knowledge about 9/11 as the event happend(ill link it to you)
Also, if your still listening, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 apart from being in the middle east pakistan and nigeria had most of the terrorists in them
Man, i wish i could take the children out of the secular schools system, the brainwashing by that rekigious and garbage propganda has lasted for way too long, we gotta denounce those deceived and deceiving supposed elites
I will put it this way, literally working with global warming is a multi-part approach. There are three primary ways that human activity alters the climate. The first and most commonly mentioned is the emission from fossil fuel emissions, the second is slash and burn, destruction of the rainforests/wetlands removes the Earth's natural capacity to take in Carbon, third, urbanization. All of these change climate. Focusing almost exclusively one one part, though won't do much.
I'm not sure that asking some schoolchildren what they think global warming is about actually invalidates global warming at all.
However horrific their imaginations, it really has nothing to do with global warming.
I am sure if you ask them what a martian invasion would be like, it would be quite alarming. But however alarming, it says nothing about whether a martian invasion are likely or not.
global warming. these global warming freaks need to get a grip. they can't trick enough adults into this line of crap, so they scare children into believing in it. that's disgusting. this proves their desperation.
Bullshit, the only truth is that the alien robots from planet niburu are going to cause global warming which is why we need 96% of our income taxed....If we don't give the government all of our income the alien robots are going to enslave us all and rape you in the ass gay or not.....
Its never been about "saving the planet" and its not about clean air or water, it IS about control. Control of how you live your life, the food you eat, the number of kids you can have, the house you can live in and the job that you can have. I heard ALL these same arguments when the eco nuts were saying global cooling back in the 70s. They will manufacture ANY crisis to advance their agenda. We can run your life better and more efficiently than you so shut-up and do and we say not as we do
Yes, yes, we heard it all before. CO2 absorbing wave lengths and causing the earth to overheat. The scientific proof isn't about theories and computer projections, it's about observable facts. CO2 is going up, global temperatures going down. Now what do we do? Keep the theories and change the facts as with the CRU. I'd say we keep changing the algorithms until they can predict the past and then test them on the present, and when that pans out, try them on the future. Funny NASA, NOAA, CRU doesnt
Hmm so some junior school children don't quite understand climate change. So what. Most adults don't understand it either. That is clear from some of the comments on here.
Gore should be ashamed of himself!! All this "global warming/climate change" hysteria over the last few years has been painful to watch. Junk science. Period.
All of this talk is silly and stupid. Spencer used TERRA satellite OLR Anomalues...OLR in all regards as increased fromnthe 1990's to the 200's over 3W/m^2, and in which case would be a result of reduced SW reflection. You can't mix that up and/or fudge it because the raw data is public.
court1100 5 months ago
Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
To add on, global warming thing is based on atmospheric feedback processes to CO2's RF at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling and 1.6W/m^2 since 1850, and much of it is either assumption or flat out wrong dynamically. it isn't the CO2 doing the majoity of the warming, it is the feedback response by the climate system. The mechanism is different as well, one regarding the TOA imblance by increasing CO2, the natural mthos of lessening cloud cover along with stratospheric ozone depletion allows no imbalance.
court1100 5 months ago
@court1100 Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources science isn't about proof? spoken like a true "global warmist". You're entire argument is based on what someone SAYS. It's not based on science whatsoever. Your response to court1100 only proves that you don't understand the science and you never intend to. I's all faith based. It's a religion. Global warming proponents are the only "scientists" that would say something as ridiculous as "science isn't based on proof". Black holes and evolution have proof. Global warming doesn't
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack To quote einstein and make you look silly in one quote: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." i.e. no experiment is ever "proven" outright as that suggests that no amount of contradictory evidence can change the explanation. A poorly written flawed paper such as the one by Braswell and Spencer 2011 had been disproven, look up Falluso and Trenbeths response. The spencer paper wasn't even replicable-it fails.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@666wickedjack Actually science isn't based on proof, at least not in an absolute mathematic sense.
TheGamanic 5 months ago
@TheGamanic Welp that's it.....
I have been killing time on TY for a few hours now and that is the dumbest thing I have read so far.
Science isn't based on proof. Whatever the hell you meant by that I am sure it made sense to you.
LastCynicStanding 4 months ago
@LastCynicStanding You don't understand science and haven't heard of falsifiability if you actually believe that outright "proof" can be applied to a theory. Only religious people would suggest such a thing. If a theory was "proved" that would mean that no amount of contradictory evidence could disprove it.
