Soo.. let me get this right. These days, people argue that CO2 is not the main reason for global warming?
Here is my theory: Since the internet got floded with people, eveybody is a scientist and an expert. At what point did someone actualy tought: Geez, since man started heavy industry and shooting bilions of tones of CO2 in the atmosphere, the climate has changed. Wow.. people are so mad about that. I know , let's blame the sun, idiots will belive me on the internet. Such shame.
@RavenHouseProduction Well in this video they say , is the Sun is the cause then we'd have had cooling in the last few years... but you could ALSO by the same logic have arged that when the industrial revolution started that temperatures would have risen with the co2 instead of dropping from the 40's through to the 70's....the mistake is trying to pin all the obsrved effect on a single cause
There is no "dwindling minority that disagrees" that Global Warming is manmade. That is a myth generated by Oil Industry and Coal Industry. They pay major news channels to inject doubt into the general public's mind.
@marlitowtf bull shit stop with all the conspiracy crap .. the oil companys are out to get us is dumb. a lot of people think that global warming/cooling isnt man made. just natural cycle.
@TheKurtChaney OK for a second lets assume that it is a natural cycle. There are lots of them afterall. But which one is it? Volcanoes? No, cant be them - they cool the planet. Solar activity? Nope, cant be that either as the Sun has been getting less active recently. Shifts in the Earth's orbit (milankovitch cycles)? Sorry, wrong again the timescales are way too long to explain such shifts in 50 years they need millennia. Ocean currents? Not promising, they take 15,000 years to circulate.
@drkstrong "Solar activity? Nope, cant be that either as the Sun has been getting less active recently" its a logical mistake to rule solar activity out as there are MANY things affecting climate, many cycles at play here El nino and La nina for instance...there was a period during the industrail revolution when co2 was being produced in huge amounts when temperatures were DROPPING, according to your logic that should have ruled co2 out!!...
@OtagoMark As you say there are many factors. However solar has a unique fingerprint as does GHGs. The main ones ruling out solar are the heating is mainly at night, and in the winter, the upper atmosphere is cooling - if it were the sun it would be warming and so on. The comment about the Sun getting less active is in response to the idiots who do the sort of correlations you critisize but stop them at 1980 when the correlation completely breaks down (Soon & Baliunis, for example)
"hat is a myth generated by Oil Industry and Coal Industry. They pay major news channels to inject doubt into the general public's mind"
Really?
So "Big Oil" would rather be federally suibsidize $7 a gallon of oil to make a $4.20 a barrel prodit while the US Feds make up to $980 a barrel with all there taxes on Oil?
Chevron would rather not expand their Windmill and Geothermal Power R&D that the Feds restrict?
Shell Would rather not expand there Wind and Solar R&D that the Feds restrict?
Exxon would rather make $4.20 a barrel of oil after Federal Subsidies then expand on them owning 90% of the Uranium mines in the world aand supplying almost all the Nuclear rods?...which the Feds Restrict?
BP rather Move oil then Build Solar Panel Field in Mohave?(which EPA is suing)
"Big Oil" really wants to lease land in the US that the FEDS won't let them Drill on cause of the Current Domestic Oil drilling ban so they are forced to import Oil that adds to Fed import oil tax revenue?
reuters is owned by the rothschild banking dynasty who spearheaded the global warming BS thru Maurice straum and you guessed DAVID DE ROTHSCHILD.. This banking family is tied to central banking and want a carbon tax.. They get even more money out of this... Do not trust the mainstream media.. EVER ! EVER! Alternative media from multiple sources .. Been watching these slimeballs for yrs and know the game.
yeah, let's believe drop outs like Limbaugh and Beck. All these 'sceintists", with their high fillutin' degrees and "sciency terminology" are in it together to decieve the public. It's only 55 degrees out today, and these idiots want me to believe in global warming.
..but "tim ball = climate expert" for example is the next huge lie spread by this ridiculous PR-anti science-propaganda movies
..that you just BELIEVE. like a controlled cult-sheep spreading it around, instead looking who and what real climate-science is and what a scientific consensus could be..
..or why tim ball is no "climate expert": watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
Only difference between the "Human caused Global Warming from burning fossil fuels that (supposedly) make CO2(over heat and force in Combustion) and (supposedly,even though there is no testible link or measurement) is causing the world to Warm now and the SO called "Global Cooling from (supposedly) CFCs and other pollution from burning oi" in the 70's is
1) Media is now GLobal
2) Internet blogs/YOutube lets Unscientific stupidity spread at speed of light
This climate change bullshit! is just a natural occurrence that the governments of the world are using as an excuse to separate the stupid from their money!!! hence Cap&Scam!!!
Actually they want international governance more then the money...which really doesn't exist anyway(Especially when you re-distribute any "hard azssets" over the "global economy likle how China Owns U.S. and Europian T-bills and the EU is shoring up Greece with money they don't have borrowed from the Tri-Coms..just like the Democrats in US are doing with their 10 trillion dollar spending spree)
The Sun's 1 percent of Ultraviolet light that heat the ground and surface of Oceans is not enough to prevent the Super cooled waters of the Poles facing space from throwing the entire Earth into a "Snowball earth" state
It's the Earth's Core and mantle plumbing and driving plate tetonics and releasing heat at volanoes,subduction zones,midridge zones,trenches,and black smokers that heat the earth
It's why the University Faculty and Government employed "climate Experte" in the UN Commitie can't explain the Multiple Earthquakes at midride and subduction zones or the reactivation of Subjuction zone volcanoes like the one in Iceland that is accompanying the Heat rise at the polar oceans above the Subduction sones and sea trenches
it's Mantle plumbing causing release of Co2,heat increase,earthquakes,and Icelands reawakingin not "AGW"
Primary Source of heat is hundreds of miles beneath our feet in the Earth's Mantle and Core
Millions of years ago the Sun was much cooler then it is now and primative life suck to the sea floors around the Subduction zones,midrigde zones,black smokers, and other sources of heat powered by the earths Core
Ice Ages happen because the Mantle goes Dormant releasing less Heat and related supposed "ghg" gases
Global warming Happens when Mantle goes more active releasing more heat
P.S. problem is the Summary for Policy makers of the IPCC made famous by Al Gore and sensationalized by media is endorsed by Economic Stratigists,mechanical Engineers,Mathamaticians,Computer Modelers,and Physists spouting 19th Century Chemical Theory and not Geologists,Ecologists,Volconologists,Oceanagraphers,and Meterologists that would tell you it's "Mantle Plumbing" causing the Warming with "Climate Variability" and releasing gas as a byprioduct not "AGW" from humans burning fossil fuels
that doesnt mean anything. you cant just connect two things going up. there are more rabits this year than last, i bet thats causing it! for gods sakes people look at the people behind the people that are behind things. the information is out there enlighten youreself!
All good observations, but the tempatures and the Co2 consentration mesurements don't prove tghat humans make the Co2 by Nurning fossil fuels or that CO2 is causing the heat rise anymore then Adam Lambert and Clay Akin constantly being in the company of female companions prove they are not gay
As Theorist Physists sometimes miss the obvious
Ocean floor is like a Pot with Volcanoes,steam wents,& trenches where plates are created and destroyed all heat sources from deep earth that can rise
So 2009 is Hot, So 2000-2009 hottest decade..so what? Where is the Test to prove it's "Big Oil's Profit fault that the it is so hot?
Even Eienstien knew his theory that Gravity bends light was just a guess until a Scientists saw stars behind the sun during a Eclipse to make Eienstien's Theory a tested and proven fact
Where is the test that links Co2 to Humans burning fossil fuels?
,Where is the test that proves Co2 rise Causes tempature rise?
oh,still a creepy denier trying to fool others to join the denier cult. hmm great
Co2 causes temp rise, is a simple fact (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on very well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.
As a Scientist I look for testability,verifiability,and falsifiability
watch?v=zcavPAFiG14&feature
Problem with The Un's IPCC commities PublicRelease Statment and Overview to Policy makers and all the Scientific Organizations PA Statements/Heads opinions ate they are not Actual publications to Science Journals
First problem with that statement is the Source code for the glorified SimEarth models is "Missing" when they asked for them in the "Climate Gate" hearings
Second problem with the Historical data iputed into the Climate Models is that the historical data is also "Missing" when the "Climate gate" investagators asked for then
If you program the model to increase tempature every time Co2 doubles then that it what it will do regardless of whether or not that happens in reality
Problem isn't "established" Physics which GHG Chemical theory is a part of but a lack otf verified,tested,and falsifiable field or lab tests that proves GHG theory" a fact"
20 gallons of Co2 will not asorb more heat then 10 gallons of co2 from the same heat source..that is testable
ur an idiot. co2 has laged behind temperature by 800 years. making it impossible for co2 to increase temperature. its that big ball in the sky called the sun that drives our temperature. a true alarmist religious zealon you are. soon you will wake up and realize your religion is a fraud climate models are full of bias, and cant predict shit
ok first of all there are many credible scientists behind the great global warming swindle such as Dr. John Christy, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr. Tim Ball (who has gone into hiding, bc he was death threatened for speaking out against AGW, which is religion, not science), and Richard Lindzen. its not a lie. its science, and all idiots like u do is say its a lie. u dnt scientifically debunk it with experiments.
second of all (this is where you are really stupid) you assume that since i dont believe in AGW that i think its ok to pollute. nothing is further from the truth. i am all for green technologies, and so are the scientists you morons call deniers. however, co2 is not a pollutant. it is a natural gas that is essential for all life, and is beneficial. thanks to the co2 we put back into the atmosphere, plant production worldwide has increased by 16%.
also co2 does lag behind temperature. it is shown in Al Frauds documentary. you see the temperature go up, THEN the co2, u see the temperature go down THEN you see the co2 go down. and where did al gore get that co2 and temperature graph from? the IPCC.
so why dont u google the environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. multiple peer reviewed journals come up backing what i said. while ur at it google new peer reviewed study chills global warming fears
"ur an idiot. co2 has laged behind temperature by 800 years"
Actually correlating CO2 to AGT is a useless gesture in "proving" humans are causing Global warming by burning fossil fuels as correlating the CO2 vs AGT does not prove 1) Any of that CO2 came from burning fossil fuels and 2) does not prove cause and effect
Morely Average Global tempature has nothing to do with Weather trends that change Ecology("Climatte")
"ball in the sky called the sun that drives our temperature"
"ball in the sky called the sun that drives our temperature"
The problem with the "it's the Sun Stupid" arguement is the Sun is always there yet in the last 4 billion years we have had 6 "Ice Ball Earth" Episodes(entire planet surface absolute zero) and at least 2 "hell hole Earth"episodes)Entire planet 900f)
This is beccause the Core Waning slows Plate RTectonics which slow ocean currents which lets Polar Ice Freeze the Oceans
COre Pluming causes accelerated tectonics & warming of Oceans
and the answer was if we were to cut emissions completely, temperature would only decrease by 1/1000 of a degree. which is nearly unmeasureable. youtube global warming debate: climate models vs. real world observations. also youtube FOS luncheon 2009. wake up like most americans are. AGW is a scam
"and the answer was if we were to cut emissions completely, temperature would only decrease by 1/1000 of a degree"
CO2 is no more then 323 grams a gallon in cars...all from intake or additive contamination,none from "Creation"
Current generation Coal Plantsuse high heat/coal dust,bag filters,chemical scrubbers,electrostatic filters,water filtration and only "emission" is water vapor and Nitrogen...everything else is filtered out and sold...most common recycled "waste"..Gypsum(Dry wall material).
when i said emissions i meant from energy plants, such as coal, gas, cars, etc. not just cars. and daily the sun does effect temperature. i can prove this 2 ways. number 1. Dr. Piers Corbyn predicts weather months in advance by using the sun. he isnt perfect. he has been wrong a couple times. but he is more accurate than any meteor or climatologist.