In suggesting that scientific theory can be "proved" you are indictaing your lack of knowledge of the scientific process. Science helps decide who is most likely to be correct, not "proof"
checkyoursources 4 months ago
@checkyoursources did you see the news? "Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming" he said: "The claim is that the temperature has changed from 288.0 to 288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable" he also said "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" global warming is clearly a hoax
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@666wickedjack Dr. Ivar Giaever (an expert in metal superconductors, not climatology) is unaware that there are only 6 degrees of chnage between today and an ice age and we have covered one sixth of that in 150 years when it would normally take 10,000! To call 0.8 degrees C insignificant is foolhardy.
checkyoursources 4 months ago
Comment removed
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@checkyoursources Is 33 degrees Fahrenheit the difference between a blistering heat wave and an Ice Age? I'm sure to a global warming cultist that math works out just fine, but it was still hotter during the Pax Romana and the Medieval Warm period than it is today. He's a physicist, and has much more impressive credentials than Al Gore. Every single day a new piece of information comes out that exposes the global warming hoax. What caused the ice ages to recede in the first place?.
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@666wickedjack Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing. "He's a physicist, and has much more impressive credentials than Al Gore"- where did I say i support Al Gore?
Ivar Giaever has never ever published a paper on climatology, his resignation is insignificant to anyone but fox news.
checkyoursources 4 months ago
Comment removed
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@checkyoursources "humans are now the most likely dominant forcing" and where did you get that? So you don't know what caused the Ice Age(s) to recede? Could it have been my last cigarette? Too many Ford F150s? If only the Kyoto Treaty had existed back then!!
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
-Voltaire
There's too much evidence against man-made global warming to simply say "the evidence is incontrovertible".
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@666wickedjack Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; that humans are now the most likely dominant forcing is pretty straightforward.I can explain it to you but i cannot understand it for you. Ice ages are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition.With GHG's increasing we have a warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases that is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors.See (Archer 2005)
checkyoursources 4 months ago
@checkyoursources so natural factors can cause a cooling and warming effect, but that can't possibly be the answer here because big bad mankind exists now. You still haven't said what caused the Ice Age's to recede.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
-Voltaire
There are plenty of other factors that are just as plausible, if not more so, than man-made warming. Simply declaring the argument finished and refusing to debate anyone (as climatologists do) is ridiculous.
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@666wickedjack You asked what caused Ice ages, now your asking what caused them to recede, similar answer: Changes are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition. Please feel free to name a more likely explanation than Anthropogenic global warming (based on the available evidence) for the majority of warming since the 1970's?
checkyoursources 4 months ago
@checkyoursources a more likely explanation? Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt ,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition. CO2 made up the majority of the atmosphere in the Pre-Cambrian period btw. I'm not arguing for one reason or the other, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say "man is 1000%, totally and completely responsible for global warming, it's certain, incontrovertible, and is not debatable or up for any discussion." that's what the global warming fanatics say.
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@666wickedjack Where have i said will 100% certainty that humans are the only cause?
What i have been trying to explain to you all along is that Science is about what is MOST LIKELY, not about what is "proved".
What we do know with 95% plus confidence is that humans are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. Why would you bet on the other 5% as you are doing?
checkyoursources 4 months ago
Comment removed
666wickedjack 3 months ago
@checkyoursources so i provided sources. But let me remind you the TSI is irrelevant if it's something different that's causing the warming. Gravity friction maybe? There was a supernova not long ago. Nova's tend to put out an enormous amount of energy. The existence of "mini-black holes" is even thought to be the cause of the "Tunguska event". General relativity itself has often been challenged. Don't propose to know definitively what ANYTHING is when the universe itself is not understood.
666wickedjack 3 months ago
@checkyoursources you're saying 95% confidence. You couldn't get 95% of the people on Earth to agree on what planet we live on, and that's no exaggeration. Trying to say "im not saying its 100% certain, I'm only saying its 95% certain..." seriously? Why, exactly, do we sleep? Whether you believe it or not (and I know this is gonna sound totally stupid unless you really delve into it), even electricity isn't 100% (or even 95%) understood by scientists. And plate tectonics are BARELY understood.
666wickedjack 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666wickedjack Non sequitur. p.s.
Please feel free to come up with a more likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's than AGW? p.s. It's not the sun: Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." p.s. I won't be replying to replies for a week or two.
checkyoursources 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666wickedjack Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study See BBC news 21/10/2011 The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
checkyoursources 3 months ago
@checkyoursources Total Rubbish your comments are. How can it be determined with 95% confidence? Just how is that done? Why not 92% or 96.785% confidence? Your statement is preposterous. We had a medieval warming period where it was warm enough to grow grapes as far north as Scotland. This we know this with 100% certainity. It was much warmer then than now. Just what caused the warming? Was it human activity? And then it got cold again, human activity? Again your statement is garbage.
juscurious 1 week ago
@juscurious 1) While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions, see: National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. 2) The IPCC has 95% confidence in the empirical evidence that humans are the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's. See 3) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing.
checkyoursources 6 days ago
After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors, we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained – an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized, adjusted and used the liberally unprincipled component method, and produced a new set of hockey sticks, giving a very robust prediction (>95% likelihood) that we are all being totally screwed.