2. go outside. u can feel the impact of the suns output. some days it feels stronger than others.
"can feel the impact of the suns output. some days it feels stronger than others.t."
Yes, because of the Electromagnetic fields to flux, and because of changes in the layers of the atmosphere how much Sunlight gers through varies and it is this variotion in addition to relative location that causes variation in weather via ariations in the Evaporation/precipitation cycle
Despite this the UA/UVB rays generating heat in surface is less then 1% of heat,99% of it comes from Earth's Core
"Despite this the UA/UVB rays generating heat in surface is less then 1% of heat,99% of it comes from Earth's Core"
When Scientists don't work together you get "M-Cycles" and "CO2 amplification" and other such nonsence to explain Ice Ages and Warming Cycles(rollseyes)
When Earth Core wanes plate tetonics slows,heat release is less = Ice AGe
When Earth COre PLumes, Plate tetonics increase,Heat increase = more earthquakes, more Warming,subduction volcanos like Icland's erupting,whacky weather
The Sun only provides 1% of the world's heat and allows "Seasons" to happen, while it is the Earth's Core that provides the EM field that protects life on earth from the bulk of the 4500f-7500f "Solar wind as well as provides the heat diffused through the Oceans to make the planet relatively Ecologically stable for life
The Increased Earthquakes and reactivation of the Iceland Volcano is from core plumbing and accelerated plate Tectonics as is added heat and co2 release observed in Ecology
it has always been the sun that drives temperature. when you see how well solar activity correlates with temperature, its solid evidence. Dr. John Christy does a great presentation on how much AGW is bull shit. he proves the earth has been cooling since 1998, and he proves that co2 has little to no effect on temperature. he says "lets assume that the predictions of alarmists are correct. and see what would happen (according to their predictions) if we cut emissions completely"
"it has always been the sun that drives temperature. when you see how well solar activity correlates with temperature"
But daily,monthly,yearly and decadal temperature averages have nothing to do with weather trends that define a local ecology over thousands of years(not 10 not 100) or via Ecological upheavals
"co2 has little to no effect on temperature."
Actually the CO2 increase is a byproduct of core pluming just like the extra heat release and is release from deep oceans/trenches/rifts
and when the impact feels stronger, u have warmer temperature. when it doesnt feel as strong, naturally, it is colder. co2 has no effect on temperature. co2 did drive temperature we would be warming, but there has been no warming since 1998. not to mention go 30,000 feet into the air and feel how cold it is. according to the AGW theory, the upper troposphere should be warmer than the surface bc of greenhouse warming (hot air rises). but it is not warmer. it is much colder
"according to the AGW theory, the upper troposphere should be warmer than the surface bc of greenhouse warming"
Which part of the cuteness of the whole thing is that the main gas they focus on, CO2, is actually a heavier then air gas that is only in the air because it is riding the evaporation/precipitation cycle which is the true source of the warmed air and clouds...not Cosmic rays,not "greenhouse gases"(meteorology 101 v.s. Physics 101)
sunspots are to climate as plate tectonics are to earthquakes: what makes me laugh is that countries in Northern Europe and America live on a dorment ice field.
Since the earth always changed its own temperature in time, and we recorded a series of ice ages and very warm periods ... without humans around playing with co2, somebody will please tell me what, if not the sun, WAS responsable for the all the other changes in time?
@ChristianIce, The key factor affecting climate change is whether snow remains on the ground during summer in northern lattitudes. Snow reflects heat & the earth cools. At present, the only permanent snow is too far north to be significant, so the earth is warming up. This will probably stop when the polar ice melts, because the arctic ocean will then evaporate into clouds & lots of snow will fall over Siberia, Canada etc, which won't melt in summer. Then we will have an ice age.
That's interesting, it makes me think that we could control earth temperature by painting black or white the sand of a desert (sounds like a joke, but it isn't if your datas about reflections are correct and i don't have reasons to believe otherwise)
Still, it doesn't answer my question.
We already had hundreds of Warming - Cooling periods without humans around .. how?
@ChristianIce Temperatures can't stay the same because there isnt enough snow to reflect back the suns energy at the moment. But when it does start snowing more (with the arctic ice free) it will just keep getting colder and colder until the sea (in the arctic) freezes. At this point, there won't be enough clouds to make much snow in the norh of Russia and Canada, and eventually this deep snow will melt. Orbital forcing due to Milankovitch cycles can quicken or slow this process.
@ChristianIce (continued) The cycle has been repeating itself for 2.6 million years. The process may have started 3 million years ago and was initiated by continental drift depositing a disproportionate amount of the worlds land mass at around 65' norrh. This land has the potential to be covered in snow and receives enough solar energy for the reflective effect of the snow to be significant. This is why there were no ice ages in the time of the dinosaurs, when it was consistently warm.
@EC0N0MY7 The theory that I have explained was formulated in the 1950s and a long with orbital forcing was considered by most climatologists to be the driving force behind climate change. (We were taught it at school in the 70s). However, by now, it has mostly been edited out of history. By contrast, the "variation in solar output" theory has been allowed to be shown on TV, because it is easily debunked. I hope all this helps!
the Milankovitch cycles itself is a theory trying to describe how the sun is responsable for climate change .. are you supporting that model, the snow reflection model, both together?
So what about CO2 ?
And what about CFCs, the ozone hole, the greenhouse effect .. are chemicals like trends now?
Do i have to care about them asking a fashion designer which one is for the new season?
@ChristianIce , I would say that the main factors are the snow reflection effect combined with Milankovitch Cycles. The Milankovitch Theory depends on the sun melting the snow when orbital forcing is favourable. However, Milankovitch doesn't take into account the rate at which it is snowing, which is controlled (with regard to northern latitudes) by the amount of ice free sea in the Arctic. I can't really see these small amounts of CO2 (0,038%) making much difference.
"somebody will please tell me what, if not the sun, WAS responsable for the all the other changes in time?"
Invisible space chickens
Oh ok
Virtually everything
It's Probably a combination of millions of things, supernova effect this planets climate (gamma radiation) life itself effects the atmosphere, the moon is moving away at approximately 1 cm a year this will have an effect, and so on and so forth dark matter,dark energy (Invisible space chickens) you name it, it will have an effect
Heat anything and it will absorb/reflect release the energy it absorbs/reflects according to its density and so on, ie ice reflects water absorbs, this is a generalization as they both do both, but I'm sure you know what I mean
Co2 can only absorb at very specific wavelengths of light/energy. the ones emitted by the sun are too short to be absorbed but the one's emitted/reflected by the earth are just right, can you see where this is going ?
Ok, i'll put the 0,038% of CO2 in the atmosphere as a factor.
Now, the good news is that new tools will soon allow us to grab CO2 and stock it, so lucky cows are not going to be slaughtered forcing us in vegetarianism.
But as you said and I agree, factors are many (and i INCLUDE the sun), so how are we going to make calculations about the CO2 factor in a system that would change anyway as it ever did?
@ChristianIce well it can't be done, well possibly in the future, one would need a quantum computer approximately the size of the universe to calculate all the variables, but until then much more research is needed, thee never ending research grant type research, the kind scientists dream of, lot's of that, and higher taxes of course, politically correct save the planet taxes, the kind politicians dream of..... wait a sec
Yeah such Co2 capture Technology has existed for a while now, but the Environuts sdon't want us to scrub the CO2 out of the air, they want us to go back to living in caves and swinging from the trees
The UN doesn't want us to reduce the CO2 by using scrubbers, they want Energy, Finance,and taxing Authority..especially over the Untited States
It isn't Science, it's politics
Scrubbing the Co2 out and the world still warming anyway (cause it isn't the CO2) would look bad
Co2 is a poor conductor of heat...it actually tries to get away from heat by expanding
This property is why, until freon replaced it, Co2 used to be put under pressure to way above 1 atmosphere then released into a series of coils that it rapidly cooled and then the co2 was recondensed to be released to the 1 atmosphere piping again to eventually cool the Refrigerator/Freezer (As in Co2 is classified as a refrigerant)
They infact make Dry Ice by squirting pressurized CO2 into 1 atmosphere
that is kinda funny because its acually has been getting cooler. this is one very cold winter.. Where them sun spots hmm oh yeah they died down. cold winter less sun spots, i think this fits the fact sun affects weather, not tiny little bit of corbon we been dumping. think of this fact less then one percent of water on earth can be used as drinking water. and there is allot of drinking water out there. and there is more air then water. think about it real hard with these facts.
The geologic record appears to indicate that temp increases precede natural CO2 increases. But does it follow that our moving 1M years of carbon from the earth to the atmosphere EVERY YEAR has no affect? No. What it means, unfortunately, is that as we humans have now become a driver of temps natural CO2 increases will follow. This is a reinforcing mechanism that will make matters worse.
The Anthropocene Epoch is proposed for good reason. If you don't understand why I recommend you do some reading. Global warming is ONE symptom of our degrading habitat. THAT is what the "big issue" is. And if you don't believe our only habitat is suffering under our unsustainable clultures then again, you haven't a clue and should do some reading.
No, lets not get the cart before the horse. How is it that you have the capability to analyze the data? Why should I go to the effort of obtaining it for some nimwit that I know doesn't have a clue about the science?
Arrogant? No. It is YOU are the one that is passing him/her self off as some kind of an expert. I know better.
Get me the data, get me the data! Why? So you can you can wipe with it?
@ReduceGHGs According to you only "worthy" people are allowed to question your Holy grail of Climate Change by seeing the Golden Proof! If youre from the wrong side of the tracks you can ferk orf eh? Funny that, publicly funded data is available to all. Silly boy. Get wankervon to pull your dick, im sure youll experience some bizarre warming at the equator. You want my analysis? Analyse this: YOU-HAVE-NO-CASE. You support the theory, so prove it. Over to you.
Question all you want. But if don't have a clue about the issue how would you know what to ask?
Prove it? There you go again. I'll leave it to the experts and they have done just that; they've proven it time and time again. It doesn't matter if you can't accept their conclusions. There are no better sources of credible information. Read what SOCC, AGU, AAAS, NOAA, and all the others have been saying for years.
If you wanted a legal proof why didn't you ask. Ever put one together? I doubt it. You've probably never read one.
The proof is the many studies that have been complete. The studies have been reviewed by many historically reliable scientific institutions who ALL concur on the core issue.
One of the first proofs was The Charney Report from 1979. Have you read it? No. Many subsequent studies have reinforced the conclusions.
Studies? The Ice core collecting, the Corrolating of yearly Average Global tepature data of about 40 weather Stations against the CO2 concentration of Mauna Loa wich is the bases of the Average GLobal CO2 concentration as "Proof" humans are causing Global awarming by burning fossil fuels?
How does that conclusively link any part of the 500 billion ton supposed increase of co2 in atmosphere to Human activities and rule out natural Co2 sinks?
Was that submitted to a Scientific journal and picked apart by Geologists,Ecologists, Meterologists,, oceanagraphers,and other Earth Sceientists before being published?
Was tests done to verify Co2 is a tempature Driver< prove Co2 came from buning fossil fuels,and any part of Co2 rise in air can be clonclusivly linked to human activities?
Was there tests done to rule out prograssive warming & natural =20f/-20f climate variability swings,and other evnts that alter AGT?
After all the Falsification (proving there is no other possible explanation) was the AGW Hypothsis put forth by the Charney report that was published in a Scientific Journal declared by the Scientitst that tested and retested and falsified all aspects of the claims and therefore can be declared a "scientific fact" and be put into Science Textbooks alongside Evolution Theory and Gravity Theory?
Or all we just talking about Paper encouraging politicians to increase pollution regulation?
Its not about me or what i do or dont read, its about YOU showing that your theory fits the facts as you claim, in line with established scientific doctrines.
Until you can do that you can get no further.
Cheating the results in the models and hiding the decline of proxy tree ring temp data wont help you either.
Come clean and make your case or quieten down until you can prove the theory.
The SOCC,AGU,AAS,NOAA and other Scientific Organizations Board of Directors or Scientists within those organizations Opinions especially to Al Gores movie conserning AGW are not "Scientific fact" nor has been subjected to a Scientific Journal nor scrutinize by the Scientific Method
Or do you have a Paper on the AGW Hypothises officially submitted to a Scientific Journal&passed Peer review by Geologisst(Climate),Ecologists(Ecology/Enviroment),& Meterologists(Weather/Tempature)& was published?
Geologists can tell you Climate is a geological feature based on Axis, location on earth relative to axis which effects how much sunlight athat area gets , and elevation...not trace gases
A Oceanagrapher can tell you that it is the Ocean that is Earth major heat sink and re-distributor of heat through the ocean convyer that moves warm currents and warm winds from the tropics to the poles with currents effected by continental placement and drift making the trade winds and Elnino/Lanina
Meterologist can tell you the sunlight hitting the eath surface causes heat to generate in the surface and this heat conducts to the air above it and this air rapidly rises and cools
Differences in different pockets of air interacting with different surfaces makes "wind"
Evaporation of moisture with heating makes humidity aand when warm moisture filled rapidly air cools in upper atmopshere it makes cloauds that can make rain when triggered properly
Ecologists can tell you a Encvviroment is determined by it's climate (Tropical,Sub tropial,Polar,Subpolar,Temparate,Highlands)and it's percipitation patterns over a long time, not tempatuire and not a trace gas..also the life or lack of that develops their over time
Example the Sahara is a Temparate Desert Ecology,while Here in Hawaii I am in a Tropical Rainforest Ecology
While it's been cold in 70's and lately Hawaii is still a Tropical (Climate)Rainforest(Ecology)
Actually your "Climate Experts" with Mathamatics, English,Rocket Science,and Economics Degrees playing with glorified SimEarth Programs are the ones playing Scientists
Oops, I shouldn't insult SimEarth considering it doesn't used made up numbers from non-existant data, errorous assumptions, and incomplete understanding of Gian Dynamics
Or can you provide the accidently missing or "classified" infronation your "climate experts" won't provide under the Freedom of information act?
Logic Errors? carew to point out where I am "wrong" conserning what is known in Geology,Ecology,Meterology,Oceanagraphy vs your "climate Experts" knowledge of Economics,Mathamatics,English,& History?
Parroting?Where hacve you heard 1/2 degree axis shift and failing EM field causing intensified seasons and increased agt before?
P.S. not that It matters but I have forgotten more about Weather manipulation,Eviromental Engineering, and Gian Mechanics then your "Climate Experts" ever will know
No, You won't find any of my work in University Journals or JScientific Journals as they were contracted/funded by military and the more dangerous stuff is blacklisted
Good thing I am on my meds and my Machine was moved to Groom Lake after I hailstormed a General's House..cause I am totally crazy, and MING (cute Huh) using chemicals and EM fields to manipulate atmosphere conditions to induce weather chane IS total nonsense after all...lol
I've been "contacted" through time dialation,though the more common when I say too much is phone calls that hang up or a dark tinted window vehicle driving by me slowly (rollseyes)
And no a copy in the back pocket would be found,not that it matters as it's triple encoded anyway
Fuckers even tried wiping/probing my mind a few times but as a Psion they only manage warping my aging mind's defences..lol
Well, considering the 1/2 degree tilt from sudden shifts from core disturnbances the North pole's peak winter tilt woll be 2000 miles further away from the Sun \, so yeah, it will get colder
Likewise the 1/2 shift in axis sticks the South pole 2000 miles more to the sun during it's mid summer so expect hotter tempatures down under come Jaunuary/Feburary
Note: Cold also be the Warming enviroment killing off the tress depending on type of trees
Refer to a those that have a clue unless you find that study of yours hiding in your back pocket. Not likely huh?
And what better sources than NOAA, SOCC, AAAS, NAS, AGU, etc. do you have? What? You have none, just baseless babblings that no one gives a rip about? Dump your predisposition and read about the most recent studies.
Don't know about the bug kill and why it is occurring? Not surprised.
Actually I love the guys and gals in the NOAA, SOCC,AAAS,NAS,AGU,and at Nasa...
The lot of your "Climate Experts" giving thier opinion on what the data means are Grunt data collectors, not the proper type of scientist in the proper field of science to make a analasis or go on T.V. scaring the Public with their AGW apocalypse theories....it's why James Hansen was told to STFU in the first place
Seaprate the Politics from the Science then Separate AL Gore's Movie Hysteria from that
p.s. As someone that Seen James Henson's work, the Statements of the Board of Directors'sof the Sceintific Institutions PR statements in relation to AL Gore Movie there is no Scientific Basis for the opinom that Human Activities is causing "Climate Change"
Dowes it mean we shouldn't try to strive for renewable energy? No
Does it mean we can use oil/coal forever? no
Does it mean we shouldn't develop better filteration? NO
But that isn'tt the real point of Copenhagen & IPCC is it?
Had a hard time staying upright from laughing so hard about the Copenhagen delegates going balistic when Hillary brought Obama's vision of what they should be acomplishing conserding "Saving the World from CLimate Change"....with the U.S. and not the UN in charge of it all of course....RLOF
UN fuckers been trying to get taxing and reglation powers for ages and AGW is just the latest Angle to control the U.S. economy,Finance,Energy policy,and create International Energy Welfare US pays for
They got what they deserves when Obama and Hillary came to town...lol
Don't think Obama's "friend" Chaves was to hrilled with what Obama forced down there throat's cause he mentioned he still smelt brimstone after Obama left...lol
Easy, if I can't make ee contact to dominate someone to free me then I use telepathy to donimate someone to free me
If there is nobody around I can just go imaterial for a few seconds to slip out of the jacket
Of course just jumping to a new body would be much easier(though unlikely,I like where I am despite my host dying almost every night/have to repossess)& unlike that stupid movie I can live outside of a host for more then 30 seconds (I do like singing "Time is on my side" though)
Does this Hypothises on AGW from these Scientific organizations
1) Conclusively link Co2 as a "driving" factor in AGT rise despite times when CO2 was low but AGT was high,and then their is Interglaciation peeaks where CO2 is high but the earth slips back into a ICe age anyway...and explains why agt occasionally drops thugh CO2 is high?
2)Conclusively links any part of the 500 billion tons increase (100ppm) of Co2 desptie deep oceans containing thousands of trillion tons of same type co2
Don't have the expertise and haven't read a book about the issues? No kidding.
Your posts were transparent. Go do some reading so you can develop a foundation to build on. Otherwise you are just another silly adolescent posting meaningless comments.
"Prove your theory with data or shut up." ?? What tha?
I have no theory? I never said I did. I rely on the best scientific sources available. THEY are the experts. THEY are trained to do the analysis. Certainly not some arrogant yahoo posting comments on youtube whining for the data like he/she has a clue of what to do with it.
And again with Gore, Gore, Gore, ...
Who gives a rip what you think about him. He doesn't do science and you know it. He informs millions ABOUT it. Good man!
The earth is a vastly different place today. yes the climate was different but so too were the climate cycles. Australia and South America were still attached to Antarctica so there was no circumpolar currents. The Himalayas hadn't yet formed etc etc. The climate you referred to took millions of years to get to that point giving ample time for plants and animals to evolve. What we are doing is altering the climate too quickly for evolution to keep up. Thats the point.
@neo58421964 which science shows "that heat drives CO2, not the other way around"? I'd like a reference please and remember that your statement implies that the CO2 causing warming theory has also been scientifically falsified.