1000frolly 5 days ago
@1000frolly More than 10 Independent researchers have produced very similar results to the original hockey stick despite using other proxies and data.
checkyoursources 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources a more likely explanation? Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt ,solar cycles or variations in atmospheric composition. CO2 made up the majority of the atmosphere in the Pre-Cambrian period btw. I'm not arguing for one reason or the other, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say "man is 1000%, totally and completely responsible for global warming, it's certain, incontrovertible, and is not debatable or up for any discussion." that's what the global warming fanatics say.
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@checkyoursources Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius, much faster than Earth. This is an undeniable fact. That's way too much of a coincidence to say man is causing global warming at all, let alone that "the evidence is incontrovertible and the issue is closed."
666wickedjack 4 months ago
@666wickedjack You said: "Between 1975 and 2000, Mars warmed up by 0.65 Celsius, much faster than Earth."-A source for your outlandish claim would be nice after all you suggested we cannot measure the Earths temps so how could me measure Mars'?
checkyoursources 4 months ago
@666wickedjack p.s. If you meant Lori Fentons paper, she "attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo", not to changes in TSI as you suggested. Fenton used two images of Mars:one from 1977 and one from 1999. However there are problems with this method as just two photos will reveal the weather on two days, not the "climate". Would you judge the Earth's climate from 2 images, decades apart?
p.s. The TSI has fallen since the 1970's by the way, not increased.
checkyoursources 4 months ago
@checkyoursources
newsDOTnationalgeographicDOTcom/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
wwwDOTrealclimateDOTorg/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
wwwDOTskepticalscienceDOTcom/global-warming-on-mars.htm
newsDOTbbcDOTcoDOTuk/2/hi/science/nature/4266474.stm
obviously, replace all instances of "DOT" with "."
Mars IS warming
666wickedjack 3 months ago
@666wickedjack To quote your source from skeptical science: The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
checkyoursources 3 months ago
@checkyoursources the correlation between the sun and the climate on Earth ended in the 70's? Holy sweet jesus! I was under the impression that the sun provided heat for the planet and we needed it to survive! But since the sun doesn't have any effect on Earth whatsoever, I guess we should start thinking about getting rid of it! It's not like it's the biggest object in our solar system or anything.
666wickedjack 3 months ago
@666wickedjack 1) The Suns TSI varies 2) generally when it falls so does the average long term temp on Earth. 3) However since the 1970's the temp on Earth has risen more than it has fallen on average while the Sun's TSI has fallen on average. 4) This indicates that the Sun has not been the PRIMARY driver of accumulated heat on Earth since the 1970's. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources so once again, why is Mars warming?
666wickedjack 1 month ago
@666wickedjack Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming. The evidence that Mars is warming is based on just 2 photos taken 22 years apart! p.s. Why is Uranus cooling?
In addition the correlation between sun's TSI and climate on Earth ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
I am a scientist, and am insulted by the posts here, a 2010 study cannot debunk a 2011 study. Spencer/Braswell Paper was designed to refute dessler 2010 and it did just that. The question is climate sensitivity based on RF release between RF forcing peak & trough. It needs to be taken into account that CO2 can only possible have led to 0.5W/m^2 in increased RF from 2010-2011, and SW increase during this time from reduced cloud cover may be on the order of 1.2W/m^2 to 2.4W/m^2.
court1100 5 months ago
@court1100 A study from 2010 can debunk a paper that is poorly written in 2011 with errors that range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs).
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources and you still haven't disputed what he said. All of your arguments are based on "this guy said that". You refuse to dispute the science behind it.
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack Court1100 was wrong and here is why: CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750. I have already explained the flaws including cloud cover ones above.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
I'm still waiting for a skeptic to come up with a more likely explanation than AGW for the majority of warming since the 1970's?