It would also be nice to know your history and experience with climate modelling. I mean, you are actually qualified and have sufficient technical knowledge to make the statement that people using modeling results is a "bloody idiot"?
Oh Please!! The wattsupwiththat website has a medical correspondent who works for a newspaper making comments about polar bears as if she's some kind of expert. The actual article that you have directed me to has heaps of badly manipulated graphs from an unpublished source. Not to mention that the "Vostok" ice core data is a single point reference. The author is also a biotechnologist, not a climate scientist. My lights have always been on and you have just proven my point. Deniers are ignorant.
Ahh the technique so loved by despots the world over. Attack the man, not the argument, question his credentials not his methods. Show us the anthropogenic signal in the RAW temperature data that the models are supposedly based on. Surely, the pivotal foundation piece in the whole warmist fundamentalist argument can be demonstrated? Can it? No it cannot. Based on fraud. Based on Bullshit. Based on Belief. Based on Faith. Then youll have "won". Otherwise you lose, fanatics.
Does agw "THEORY" fit the FACTS? No. Argument over, you lose. Peer reviewed papers. You should know better than to put forward papers that have been subjected to a subverted system of review. They only say what you want them to, theyre untrustworthy. But still no CAUSE and EFFECT demonstrated. Evidence is one thing PROOF is another. Wheres yours? AGW is a theory, unproven. Its not up to us to prove its NOT valid, its up to you to prove it IS. Thats the scientific method, right?
you're a hypocrite. You criticise the peer review system and then in another of your rant replies to me further down you offer 500+ "peer reviewed" papers of your own? Whats it going to be? You can't have it both ways.
You also clearly haven't had time to read the sources I have provided to you. The same resources you actually asked me for yet you go on another rant in reply. Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
Read the sources I provided for you. You accuse me of being close minded but you won't even look at the sources I gave you. I have now read 87 of the sources you provided to me and so far all I have seen is pseudoscience, bad science and paid for science most of which has not been independently reviewed. Of those that have been, the science is good and those papers actually support the AGW theory. It is obvious the web ed only read the title and decided it was anti AGW when it actually wasn't.
You are brilliant you know? The author admits in it that he has handpicked 'several' weather stations that have been subjected to urbanisation, instrumentation changes or significant screening. He has already biased his results. He has survived peer review because he admits that bias. I recommend you go to the Australian BOM site and dig up the climate maps that have mapped temperature change. These are the result of ALL weather stations. Not a select few.
You deny the fact that rural sites need to be chosen and maintained very carefully and have not been so?
Theres hundreds, probably thousands of photos on the web showing stations being heated by air con, carparks, taxi rank exhausts and a whole host of other situations.
Its no big friggin surprise if temp readings are higher because URBANISED ONES ALWAYS ARE!!
You still don't get it. But you are a lost cause. You compensate for your ignorance and lack of scientific understanding and general intelligence with arrogance. You have still refused to even look at the sources I gave you for 2 reasons. First, you lack the ability to understand them and second, they disproive everything you have said and your arrogance won't allow you to have to admit you are wrong. I feel genuinely sorry for you and you have my pity.
A no. of your peer reviewed journals here are industry journals. They lack credibility as the reviewers aren't independent.
TheInternational Journal of Climatolgy, used to b a respected journal until the snr ed announced that they should accept anti AGW papers to foster debate, even if the science lacks rigour. . Also a number of the papers presented there actually support AGW but the idiots who run that website didn't bother to read them. I did. Seems to be the MO of your ilk.
Not at all. What I am saying is if it is scientifically sound and indepenently reviewed and appearing in a journal that is respected for its scientific integrity and rigour, I'll consider it. Nothing you have given me falls into this category. Everything I have given you, that you have so far refused to even look at does.
I know you will no doubt reply by criticising the peer review system, but that will just demonstrate your ignorance of independent peer review.
The reason im criticising the peer review system is this:
You assume its being correctly implemented.
It is however not the case.
Proof?
Philip D Jones: " we'll keep that paper out even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
That is a problem as it orginates in a facility and with people who feed directly into the all so powerful ipcc on which this whole shenanigans is founded.
Address it, dismiss it, i dont mind but there you have it in writing. Conspiracy,subversion.
I have copies of all these emails in their entirety. I have read them all in full context. Jones was referring to a way to block an extremely dodgy paper that the lead editor wanted to publish even though "he" knew the science was dodgy. The journal was the International Journal of Climatology. This is the same one I already mentioned earlier where the editor brought the journal into disrepute by arguing that debate should be fostered by allowing dodgy papers in.
I'm not even going to bother. You haven't read the emails in their entirety and until you do you won't get it and you'll continue to handpick the tiny bits that you feel gives you the chance to rant on. You are ignorant, unintelligent and possibly one of the most arrogant I have come across. I feel sorry for you and hope one day when the worst fears of scientists is realised you have the balls to admit you are wrong.
You state that im arrogant and yet you profess to tell me and others whats right for us when you dont understand the complexities of the mechanisms at work- no one does but you ignore that fact.
You state that your interference in natural cycles is to redress some balance that you feel is lost.
You think in your own deluded world that you can control nature.
On all points, you, are wrong.
You are the arrogant , conceited one, you profess to being as a God.
The sun is a massive fusion reactor that is only 8 light minutes away in space. It goes through regular cycles of activity. To say it has no impact on earth's temperature characteristics is absolutely insane.
They really do think we're stupid. And yes, the world really is COOLING at present.
Yes, it have an impact. But if you will check sun activity and increase in global temperature you will notice that there is no correlation in recent climate change.
"This new research is an important rebuff to climate change sceptics.."
Perhaps the Royal Society should consider that the hacked documents and communications from the University of East Anglias Hadley Climate Research Unit are an important rebuff to the lying scum who stand to profit from ushering in this new carbon tax?
You idiots really think the public are idiots don't you?
First of all this come from Reuters. The same outfit that touted one scientists prediction that the ice caps will be gone in 20 years in a year of growing ice. Where did these guys go to find what the global cloud cover was for the periods of high radiation? They didn't. There are only localized records of this. This is bad science being touted because it threatens the gravy train.
Soo.. let me get this right. These days, people argue that CO2 is not the main reason for global warming?
Here is my theory: Since the internet got floded with people, eveybody is a scientist and an expert. At what point did someone actualy tought: Geez, since man started heavy industry and shooting bilions of tones of CO2 in the atmosphere, the climate has changed. Wow.. people are so mad about that. I know , let's blame the sun, idiots will belive me on the internet. Such shame.
RavenHouseProduction 1 year ago
@RavenHouseProduction Well in this video they say , is the Sun is the cause then we'd have had cooling in the last few years... but you could ALSO by the same logic have arged that when the industrial revolution started that temperatures would have risen with the co2 instead of dropping from the 40's through to the 70's....the mistake is trying to pin all the obsrved effect on a single cause
OtagoMark 7 months ago in playlist Global Warming
Stupid bitch.
Yourebuying 1 year ago
There is no "dwindling minority that disagrees" that Global Warming is manmade. That is a myth generated by Oil Industry and Coal Industry. They pay major news channels to inject doubt into the general public's mind.
marlitowtf 1 year ago
@marlitowtf bull shit stop with all the conspiracy crap .. the oil companys are out to get us is dumb. a lot of people think that global warming/cooling isnt man made. just natural cycle.
TheKurtChaney 1 year ago
@TheKurtChaney OK for a second lets assume that it is a natural cycle. There are lots of them afterall. But which one is it? Volcanoes? No, cant be them - they cool the planet. Solar activity? Nope, cant be that either as the Sun has been getting less active recently. Shifts in the Earth's orbit (milankovitch cycles)? Sorry, wrong again the timescales are way too long to explain such shifts in 50 years they need millennia. Ocean currents? Not promising, they take 15,000 years to circulate.
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong "Solar activity? Nope, cant be that either as the Sun has been getting less active recently" its a logical mistake to rule solar activity out as there are MANY things affecting climate, many cycles at play here El nino and La nina for instance...there was a period during the industrail revolution when co2 was being produced in huge amounts when temperatures were DROPPING, according to your logic that should have ruled co2 out!!...
OtagoMark 7 months ago in playlist Global Warming
@OtagoMark As you say there are many factors. However solar has a unique fingerprint as does GHGs. The main ones ruling out solar are the heating is mainly at night, and in the winter, the upper atmosphere is cooling - if it were the sun it would be warming and so on. The comment about the Sun getting less active is in response to the idiots who do the sort of correlations you critisize but stop them at 1980 when the correlation completely breaks down (Soon & Baliunis, for example)
drkstrong 7 months ago
"hat is a myth generated by Oil Industry and Coal Industry. They pay major news channels to inject doubt into the general public's mind"
Really?
So "Big Oil" would rather be federally suibsidize $7 a gallon of oil to make a $4.20 a barrel prodit while the US Feds make up to $980 a barrel with all there taxes on Oil?
Chevron would rather not expand their Windmill and Geothermal Power R&D that the Feds restrict?
Shell Would rather not expand there Wind and Solar R&D that the Feds restrict?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Exxon would rather make $4.20 a barrel of oil after Federal Subsidies then expand on them owning 90% of the Uranium mines in the world aand supplying almost all the Nuclear rods?...which the Feds Restrict?
BP rather Move oil then Build Solar Panel Field in Mohave?(which EPA is suing)
"Big Oil" really wants to lease land in the US that the FEDS won't let them Drill on cause of the Current Domestic Oil drilling ban so they are forced to import Oil that adds to Fed import oil tax revenue?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
reuters is owned by the rothschild banking dynasty who spearheaded the global warming BS thru Maurice straum and you guessed DAVID DE ROTHSCHILD.. This banking family is tied to central banking and want a carbon tax.. They get even more money out of this... Do not trust the mainstream media.. EVER ! EVER! Alternative media from multiple sources .. Been watching these slimeballs for yrs and know the game.
mcplanetearth 1 year ago
yeah, let's believe drop outs like Limbaugh and Beck. All these 'sceintists", with their high fillutin' degrees and "sciency terminology" are in it together to decieve the public. It's only 55 degrees out today, and these idiots want me to believe in global warming.
GO PALIN! GO BACHMAN! GO ODONELL!
judoyodan 1 year ago
agw is a scam
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@denier
"its a natural gas.."
#OMG
im no doctor - so i cant really help here..
..but "tim ball = climate expert" for example is the next huge lie spread by this ridiculous PR-anti science-propaganda movies
..that you just BELIEVE. like a controlled cult-sheep spreading it around, instead looking who and what real climate-science is and what a scientific consensus could be..
..or why tim ball is no "climate expert": watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0
..or why the movie sucks: watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
aerobique 1 year ago
it is so arrogant to think we are the source of global warming. anyone who believes the lies is a fucking idiot. seriously its all propaganda
tippman2k01 1 year ago
@tippman2k01
Only difference between the "Human caused Global Warming from burning fossil fuels that (supposedly) make CO2(over heat and force in Combustion) and (supposedly,even though there is no testible link or measurement) is causing the world to Warm now and the SO called "Global Cooling from (supposedly) CFCs and other pollution from burning oi" in the 70's is
1) Media is now GLobal
2) Internet blogs/YOutube lets Unscientific stupidity spread at speed of light
3) Al Gores Movie
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
This climate change bullshit! is just a natural occurrence that the governments of the world are using as an excuse to separate the stupid from their money!!! hence Cap&Scam!!!
Mrcharliebobo 1 year ago
Actually they want international governance more then the money...which really doesn't exist anyway(Especially when you re-distribute any "hard azssets" over the "global economy likle how China Owns U.S. and Europian T-bills and the EU is shoring up Greece with money they don't have borrowed from the Tri-Coms..just like the Democrats in US are doing with their 10 trillion dollar spending spree)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
RIght...the sun has nothing to do with warming.....come again?(thats what she said)
jtizz711 1 year ago
The Sun's 1 percent of Ultraviolet light that heat the ground and surface of Oceans is not enough to prevent the Super cooled waters of the Poles facing space from throwing the entire Earth into a "Snowball earth" state
It's the Earth's Core and mantle plumbing and driving plate tetonics and releasing heat at volanoes,subduction zones,midridge zones,trenches,and black smokers that heat the earth
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
It's why the University Faculty and Government employed "climate Experte" in the UN Commitie can't explain the Multiple Earthquakes at midride and subduction zones or the reactivation of Subjuction zone volcanoes like the one in Iceland that is accompanying the Heat rise at the polar oceans above the Subduction sones and sea trenches
it's Mantle plumbing causing release of Co2,heat increase,earthquakes,and Icelands reawakingin not "AGW"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Nope,
Primary Source of heat is hundreds of miles beneath our feet in the Earth's Mantle and Core
Millions of years ago the Sun was much cooler then it is now and primative life suck to the sea floors around the Subduction zones,midrigde zones,black smokers, and other sources of heat powered by the earths Core
Ice Ages happen because the Mantle goes Dormant releasing less Heat and related supposed "ghg" gases
Global warming Happens when Mantle goes more active releasing more heat
(&gases)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
P.S. problem is the Summary for Policy makers of the IPCC made famous by Al Gore and sensationalized by media is endorsed by Economic Stratigists,mechanical Engineers,Mathamaticians,Computer Modelers,and Physists spouting 19th Century Chemical Theory and not Geologists,Ecologists,Volconologists,Oceanagraphers,and Meterologists that would tell you it's "Mantle Plumbing" causing the Warming with "Climate Variability" and releasing gas as a byprioduct not "AGW" from humans burning fossil fuels
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Nice propaganda video. There will no doubt be many "tools" who buy this whitewash.
connoisseurodg 1 year ago
news
2000 - 2009 hottest decade
2009 - 2nd hottest year
2009 - highest co2 concentration since the last 20.000.000 years
-NASA-
aerobique 2 years ago
that doesnt mean anything. you cant just connect two things going up. there are more rabits this year than last, i bet thats causing it! for gods sakes people look at the people behind the people that are behind things. the information is out there enlighten youreself!
sublimeisdope 1 year ago
All good observations, but the tempatures and the Co2 consentration mesurements don't prove tghat humans make the Co2 by Nurning fossil fuels or that CO2 is causing the heat rise anymore then Adam Lambert and Clay Akin constantly being in the company of female companions prove they are not gay
As Theorist Physists sometimes miss the obvious
Ocean floor is like a Pot with Volcanoes,steam wents,& trenches where plates are created and destroyed all heat sources from deep earth that can rise
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
in fact all the increases in noticable earthquakes and increasing volcanic activity is part of what the ancients refer to as "The Time iof Storms"
Periodically the Mantle and core does do haywire which increases volcanic activity and earthquakes
This realeases more heat into the Oceans which are the true storers and distributor of heat,not "GHGs"
/watch?v=ZALEEwmwjP4&feature
As heat goes into Air it drives the Winds and weather,it isn't "Stored" by GHGs
watch?v=ajQ3hm5JidU&feature
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Physists Guess, Scientists Test
So 2009 is Hot, So 2000-2009 hottest decade..so what? Where is the Test to prove it's "Big Oil's Profit fault that the it is so hot?
Even Eienstien knew his theory that Gravity bends light was just a guess until a Scientists saw stars behind the sun during a Eclipse to make Eienstien's Theory a tested and proven fact
Where is the test that links Co2 to Humans burning fossil fuels?
,Where is the test that proves Co2 rise Causes tempature rise?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealAssAngel
oh,still a creepy denier trying to fool others to join the denier cult. hmm great
Co2 causes temp rise, is a simple fact (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on very well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.
aerobique 1 year ago
Belief and Denial is for religion
"Truth" is for Philosiphy
Consensus and denbate is for politics
As a Scientist I look for testability,verifiability,and falsifiability
watch?v=zcavPAFiG14&feature
Problem with The Un's IPCC commities PublicRelease Statment and Overview to Policy makers and all the Scientific Organizations PA Statements/Heads opinions ate they are not Actual publications to Science Journals
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
First problem with that statement is the Source code for the glorified SimEarth models is "Missing" when they asked for them in the "Climate Gate" hearings
Second problem with the Historical data iputed into the Climate Models is that the historical data is also "Missing" when the "Climate gate" investagators asked for then
Computer simulations are crap in = crap out
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
If you program the model to increase tempature every time Co2 doubles then that it what it will do regardless of whether or not that happens in reality
Problem isn't "established" Physics which GHG Chemical theory is a part of but a lack otf verified,tested,and falsifiable field or lab tests that proves GHG theory" a fact"
20 gallons of Co2 will not asorb more heat then 10 gallons of co2 from the same heat source..that is testable
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@aerobique
ur an idiot. co2 has laged behind temperature by 800 years. making it impossible for co2 to increase temperature. its that big ball in the sky called the sun that drives our temperature. a true alarmist religious zealon you are. soon you will wake up and realize your religion is a fraud climate models are full of bias, and cant predict shit
tippman2k01 1 year ago
@tippman2k01
idiots who believe in debunked anti-science-liar documentarys like "the big warming swindle", where this lie come from - are stupid. Not me.
People who call pro-environmental actions some sort of "religious" are in any case extremely stupid, fox-news controlled robots.
climate. nasa . gov /evidence/
temp leads carbon crock > watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
and.. instead of "conspiracy" everyday, try to google "borderline" and something
aerobique 1 year ago
@aerobique
ok first of all there are many credible scientists behind the great global warming swindle such as Dr. John Christy, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr. Tim Ball (who has gone into hiding, bc he was death threatened for speaking out against AGW, which is religion, not science), and Richard Lindzen. its not a lie. its science, and all idiots like u do is say its a lie. u dnt scientifically debunk it with experiments.
tippman2k01 1 year ago
@aerobique
second of all (this is where you are really stupid) you assume that since i dont believe in AGW that i think its ok to pollute. nothing is further from the truth. i am all for green technologies, and so are the scientists you morons call deniers. however, co2 is not a pollutant. it is a natural gas that is essential for all life, and is beneficial. thanks to the co2 we put back into the atmosphere, plant production worldwide has increased by 16%.
tippman2k01 1 year ago
@aerobique
also co2 does lag behind temperature. it is shown in Al Frauds documentary. you see the temperature go up, THEN the co2, u see the temperature go down THEN you see the co2 go down. and where did al gore get that co2 and temperature graph from? the IPCC.
so why dont u google the environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. multiple peer reviewed journals come up backing what i said. while ur at it google new peer reviewed study chills global warming fears
tippman2k01 1 year ago
"ur an idiot. co2 has laged behind temperature by 800 years"
Actually correlating CO2 to AGT is a useless gesture in "proving" humans are causing Global warming by burning fossil fuels as correlating the CO2 vs AGT does not prove 1) Any of that CO2 came from burning fossil fuels and 2) does not prove cause and effect
Morely Average Global tempature has nothing to do with Weather trends that change Ecology("Climatte")
"ball in the sky called the sun that drives our temperature"
No,its Earths Core
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"ball in the sky called the sun that drives our temperature"
The problem with the "it's the Sun Stupid" arguement is the Sun is always there yet in the last 4 billion years we have had 6 "Ice Ball Earth" Episodes(entire planet surface absolute zero) and at least 2 "hell hole Earth"episodes)Entire planet 900f)
This is beccause the Core Waning slows Plate RTectonics which slow ocean currents which lets Polar Ice Freeze the Oceans
COre Pluming causes accelerated tectonics & warming of Oceans
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
and the answer was if we were to cut emissions completely, temperature would only decrease by 1/1000 of a degree. which is nearly unmeasureable. youtube global warming debate: climate models vs. real world observations. also youtube FOS luncheon 2009. wake up like most americans are. AGW is a scam
tippman2k01 1 year ago
"and the answer was if we were to cut emissions completely, temperature would only decrease by 1/1000 of a degree"
CO2 is no more then 323 grams a gallon in cars...all from intake or additive contamination,none from "Creation"
Current generation Coal Plantsuse high heat/coal dust,bag filters,chemical scrubbers,electrostatic filters,water filtration and only "emission" is water vapor and Nitrogen...everything else is filtered out and sold...most common recycled "waste"..Gypsum(Dry wall material).
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
when i said emissions i meant from energy plants, such as coal, gas, cars, etc. not just cars. and daily the sun does effect temperature. i can prove this 2 ways. number 1. Dr. Piers Corbyn predicts weather months in advance by using the sun. he isnt perfect. he has been wrong a couple times. but he is more accurate than any meteor or climatologist.
2. go outside. u can feel the impact of the suns output. some days it feels stronger than others.
tippman2k01 1 year ago
"can feel the impact of the suns output. some days it feels stronger than others.t."