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources how bout the sun? im still waiting for a fanatic to come up for an explanation on why the rest of the solar system is heating up
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Uranus is cooling and the other planets have different orbits, not to mention the fact that solar output has fallen since the 1970's means the suggestion that the Earth is warming up due to the Sun getting hotter is ridiculous. The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations. (Szwast 2006), (Kahn 1992),Fenton 2007.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources "the correlation between the sun and climate ended in the 70's" That statement should be the motto of the Church of Global Warming. The fanatics honestly think that we have more control over our climate than the Sun. You honestly expect anyone to believe you when you say things like "the sun and the climate have no correlation"? And btw, temperatures on Earth have been falling since 2000. June readings from NASA satellites show temperatures below 1980 levels.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666wickedjack In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. WMO 2011
The last decade was the warmest on instrumental records.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@666wickedjack The solar output has fallen since the 1970's. See any of these papers that explain why the sun has not been the primary driver of warming since the 1970's: Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." Benestad 2009, Lean 2008, Ammann 2007, Foukal 2006, Usoskin 2005,Haigh 2003, Frolich 1998.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources from the Science & Public Policy Institute: THE CHIEF REASON for skepticism at the official position on “global warming” is the overwhelming weight of evidence that the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, prodigiously exaggerates both the supposed causes and the imagined consequences of anthropogenic “global warming”; that too many of the exaggerations can be demonstrated to have been deliberate; and that the (cont)
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@checkyoursources (cont) and that the IPCC and other official sources have continued to rely even upon those exaggerations that have been definitively demonstrated in the literature to have been deliberate.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@checkyoursources with Soros money and the entire UN behind you, you could get the entire planet to believe that we live on Mars
666wickedjack 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666wickedjack It is clear that no amount of scientific evidence will convince you so please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources have you seen the new nasa study that just came out? the earth isn't heating up at all. Far more energy is being lost in space than the global warming alarmists thought. The paper is called "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance"
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack It's not a NASA paper! It was by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, two well known deniers who didn't even publish in a climatology journal! In their "paper" you find no statistical significance of results, no error bars or uncertainties are given, either in the figures or discussed in the text. Try reading this to see how incorrect the spencer paper is: T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources of course. Read a paper from 2010 that clearly debunks a paper from 2011. That makes perfect sense. And it WAS from NASA. NASA satellite data from 2000 to 2011. And omg! They didn't publish a climatology journal!?!? Hey! Just like all the "scientists" behind Climategate misrepresented and hid data! Like i've said before, Global Warming is its own religion, no matter how many relevant facts you throw at the alarmists, they just ignore it.
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack The 2010 more than debunks it, it demolishes the idea that the paper you gave, (which was written by spencer and braswell, it was NOT published by NASA despite your best efforts to suggest it was) and as stated, in their "paper" you find no statistical significance of results, no error bars or uncertainties are given, either in the figures or discussed in the text. p.s. Please state where in their paper it says the earth isn't warming?
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources see his post? a 2010 study CANNOT debunk a 2011 study. That's retarded.
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack You said: "a 2010 study CANNOT debunk a 2011 study" Yes it can, if the people who wrote the 2011 study were no aware of the 2010 study or ignored it or just plaina nd simply wrote a poor quality paper. You comment is akin to saying that nothing that is said after an event can be wrong.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@666wickedjack You said:"of course. Read a paper from 2010 that clearly debunks a paper from 2011.". If a creationist published a paper in 2011 saying that the earth was flat, would a paper from 2010 saying it was rounded, not flat, not debunk it?
The scientists in cliamtegate were cleared by 5 separate inquiries.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources read what the guy below me said.
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack The Spencer and Braswell model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round!
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@666wickedjack The spencer and Braswell article contains a number of errors that have since been identified by climate scientists. These errors range from the trivial (using the wrong units for the radiative flux anomaly), to the serious (treating clouds as the cause of climate change, rather than resulting from day-to-day weather; comparing a 10 year observational period with a 100 year model period and not allowing for the spread in model outputs).
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources haven't read a word of your drivel since my last post. Stop giving me credit for beclowning you. I wasn't the one who proved you wrong. Court1100 shoved logic and solid evidence of global warming being a scam into your face. Take it up with him. He showed you the 2010 paper was utterly debunked, co2 isn't heating the atmosphere, and Global Warming is a scam. He gave solid facts. You lose. Case closed. Period. The End. I wasn't the one who did it, stop talking to me.
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack I suggest you look at my replies to court1100 who made the same mistake you did. Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources read what the guy below me said. And like i said before, those 5 separate inquiries were all conducted by organizations with blatant conflicts of interest
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources I'm shifting this argument onto him. As far as I'm concerned, he's just proven everything you've said is wrong and you refuse to dispute him because you don't understand it. Spencer/Braswell Paper was DESIGNED to refute dessler 2010 and it did just that. Some of what he said is stuff i've before said but you've just ignored. CO2 isn't warming the Earth. Global Warming is a giant scam. Case closed. Period. The end. Take your complaints up with him and leave me alone.
666wickedjack 5 months ago
@666wickedjack 1) Science is not about "proof", its about what explanation is most likely to be correct based on the evidence. 2) Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell 2011, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, thus refuting Spencer & Braswell’s claims. An independent analysis by Andrew Dessler also confirms the Trenberth & Fasullo result.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998-WMO 2011
checkyoursources 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
checkyoursources 6 months ago
Please feel free to suggest a more likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's if its not anthropogenic global warming as you suggested?
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources well, what do you think the explanation is for the Medieval Warm Period? or the warm period during the Pax Romana? Since there's, you know, a big ball of nuclear fire that our planet orbits around... I'd say a good explanation for "global warming" would be the Sun.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack While past changes are well explained by the Sun and oribital wobbles, the current change cannot. This is mainly due to the fact that the suns output (TSI) has fallen for the last 35 years yet temps continue to rise. The most likely explanation for this is AGW. Here are some scientific papers that show the Sun is not responsible for the majority of warming since the 1970's: Frolich 1998, Stott 2003,Haigh 2003, Usoskin 2005, Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2008, Erlykin 2009, Benestad 2009.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
Some of the more memorable Left wing hysterias in my lifetime have indluded: Global warming, global cooling, secondhand smoke, heterosexual AIDS epidemic in America, silicone breast implants, alar in apples, DDT (thank you very much Rachel Carson), nuclear proliferation, bottle feeding, just to name the ones that immediately come to mind. But what the Left is most afraid of is conservatives especially Christian conservatives.
koyunbaba73 7 months ago 3
leftwing indoctrination, and here we were thinking concepts like the hitlers youth went out with the 40's!!!
duanescot 8 months ago
@duanescot I hardly think its fair to compare an educational system to a brutal fascist regime that taught children to carry guns and kill Jews... children here are being taught the truth about our world. We're here in our comfy homes while American and British governments (and many, many others) are just killing people throughout the world. Not just in wars, but with globalisation and exploitation of natural resources. Yes, Al Gore exaggerated slightly, but the core point of what he said is
96Optimistic 7 months ago
@duanescot still true- we're fucking over our natural world and there is a serious crisis to tackle.
96Optimistic 7 months ago
See my take on Global Warming Tempest and Pestilance by runfold441
runfold441 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anyone here wants to learn about the science behind climate change check out Potholer54's series starting with this one
watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Drkstrong:
watch?v=NX6OnGEEphw&feature=channel_video_title
FreshAirScentOfPine
watch?v=QL3ED6aXrks&feature=related
And Greenman3610:
watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 9 months ago
child abuse at it's finest.
XxUrSoLoStxX 9 months ago
oh god that is just sick. even IF the science behind GW is right, the morals are lightyears out.
ajmf35029 10 months ago
Global Warm-ests are the lowest slime, preying on children.
davenetdog 1 year ago
My farts do not cause global warming. Lol.
911FalseFlagTerror01 1 year ago
Carbon footprint doesn’t mean jack. Ask China about Carbon Footprints. When will this Global Warming LIE finally DIE! Al Gore should be ashamed of himself. He is such a buffoon.
The earth will cool and heat as it needs to. IT ALWAYS HAS!! These LIBERAL GLOBAL WARMING scare tactics won't work EVER!
iblackbeard 1 year ago
Forget the carbon footprint, I would be willing to leave tons of carbon assprints to disprove Al Gore
wiseidiot5763 1 year ago
Brainwashing kids IS Evil & Wrong.
nachodaddy 1 year ago 5
I stop eating 3 years ago as recommended by environmentalists. There's been no major negative effects so far apart from my nails turning purple and falling off.
isocrate27 1 year ago
Im doing my part by not farting,
pinewood189 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
these children have been brainwashed
truthmaster10000 1 year ago
lulz climate denialists are the new conspiracy theorists. All talk no peer reviewed science.
DieFatorLiveThin 1 year ago 2
...a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.
High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration." (abcnews.com, 2007)
that does not sound like brainwashing to me. the way you characterize the film, however) is much worse than your complaint of it.
bebenic 1 year ago
@bebenic - Like the nod from the British High Court means anything. They are just as liberal as Al Gore is. They play on the same team. OH BOLLUCKS!
iblackbeard 1 year ago
@iblackbeard
yeah, yeah, yeah, you will follow your idiocy to perdition.
bebenic 1 year ago
Still British people are smart a lot of them knows how stupid that whole theory is.
Bielak999 1 year ago
Al Gore is such a piece of shit I can't fucking stand him....
m3RacerBitch 1 year ago
30 years ago I remember there being a scare of "Globe Cooling." HAHA! What a joke. Climate changed even when humans weren't around.
wwefanworld 1 year ago 19
@wwefanworld The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008).