Yes, because of the Electromagnetic fields to flux, and because of changes in the layers of the atmosphere how much Sunlight gers through varies and it is this variotion in addition to relative location that causes variation in weather via ariations in the Evaporation/precipitation cycle
Despite this the UA/UVB rays generating heat in surface is less then 1% of heat,99% of it comes from Earth's Core
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Despite this the UA/UVB rays generating heat in surface is less then 1% of heat,99% of it comes from Earth's Core"
When Scientists don't work together you get "M-Cycles" and "CO2 amplification" and other such nonsence to explain Ice Ages and Warming Cycles(rollseyes)
When Earth Core wanes plate tetonics slows,heat release is less = Ice AGe
When Earth COre PLumes, Plate tetonics increase,Heat increase = more earthquakes, more Warming,subduction volcanos like Icland's erupting,whacky weather
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
The Sun only provides 1% of the world's heat and allows "Seasons" to happen, while it is the Earth's Core that provides the EM field that protects life on earth from the bulk of the 4500f-7500f "Solar wind as well as provides the heat diffused through the Oceans to make the planet relatively Ecologically stable for life
The Increased Earthquakes and reactivation of the Iceland Volcano is from core plumbing and accelerated plate Tectonics as is added heat and co2 release observed in Ecology
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
it has always been the sun that drives temperature. when you see how well solar activity correlates with temperature, its solid evidence. Dr. John Christy does a great presentation on how much AGW is bull shit. he proves the earth has been cooling since 1998, and he proves that co2 has little to no effect on temperature. he says "lets assume that the predictions of alarmists are correct. and see what would happen (according to their predictions) if we cut emissions completely"
tippman2k01 1 year ago
"it has always been the sun that drives temperature. when you see how well solar activity correlates with temperature"
But daily,monthly,yearly and decadal temperature averages have nothing to do with weather trends that define a local ecology over thousands of years(not 10 not 100) or via Ecological upheavals
"co2 has little to no effect on temperature."
Actually the CO2 increase is a byproduct of core pluming just like the extra heat release and is release from deep oceans/trenches/rifts
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
and when the impact feels stronger, u have warmer temperature. when it doesnt feel as strong, naturally, it is colder. co2 has no effect on temperature. co2 did drive temperature we would be warming, but there has been no warming since 1998. not to mention go 30,000 feet into the air and feel how cold it is. according to the AGW theory, the upper troposphere should be warmer than the surface bc of greenhouse warming (hot air rises). but it is not warmer. it is much colder
tippman2k01 1 year ago
"according to the AGW theory, the upper troposphere should be warmer than the surface bc of greenhouse warming"
Which part of the cuteness of the whole thing is that the main gas they focus on, CO2, is actually a heavier then air gas that is only in the air because it is riding the evaporation/precipitation cycle which is the true source of the warmed air and clouds...not Cosmic rays,not "greenhouse gases"(meteorology 101 v.s. Physics 101)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
sunspots are to climate as plate tectonics are to earthquakes: what makes me laugh is that countries in Northern Europe and America live on a dorment ice field.
campgalley 2 years ago
No Correlation Between the Sun and Global Warming?
And there's also no correlation between oxygen and life.
rephaim22 2 years ago
Forget the sunspots. what becomes of the earth if the sun somehow changes to give us no heat? We freeze. Literally. It is our primary source of heat.
shishoka 2 years ago
Since the earth always changed its own temperature in time, and we recorded a series of ice ages and very warm periods ... without humans around playing with co2, somebody will please tell me what, if not the sun, WAS responsable for the all the other changes in time?
Thanks.
ChristianIce 2 years ago
@ChristianIce, The key factor affecting climate change is whether snow remains on the ground during summer in northern lattitudes. Snow reflects heat & the earth cools. At present, the only permanent snow is too far north to be significant, so the earth is warming up. This will probably stop when the polar ice melts, because the arctic ocean will then evaporate into clouds & lots of snow will fall over Siberia, Canada etc, which won't melt in summer. Then we will have an ice age.
EC0N0MY7 2 years ago
@EC0N0MY7
That's interesting, it makes me think that we could control earth temperature by painting black or white the sand of a desert (sounds like a joke, but it isn't if your datas about reflections are correct and i don't have reasons to believe otherwise)
Still, it doesn't answer my question.
We already had hundreds of Warming - Cooling periods without humans around .. how?
ChristianIce 2 years ago
@ChristianIce Temperatures can't stay the same because there isnt enough snow to reflect back the suns energy at the moment. But when it does start snowing more (with the arctic ice free) it will just keep getting colder and colder until the sea (in the arctic) freezes. At this point, there won't be enough clouds to make much snow in the norh of Russia and Canada, and eventually this deep snow will melt. Orbital forcing due to Milankovitch cycles can quicken or slow this process.
EC0N0MY7 2 years ago
@ChristianIce (continued) The cycle has been repeating itself for 2.6 million years. The process may have started 3 million years ago and was initiated by continental drift depositing a disproportionate amount of the worlds land mass at around 65' norrh. This land has the potential to be covered in snow and receives enough solar energy for the reflective effect of the snow to be significant. This is why there were no ice ages in the time of the dinosaurs, when it was consistently warm.
EC0N0MY7 2 years ago
@EC0N0MY7 The theory that I have explained was formulated in the 1950s and a long with orbital forcing was considered by most climatologists to be the driving force behind climate change. (We were taught it at school in the 70s). However, by now, it has mostly been edited out of history. By contrast, the "variation in solar output" theory has been allowed to be shown on TV, because it is easily debunked. I hope all this helps!
EC0N0MY7 2 years ago
@EC0N0MY7
the Milankovitch cycles itself is a theory trying to describe how the sun is responsable for climate change .. are you supporting that model, the snow reflection model, both together?
So what about CO2 ?
And what about CFCs, the ozone hole, the greenhouse effect .. are chemicals like trends now?
Do i have to care about them asking a fashion designer which one is for the new season?
ChristianIce 2 years ago
@ChristianIce , I would say that the main factors are the snow reflection effect combined with Milankovitch Cycles. The Milankovitch Theory depends on the sun melting the snow when orbital forcing is favourable. However, Milankovitch doesn't take into account the rate at which it is snowing, which is controlled (with regard to northern latitudes) by the amount of ice free sea in the Arctic. I can't really see these small amounts of CO2 (0,038%) making much difference.
EC0N0MY7 2 years ago
"somebody will please tell me what, if not the sun, WAS responsable for the all the other changes in time?"
Invisible space chickens
Oh ok
Virtually everything
It's Probably a combination of millions of things, supernova effect this planets climate (gamma radiation) life itself effects the atmosphere, the moon is moving away at approximately 1 cm a year this will have an effect, and so on and so forth dark matter,dark energy (Invisible space chickens) you name it, it will have an effect
RevDevilin 1 year ago
@RevDevilin
Sounds good to me, I don't know why you didn't mention the CO2.
As I said i follow the logic for CFCs and HCFCs, i can't understand the logic about CO2 other than graphics showing that there is more than before.
Same kind of logic points to "COWS" emissions as a main factor, right?
Now, everybody wants a clean planet (well everybody should), I am just admitting my ignorance about HOW CO2 actually works in warming up the planet.
ChristianIce 1 year ago
Heat anything and it will absorb/reflect release the energy it absorbs/reflects according to its density and so on, ie ice reflects water absorbs, this is a generalization as they both do both, but I'm sure you know what I mean
Co2 can only absorb at very specific wavelengths of light/energy. the ones emitted by the sun are too short to be absorbed but the one's emitted/reflected by the earth are just right, can you see where this is going ?
RevDevilin 1 year ago
@RevDevilin
Ok, i'll put the 0,038% of CO2 in the atmosphere as a factor.
Now, the good news is that new tools will soon allow us to grab CO2 and stock it, so lucky cows are not going to be slaughtered forcing us in vegetarianism.
But as you said and I agree, factors are many (and i INCLUDE the sun), so how are we going to make calculations about the CO2 factor in a system that would change anyway as it ever did?
ChristianIce 1 year ago
@ChristianIce
"Always did", sorry for my poor english ...
ChristianIce 1 year ago
@ChristianIce well it can't be done, well possibly in the future, one would need a quantum computer approximately the size of the universe to calculate all the variables, but until then much more research is needed, thee never ending research grant type research, the kind scientists dream of, lot's of that, and higher taxes of course, politically correct save the planet taxes, the kind politicians dream of..... wait a sec
Am I sounding sceptical ?
RevDevilin 1 year ago
@RevDevilin è preferibile per il mio italiano povero ;-)
RevDevilin 1 year ago
@RevDevilin
XD
I know the kind of computer you are talking about, "42" is always a good answer.
ChristianIce 1 year ago
The Artificial Trees?
Yeah such Co2 capture Technology has existed for a while now, but the Environuts sdon't want us to scrub the CO2 out of the air, they want us to go back to living in caves and swinging from the trees
The UN doesn't want us to reduce the CO2 by using scrubbers, they want Energy, Finance,and taxing Authority..especially over the Untited States
It isn't Science, it's politics
Scrubbing the Co2 out and the world still warming anyway (cause it isn't the CO2) would look bad
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Co2 is a poor conductor of heat...it actually tries to get away from heat by expanding
This property is why, until freon replaced it, Co2 used to be put under pressure to way above 1 atmosphere then released into a series of coils that it rapidly cooled and then the co2 was recondensed to be released to the 1 atmosphere piping again to eventually cool the Refrigerator/Freezer (As in Co2 is classified as a refrigerant)
They infact make Dry Ice by squirting pressurized CO2 into 1 atmosphere
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
that is kinda funny because its acually has been getting cooler. this is one very cold winter.. Where them sun spots hmm oh yeah they died down. cold winter less sun spots, i think this fits the fact sun affects weather, not tiny little bit of corbon we been dumping. think of this fact less then one percent of water on earth can be used as drinking water. and there is allot of drinking water out there. and there is more air then water. think about it real hard with these facts.
thesoveit86 2 years ago
the royal society is as dodgy as they come
willowb22 2 years ago
Fed up of being labelled and treated like shite?
Watch the video, subscribe if you want, make our numbers felt.
watch?v=6_munPU0tfU
Tacair1 2 years ago
Since the sun does not cause global warming. I suggest all of the idiots who believe this go live on the sun.
dusternm 2 years ago
lol! Yeha trust something called the ROyal Society.. something identifying itself with genocidal maniacs.