checkyoursources 6 months ago
Comment removed
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack good to see you removed your comment. The scientists involved were totally cleared by 5 independent investigations.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources actually its still there. and cleared of what? there wasn't anything illegal going on. no one accused them of a crime. How can you "clear" someone if no crime has been committed? A mock investigation doesn't change the fact that they were making everything up and admitted it
666wickedjack 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666wickedjack You said "How can you "clear" someone if no crime has been committed". If an alledged crime didn't actually happen then of course they are "cleared". How else would you phrase it
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources and btw, it was only 3 investigators. one of which was head-chaired by Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, he led organizations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem. conflict of interest. Another, Pennsylvania State University, was "investigating" one of their own professors. They would look like idiots if it was found that he was making shit up. Conflict of interest.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Climategate is not skepticism; its conspiracy theory. Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings. A few Climate scientists were criticized for their disorganized methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency, but none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources it was 3 committees. 2 with conflicts of interest, and 1 that wrote their report after 1 day of oral testimony. The "scientists" admitted that they changed, misrepresented, and left out data.. I suppose you have completely forgotten the petition signed by 31,000 scientists, including 9000 PHD's which says that the global warming hoax is just that, a hoax. The only conspiracy theory here is global warming. Its a fraud, based on junk science, with no evidence to back it up at all
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US). The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@666wickedjack 84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS agree that climate disruption is human-caused.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources 91% of all statistics are made up on the spot
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Not in peer reviewed papers they aren't, as they can be checked by anyone. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. (Oreskes 2004). 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010).
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources May I remind you that there is still no solid evidence of man-made global warming. The Earth has heated up on its own long before man was here and long before combustion engines. Global warming fanatics ignore this. But there's no way other to test it, there's no other control group. The problem with global warming "science" is that it's not dis/provable. Just like God or the flying spaghetti monster. You can't prove that it does or doesn't exist.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack 1) Not all climate chnages have the same cause 2) The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones which is why it is of more concern. 3) The most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's is Anthropogenic GW.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources "The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones" and how do you know that? time travel? cite sources
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack The EPA has an excellent article on past changes but if you type in evidence for past climate change into google scholar you will fnd several thousand for you to look througha t your leisure
Reto Knutti and Gabriele C. Hegerl (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, also have a very good paper on past climate sensitivity.
I repeat:The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources They all say something different, there's no consensus. Just like there's no real consensus on what killed the dinosaurs. Hence, nobody knows. But one thing is for certain, that there is NO way to tell whether climate change is caused by the same things that caused past ones. To say "The current climate change is unexplained by any of the factors that accounted for past ones" is honestly, really stupid. You have no way of knowing that, and neither does anyone else.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack The argument is whether the current change is most likely being driven mostly by natural or human factors. The majority of the evidence suggests it is not natural. To give an example look at the solar output in the last 3 decades (see PMOD data plots from the world radiation centre in Switzerland). On average it has fallen, yet temps continue to rise. Explain this continued rise in temps without AGW?
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources sun output is just a measure of radiance. Something that can be influenced by many different things. There's also been increasing sunspot activity, something humans are certainly not responsible for. Even rising co2 levels doesn't mean that humans did it. There were higher than normal c02 levels during the prehistoric era and during the medieval warm period. There is no solid evidence of what causes climate change, no matter how hard you want to believe it so. (cont)
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack TSI has been falling since the 1970's according to PMOD from the World radiation centre, they take empirical readings. You seem unaware of how science works, it looks for the most likely explanation based on the evidence against other theories, not "proof" of this or that". Read Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources You THINK that humans are "the most likely dominant force". considering the fact that there's a giant ball of nuclear fire not too far away, i'd have to disagree and say the Sun heats the Earth. Mars and Venus have also been heating up. So far, you're main reason for believing global warming is "everyone says so" but you still have no solid scientific data. "Everyone says so" isn't a reason to believe in something. It's just mob mentality
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Over the last fifty years, the sun’s output has decreased slightly (see PMOD data): it is radiating less heat. We can measure the various activities of the sun pretty accurately from here on Earth, or from orbit above it, so it is hard to ignore the discrepancy between the facts and the sceptical argument that the sun is causing the rise in temperatures. Uranus is cooling, mars isn't warming globally actually, ask NASA.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Actually, I asked NASA, they said Mars is warming. The polar caps are melting and the temperature is rising, same goes for Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto and others. Don't you ever get the feeling, far in the back of your mind, that you're just avoiding all these pesky facts? That's what worshiping junk science does.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Please quote NASA direct. Has it occured to you that the other planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn takes 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846. p.s. The sun's output has fallen in the last 35 years.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources then why are martian polar caps melting?
666wickedjack 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666wickedjack According to your source: "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist. The comparatively large eccentricity of the Martian orbit also has a significant effect. Mars also has the largest dust storms in our Solar System. They tend to occur when Mars is closest to the Sun, and have been shown to increase the global temperature-(July 16, 2001). "Planet Gobbling Dust Storms". Science @ NASA.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources newsDOTnationalgeographicDOTcom/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
666wickedjack 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@666wickedjack To quote the article you sourced: "Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
Should have read the article in full shouldn't you......
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources (cont) global warming is a matter of faith. It's a religion. Based around worship of the Earth. You can't prove whether or not global warming is caused by man or whether it's even happening. Just like you can't prove whether God or a flying spaghetti monster exist. It truly is junk science. It's all based around theory. There's nothing certain, its flawed all over. And there is NO solid evidence of it being caused by man. The medieval warm period was far hotter than today.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack No scientific theory is "proven" and to ask for "proof" is as unscientific as religion. To suggest any theory can be "proven" is to suggest that no amount of contradictory evidence can change a theory i.e. denial.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources There's also been increasing seismic and volcanic activity. And volcanic eruptions do FAR more drastic changes to the atmosphere than anything else. Just look at Pinatubo and El Chichon. This would also account for the earthquakes and tsunamis we've been having. It's far more likely that the Earth is doing this to itself than humans. We can't heat the earth anymore than we can cool it. Terraforming is less plausible than teleportation.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Volcanoes emit sulfate aerosols which reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. A large volcanic eruption such as the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 can have a global cooling effect of 0.1°–0.3°C for several years (Robock 1994, Zielinski 2000). Despite Volcanic activity, temps are still rising.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources so how do you explain rising temperatures during and after volcanic eruptions? because according to NASA, that's exactly what happens. See what I mean? junk science
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@checkyoursources and btw, i hope you're not trying to say "volcanoes only emit sulfate aerosols" because volcanoes release ALOT more than that. They also release millions of metric tons of CO2. And underwater volcanoes release even more and are much more common than above water ones.
666wickedjack 6 months ago
@666wickedjack Yes volcanoes do release some CO2 but it is dwarfed by Human emissions: Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. EIA/ Morner 2002
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources (cont) and the third committee was careful to point out that its report "had been written after a single day of oral testimony and would not be as in-depth as other inquiries"
666wickedjack 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources Wasn't there also a paper which was leaked that showed that environmental scientists were covering up and/or deliberately changing their data in an effort to bias toward the man-made global warming theory? Climategate i believe was the name. And besides, variations in total solar irradiance were unmeasurable with technology available before the satellite era. So you have no way of knowing whether or not past sun activity was a factor in past warm periods
666wickedjack 6 months ago
Al Gore is fuckin faggot
TEHTYMEKITTEH1 1 year ago 2
THEY NEED OBAMA KID TO SING OVER ALL THE LIES OBAMA YOU GOIN TO CHANGE IT OBAMA YOU GOIN CHANGE IT KEEP HAVE SEX WITH MEN
blackberrypimp89 1 year ago
Man makes about one billion tons of CO2 every year. The mass of the earths atmosphere is 5 quadrillion tons. For man to even make one trillion would take a billion years (a trillion is a billion billion) No need to even go into describing what one quadrillion is. The fact is, CO2 on this planet constitutes only 0.038% of the entire earths atmosphere. We can no more raise the level of CO2 on earth that we can douse out the sun with horse piss, and everybody buys into this fuck Al Gores scam.
JamesTKirkCobain 1 year ago 4
@JamesTKirkCobain You are incorrect. A trillion is a million million.
El3ctricPenguin 1 year ago
@JamesTKirkCobain It's methane too, and methane is many times more dense/insulating than carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases make Venus a really hot planet.
Did you know that, for the amount of grain it takes to feed a cow for a year, that that same amount of grain would feed approximately four people for a year?
handofstand 1 year ago
@handofstand Ya but they would have to eat grain, not very healthy. Cows can, and should eat grass. That makes them taster and healthier to eat. Vegetarianism is not healthy, eating primal is (lots of meat and vegetables). Google primal diet to see the way humans are supposed to eat, or eat lots of grains and die young, it doesn't really bother me.
XCritonX 1 year ago
@XCritonX My point was not to advocate an all-grain diet, it was to show that cows consume a LOT of food.
handofstand 1 year ago
@handofstand Also, we know that red meat is not as healthy as other meats, like poultry, and fish.
handofstand 1 year ago
@handofstand How do we know that? Inuit people who eat almost exclusively red meat are very robust and healthy despite living in very adverse conditions. The supposed dangers of red meat have no scientific backing. Of course eating free range and grass feed beef or wild game is better than industrially raised animals.
I eat lots of red meat, often raw. I am as health as is possible for a human. Of course I also exercise. Oh, that reminds me, time to work out!