ZombieX13 2 years ago
The geologic record appears to indicate that temp increases precede natural CO2 increases. But does it follow that our moving 1M years of carbon from the earth to the atmosphere EVERY YEAR has no affect? No. What it means, unfortunately, is that as we humans have now become a driver of temps natural CO2 increases will follow. This is a reinforcing mechanism that will make matters worse.
Google Anthropocene: Back to the Limelight
P.S. Most GW science is NOT model based.
UCSUSA org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
What a crock!
165 million years ago.
The age of the dinosaurs.
Life was booming.
Source: Reconstruction of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation extinct ecosystem—a synthesis. By Christine E. Turner and Fred Peterson.
"the Late Jurassic atmosphere contained about 3180 ppm CO2, which is on the order of 11 times that of the pre-industrial age atmosphere"
So whats the big issue?
There isnt one!
Tacair1 2 years ago
There real crock is you thinking you have a clue.
The Anthropocene Epoch is proposed for good reason. If you don't understand why I recommend you do some reading. Global warming is ONE symptom of our degrading habitat. THAT is what the "big issue" is. And if you don't believe our only habitat is suffering under our unsustainable clultures then again, you haven't a clue and should do some reading.
As for global warming.
Google... NAS Global Warming
Google... AAAS Global Warming
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Show me the human signal in the RAW data.
Why dont you morons just do that?
Be the winners that you proclaim yourself to be?
But you never do and you never can because you -dont-have-one!
Therefore you have NO CASE.
Cry and whine and bitch and distract and shout and call names all you want, but at the end of the day you still HAVE NO CASE.
NO EVIDENCE.
The global warming scam is drowning in a sea of its own bullshit and you idiots are desperate, hysterical to get your way.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Show you the raw data? Demonstrate to me that you have the training to make use of the data and I'll see what I can do.
No evidence? Of course there is no evidence that you can understand.
A scam? When you are in denial and all the credible experts don't agree with you of course that MUST be the problem. They all conspire.
grow up
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
If you had the data youd have already presented it and closed your casebook.
The facts are, you dont.
Youve been called.
So, according to you there are no credible scientists who do not "believe" the erm "theory".
How arrogant.
You have the same credentials as Alberto the Gore- None and about the same amount of intellect it would seem.
Prove your theory with the data or shut up.
So far youve shown everyone visiting these pages, absolutely zippo.
Thats to be expected when you have nothing.
Tacair1 2 years ago
No, lets not get the cart before the horse. How is it that you have the capability to analyze the data? Why should I go to the effort of obtaining it for some nimwit that I know doesn't have a clue about the science?
Arrogant? No. It is YOU are the one that is passing him/her self off as some kind of an expert. I know better.
Get me the data, get me the data! Why? So you can you can wipe with it?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Example of Cart before horse.
The atmosphere is melting! Its all the fault of CO2!
You can please yourself as regards the data.
You dont have any. You would have proven your case with it by now instead of posturing on here.
Nimwit? Moi? Oh come now, is it something i said?
Arrogant. Oh yes thats you, has the data but cant produce it so Take it on trust.
Expert? Me? Does it show?
I only ever floss my buttocks with Andrex.
You gonna prove the theory now or not?
Didnt think so.
Tacair1 2 years ago
What, can't stay on subject?
Admit you haven't a clue and we'll move on.
You don't read so well do you? I didn't say I had the data. I'd do my best to get it IF...
But there's no need for that because I know all too well that you haven't a clue about this.
What were the last several books you read about the impact (or lack thereof) of human habitation on the biosphere? Summarize one for me.
Then, don't forget; tell me of you expertise and grasp of data analysis. Can't wait for that!
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Tacair1 2 years ago
Question all you want. But if don't have a clue about the issue how would you know what to ask?
Prove it? There you go again. I'll leave it to the experts and they have done just that; they've proven it time and time again. It doesn't matter if you can't accept their conclusions. There are no better sources of credible information. Read what SOCC, AGU, AAAS, NOAA, and all the others have been saying for years.
Or, remain in denial. It matters not to me.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
You couldnt convict someone in a court of law with your argument yet you tell people CO2 "did it" with just as little evidence.
The burden of proof still lies with your side.
Fitting the theory to the facts.
You still have not done so.
Why not?
People visiting can easily make their minds up as to the obvious reasons, youve had ample opportunity; 30 years+ and billions spent.
Still nothing to show for it except a pile of hot air.
Religious nuts have a better case.
Watch how you go in da snow.
Tacair1 2 years ago
If you wanted a legal proof why didn't you ask. Ever put one together? I doubt it. You've probably never read one.
The proof is the many studies that have been complete. The studies have been reviewed by many historically reliable scientific institutions who ALL concur on the core issue.
One of the first proofs was The Charney Report from 1979. Have you read it? No. Many subsequent studies have reinforced the conclusions.
Any studies to the contrary? No. Why not?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Institutions don't study an issue, Scientist do
Studies? The Ice core collecting, the Corrolating of yearly Average Global tepature data of about 40 weather Stations against the CO2 concentration of Mauna Loa wich is the bases of the Average GLobal CO2 concentration as "Proof" humans are causing Global awarming by burning fossil fuels?
How does that conclusively link any part of the 500 billion ton supposed increase of co2 in atmosphere to Human activities and rule out natural Co2 sinks?
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
The Chaney Report?
Was that submitted to a Scientific journal and picked apart by Geologists,Ecologists, Meterologists,, oceanagraphers,and other Earth Sceientists before being published?
Was tests done to verify Co2 is a tempature Driver< prove Co2 came from buning fossil fuels,and any part of Co2 rise in air can be clonclusivly linked to human activities?
Was there tests done to rule out prograssive warming & natural =20f/-20f climate variability swings,and other evnts that alter AGT?
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
After all the Falsification (proving there is no other possible explanation) was the AGW Hypothsis put forth by the Charney report that was published in a Scientific Journal declared by the Scientitst that tested and retested and falsified all aspects of the claims and therefore can be declared a "scientific fact" and be put into Science Textbooks alongside Evolution Theory and Gravity Theory?
Or all we just talking about Paper encouraging politicians to increase pollution regulation?
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Again, please enlighten me.
What were the last several books you read about the impact (or lack thereof) of human habitation on the biosphere?
Summarize one for me.
If you haven't read a book I can suggest several. They can help you understand a little of what you've been posting about.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
@ReduceGHGs
I dont respond to distraction techniques.
Its not about me or what i do or dont read, its about YOU showing that your theory fits the facts as you claim, in line with established scientific doctrines.
Until you can do that you can get no further.
Cheating the results in the models and hiding the decline of proxy tree ring temp data wont help you either.
Come clean and make your case or quieten down until you can prove the theory.
Youll get nothing from me unless you do that.
Tacair1 2 years ago
In other words, what you mean is that you have never read a book about how humans are affecting the biosphere. That's pretty telling.
Do you have a reading OR learning problem. I said I have no theory. I have conclusions from the best science available.
So you haven't read ONE book about this and you can't come up with any studies or scientific institutions that agree with you.
Wow! Take that to court! LOL!
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
The SOCC,AGU,AAS,NOAA and other Scientific Organizations Board of Directors or Scientists within those organizations Opinions especially to Al Gores movie conserning AGW are not "Scientific fact" nor has been subjected to a Scientific Journal nor scrutinize by the Scientific Method
Or do you have a Paper on the AGW Hypothises officially submitted to a Scientific Journal&passed Peer review by Geologisst(Climate),Ecologists(Ecology/Enviroment),& Meterologists(Weather/Tempature)& was published?
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Geologists can tell you Climate is a geological feature based on Axis, location on earth relative to axis which effects how much sunlight athat area gets , and elevation...not trace gases
A Oceanagrapher can tell you that it is the Ocean that is Earth major heat sink and re-distributor of heat through the ocean convyer that moves warm currents and warm winds from the tropics to the poles with currents effected by continental placement and drift making the trade winds and Elnino/Lanina
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Meterologist can tell you the sunlight hitting the eath surface causes heat to generate in the surface and this heat conducts to the air above it and this air rapidly rises and cools
Differences in different pockets of air interacting with different surfaces makes "wind"
Evaporation of moisture with heating makes humidity aand when warm moisture filled rapidly air cools in upper atmopshere it makes cloauds that can make rain when triggered properly
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Ecologists can tell you a Encvviroment is determined by it's climate (Tropical,Sub tropial,Polar,Subpolar,Temparate,Highlands)and it's percipitation patterns over a long time, not tempatuire and not a trace gas..also the life or lack of that develops their over time
Example the Sahara is a Temparate Desert Ecology,while Here in Hawaii I am in a Tropical Rainforest Ecology
While it's been cold in 70's and lately Hawaii is still a Tropical (Climate)Rainforest(Ecology)
AGT vs Co2 is shit
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Playing scientists again?
Those that understand and work with this very complex science wouldn't make the obvious logic errors you are making.
Leave it to the experts because clearly you only parrot the propaganda and haven't a clue. Same old story as you cling to denial.
Google... NAS Global Warming
Google... AAAS Global Warming
Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wiki
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Actually your "Climate Experts" with Mathamatics, English,Rocket Science,and Economics Degrees playing with glorified SimEarth Programs are the ones playing Scientists
Oops, I shouldn't insult SimEarth considering it doesn't used made up numbers from non-existant data, errorous assumptions, and incomplete understanding of Gian Dynamics
Or can you provide the accidently missing or "classified" infronation your "climate experts" won't provide under the Freedom of information act?
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Logic Errors? carew to point out where I am "wrong" conserning what is known in Geology,Ecology,Meterology,Oceanagraphy vs your "climate Experts" knowledge of Economics,Mathamatics,English,& History?
Parroting?Where hacve you heard 1/2 degree axis shift and failing EM field causing intensified seasons and increased agt before?
P.S. not that It matters but I have forgotten more about Weather manipulation,Eviromental Engineering, and Gian Mechanics then your "Climate Experts" ever will know
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
thanks for proving my point!
or, I look forward to reading the reviews on you published studies.
are you off your meds?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Well, since I am on my meds,
No, You won't find any of my work in University Journals or JScientific Journals as they were contracted/funded by military and the more dangerous stuff is blacklisted
Good thing I am on my meds and my Machine was moved to Groom Lake after I hailstormed a General's House..cause I am totally crazy, and MING (cute Huh) using chemicals and EM fields to manipulate atmosphere conditions to induce weather chane IS total nonsense after all...lol
HARP on you..lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
p.s. I missed the extra A on purpouse
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
difficult to confirm, ya think?
didn't keep a copy in your back pocket?
through a study together and I'll forward it to my contacts. they'll be happy to learn that all this was much-a-do about nothing.