XCritonX 1 year ago 2
@JamesTKirkCobain Using the short scale that we use in the USA; 1 Trillion is one thousand billion, or in other words; 1 million million. The number 1 followed by 12 zeros. 1,000,000,000,000. I agree; CO2 cap and trade is a complete scam that they are trying to profit off of.
austinallenfin 1 year ago
wowplayer6541011 1 year ago
@wowplayer6541011 There is not one human on Venus and it got hot all by its self. There is a 300-400 year lag in the rise of temperature to an increase in CO2. We must determine what humans did back then to end the Little Ice Age that cause the rise in CO2 today.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 first of all venus got hot because it had thousands of volcanoes on it emmitting CO2
and please Global warmng is caused by light being trapped by CO2 please explain to me CO2 rises into the atmosphere and decides to not interact with light for 400 hundrend years
and yes i checked the internet the only people that say this believe the algore not evil just wrong
and if that counts as fact
I cant make a website saying the US goverment
DIDNT invde iraq for oil
wowplayer6541011 1 year ago
@wowplayer6541011 then look at Gore's own graph of temp VS CO2 and it also shows a 300-400 year lag.
If we did invade Iraq for cheep oil how did oil get up to 145 a barrow? You need to read the congressional resolution that gave Bush the ok to get the terrorist that had set up show in Iraq.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 I dont acttually have the DVD so i cant do that U-tube link?
and really?
global warming is "hystaria" and
"the war on terror" is ligitimate
the EVIL men WITH GUNS AND KNIVES
Vs
destroying the planet eventually has a concequence
which is more propogandized
wowplayer6541011 1 year ago
@wowplayer6541011 you seem to have for gotten 911
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 Lol
ever scene the video where bush lies about his knowledge about 9/11 as the event happend(ill link it to you)
Also, if your still listening, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 apart from being in the middle east pakistan and nigeria had most of the terrorists in them
wowplayer6541011 1 year ago
Man, i wish i could take the children out of the secular schools system, the brainwashing by that rekigious and garbage propganda has lasted for way too long, we gotta denounce those deceived and deceiving supposed elites
Serge1965 1 year ago
I will put it this way, literally working with global warming is a multi-part approach. There are three primary ways that human activity alters the climate. The first and most commonly mentioned is the emission from fossil fuel emissions, the second is slash and burn, destruction of the rainforests/wetlands removes the Earth's natural capacity to take in Carbon, third, urbanization. All of these change climate. Focusing almost exclusively one one part, though won't do much.
suemorphplus2009 1 year ago
HMMM i bet if you asked the kids if harry potter had a spell for fixing global warming i bet 60% of them would say yes lol
TheStrazy 2 years ago
Global Warming is a pseudo-science like they had in the Soviet Union. The top three gurus for the Global Warming Cult are
A flake, who has a load of character, credibility & possible mental issues
A Railroad Engineer (Choo Choo Charlie) who is the chief quack of the quacks of the IPCC
Head of the CUEI is an economist with ties to the IMF
Yeah Global warming is a pseudo-science
These bums are more qualified working at an amusement park train ride
1984 Choo Choo!
INFORMATIONLIBERAT(dot)com
Thisawareness 2 years ago
I'm not sure that asking some schoolchildren what they think global warming is about actually invalidates global warming at all.
However horrific their imaginations, it really has nothing to do with global warming.
I am sure if you ask them what a martian invasion would be like, it would be quite alarming. But however alarming, it says nothing about whether a martian invasion are likely or not.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
global warming. these global warming freaks need to get a grip. they can't trick enough adults into this line of crap, so they scare children into believing in it. that's disgusting. this proves their desperation.
fieldzee09 2 years ago
Bullshit, the only truth is that the alien robots from planet niburu are going to cause global warming which is why we need 96% of our income taxed....If we don't give the government all of our income the alien robots are going to enslave us all and rape you in the ass gay or not.....
Dmac11a666 2 years ago
Its never been about "saving the planet" and its not about clean air or water, it IS about control. Control of how you live your life, the food you eat, the number of kids you can have, the house you can live in and the job that you can have. I heard ALL these same arguments when the eco nuts were saying global cooling back in the 70s. They will manufacture ANY crisis to advance their agenda. We can run your life better and more efficiently than you so shut-up and do and we say not as we do
cupera1 2 years ago 3
Yes, yes, we heard it all before. CO2 absorbing wave lengths and causing the earth to overheat. The scientific proof isn't about theories and computer projections, it's about observable facts. CO2 is going up, global temperatures going down. Now what do we do? Keep the theories and change the facts as with the CRU. I'd say we keep changing the algorithms until they can predict the past and then test them on the present, and when that pans out, try them on the future. Funny NASA, NOAA, CRU doesnt
patioperson 2 years ago
Is anyone else getting tired of the government trying to keep us all in fear?
I know I am.
IgnoranceIsNoExuse 2 years ago 33
Hmm so some junior school children don't quite understand climate change. So what. Most adults don't understand it either. That is clear from some of the comments on here.
rehabwales 2 years ago
Gore should be ashamed of himself!! All this "global warming/climate change" hysteria over the last few years has been painful to watch. Junk science. Period.
zachandboo 2 years ago
It's all about controlling you and bringing the US down.
Auggie56 2 years ago