I'll wait but won't hold my breath.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
I'm on my meds, I didn't say anything
Pfft,"Contacts",pfft
I've been "contacted" through time dialation,though the more common when I say too much is phone calls that hang up or a dark tinted window vehicle driving by me slowly (rollseyes)
And no a copy in the back pocket would be found,not that it matters as it's triple encoded anyway
Fuckers even tried wiping/probing my mind a few times but as a Psion they only manage warping my aging mind's defences..lol
P.S. I'm Crazy,Ignore me
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
wow, I do believe that last line.
get better soon
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
P.S. Nice weather your having in Oregan isn't
Damned Human caused Global warming...lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
too cold for me but it needs to get colder to kill the bugs taking advantage of the warming climate and killing the trees
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Well, considering the 1/2 degree tilt from sudden shifts from core disturnbances the North pole's peak winter tilt woll be 2000 miles further away from the Sun \, so yeah, it will get colder
Likewise the 1/2 shift in axis sticks the South pole 2000 miles more to the sun during it's mid summer so expect hotter tempatures down under come Jaunuary/Feburary
Note: Cold also be the Warming enviroment killing off the tress depending on type of trees
Walker Circulation is going wonky
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Refer to a those that have a clue unless you find that study of yours hiding in your back pocket. Not likely huh?
And what better sources than NOAA, SOCC, AAAS, NAS, AGU, etc. do you have? What? You have none, just baseless babblings that no one gives a rip about? Dump your predisposition and read about the most recent studies.
Don't know about the bug kill and why it is occurring? Not surprised.
Read, learn, grow, and contribute.
Or, what?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Actually I love the guys and gals in the NOAA, SOCC,AAAS,NAS,AGU,and at Nasa...
The lot of your "Climate Experts" giving thier opinion on what the data means are Grunt data collectors, not the proper type of scientist in the proper field of science to make a analasis or go on T.V. scaring the Public with their AGW apocalypse theories....it's why James Hansen was told to STFU in the first place
Seaprate the Politics from the Science then Separate AL Gore's Movie Hysteria from that
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
p.s. As someone that Seen James Henson's work, the Statements of the Board of Directors'sof the Sceintific Institutions PR statements in relation to AL Gore Movie there is no Scientific Basis for the opinom that Human Activities is causing "Climate Change"
Dowes it mean we shouldn't try to strive for renewable energy? No
Does it mean we can use oil/coal forever? no
Does it mean we shouldn't develop better filteration? NO
But that isn'tt the real point of Copenhagen & IPCC is it?
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Had a hard time staying upright from laughing so hard about the Copenhagen delegates going balistic when Hillary brought Obama's vision of what they should be acomplishing conserding "Saving the World from CLimate Change"....with the U.S. and not the UN in charge of it all of course....RLOF
UN fuckers been trying to get taxing and reglation powers for ages and AGW is just the latest Angle to control the U.S. economy,Finance,Energy policy,and create International Energy Welfare US pays for
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
They got what they deserves when Obama and Hillary came to town...lol
Don't think Obama's "friend" Chaves was to hrilled with what Obama forced down there throat's cause he mentioned he still smelt brimstone after Obama left...lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
how can you do that in a straight jacket?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Easy, if I can't make ee contact to dominate someone to free me then I use telepathy to donimate someone to free me
If there is nobody around I can just go imaterial for a few seconds to slip out of the jacket
Of course just jumping to a new body would be much easier(though unlikely,I like where I am despite my host dying almost every night/have to repossess)& unlike that stupid movie I can live outside of a host for more then 30 seconds (I do like singing "Time is on my side" though)
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Does this Hypothises on AGW from these Scientific organizations
1) Conclusively link Co2 as a "driving" factor in AGT rise despite times when CO2 was low but AGT was high,and then their is Interglaciation peeaks where CO2 is high but the earth slips back into a ICe age anyway...and explains why agt occasionally drops thugh CO2 is high?
2)Conclusively links any part of the 500 billion tons increase (100ppm) of Co2 desptie deep oceans containing thousands of trillion tons of same type co2
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Don't have the expertise and haven't read a book about the issues? No kidding.
Your posts were transparent. Go do some reading so you can develop a foundation to build on. Otherwise you are just another silly adolescent posting meaningless comments.
Start here...
Google... NAS Global Warming
Google... Anthropocene Epoch
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
"Prove your theory with data or shut up." ?? What tha?
I have no theory? I never said I did. I rely on the best scientific sources available. THEY are the experts. THEY are trained to do the analysis. Certainly not some arrogant yahoo posting comments on youtube whining for the data like he/she has a clue of what to do with it.
And again with Gore, Gore, Gore, ...
Who gives a rip what you think about him. He doesn't do science and you know it. He informs millions ABOUT it. Good man!
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
The earth is a vastly different place today. yes the climate was different but so too were the climate cycles. Australia and South America were still attached to Antarctica so there was no circumpolar currents. The Himalayas hadn't yet formed etc etc. The climate you referred to took millions of years to get to that point giving ample time for plants and animals to evolve. What we are doing is altering the climate too quickly for evolution to keep up. Thats the point.
mikefmale 2 years ago
@mikefmale
You keep on trotting it out, but WHERES YOUR **PROOF**?
The point is you dont have any.
Youre a busted flush.
SHOW THE PEOPLE YOUR*** P_R_O_O_F***
Soundbites and anecdotal evidence do not a convincing case make.
Again, CAUSE AND EFFECT.
Demonstrate it, prove it, show it to everyone.
Otherwise, just hush up.
Tacair1 2 years ago
I gave you a list of sources and you didn't read them.
mikefmale 2 years ago
@neo58421964 which science shows "that heat drives CO2, not the other way around"? I'd like a reference please and remember that your statement implies that the CO2 causing warming theory has also been scientifically falsified.
It would also be nice to know your history and experience with climate modelling. I mean, you are actually qualified and have sufficient technical knowledge to make the statement that people using modeling results is a "bloody idiot"?
mikefmale 2 years ago
And suddenly the lights came on.
h t t p : / / wattsupwiththat . com / 2009 / 01 / 30 / co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages /
Tacair1 2 years ago
Oh Please!! The wattsupwiththat website has a medical correspondent who works for a newspaper making comments about polar bears as if she's some kind of expert. The actual article that you have directed me to has heaps of badly manipulated graphs from an unpublished source. Not to mention that the "Vostok" ice core data is a single point reference. The author is also a biotechnologist, not a climate scientist. My lights have always been on and you have just proven my point. Deniers are ignorant.
mikefmale 2 years ago
Tacair1 2 years ago
If your plumber wanted to rewire your house, you would question his credentials.
To answer your question about evidence of AGW.
Zhang et al (2007) Nature 448, 461-465
Lean & Rind (2008) Geophysical Research Letters 35, L18701
Santer et al (2007) Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 15248-53.
Kaufman et al (2009) Science 325, 1236-39.
Joos & Spahni (2008) Proc of Nat Academy of Sciences 105, 1425-30
I have about 12 more. All recent, and all peer reviewed. Unlike your biotech guy
mikefmale 2 years ago
Tacair1 2 years ago
you're a hypocrite. You criticise the peer review system and then in another of your rant replies to me further down you offer 500+ "peer reviewed" papers of your own? Whats it going to be? You can't have it both ways.
You also clearly haven't had time to read the sources I have provided to you. The same resources you actually asked me for yet you go on another rant in reply. Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
mikefmale 2 years ago
@mikefmale
Ohhh i never said i was perfect!
All you have to do is prove the theory and away we all go to la la land.
We're all still waiting for this proof, for this incontrivertible evidence to make the connection absolutely ironclad.
But still, no sign. maybe, just maybe...c'mere.......... YOURE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE!!!??
Tacair1 2 years ago
Read the sources I provided for you. You accuse me of being close minded but you won't even look at the sources I gave you. I have now read 87 of the sources you provided to me and so far all I have seen is pseudoscience, bad science and paid for science most of which has not been independently reviewed. Of those that have been, the science is good and those papers actually support the AGW theory. It is obvious the web ed only read the title and decided it was anti AGW when it actually wasn't.
mikefmale 2 years ago
Ok, heres some of your precious "peer reviewed " science.
Note, the date is important, very.
h t t p : / / w w w . investigatemagazine . com / hessell1980 . pdf
Tacair1 2 years ago
You are brilliant you know? The author admits in it that he has handpicked 'several' weather stations that have been subjected to urbanisation, instrumentation changes or significant screening. He has already biased his results. He has survived peer review because he admits that bias. I recommend you go to the Australian BOM site and dig up the climate maps that have mapped temperature change. These are the result of ALL weather stations. Not a select few.
mikefmale 2 years ago
Yes im stellar.
You deny that UHI isnt being addressed correctly?
You deny the fact that rural sites need to be chosen and maintained very carefully and have not been so?
Theres hundreds, probably thousands of photos on the web showing stations being heated by air con, carparks, taxi rank exhausts and a whole host of other situations.
Its no big friggin surprise if temp readings are higher because URBANISED ONES ALWAYS ARE!!
You get an F.
Tacair1 2 years ago
You still don't get it. But you are a lost cause. You compensate for your ignorance and lack of scientific understanding and general intelligence with arrogance. You have still refused to even look at the sources I gave you for 2 reasons. First, you lack the ability to understand them and second, they disproive everything you have said and your arrogance won't allow you to have to admit you are wrong. I feel genuinely sorry for you and you have my pity.
mikefmale 2 years ago
@mikefmale
Ill see your 17 and raise you....500+.
h t t p : / / w w w . populartechnology . net / 2009 / 10 / peer - reviewed - papers - supporting . html
Tacair1 2 years ago
A no. of your peer reviewed journals here are industry journals. They lack credibility as the reviewers aren't independent.
TheInternational Journal of Climatolgy, used to b a respected journal until the snr ed announced that they should accept anti AGW papers to foster debate, even if the science lacks rigour. . Also a number of the papers presented there actually support AGW but the idiots who run that website didn't bother to read them. I did. Seems to be the MO of your ilk.
mikefmale 2 years ago
@mikefmale
So youre basically saying if it dosent support the theory "ill not consider it".
Ostrich boy, theres a train coming.
Tacair1 2 years ago
Not at all. What I am saying is if it is scientifically sound and indepenently reviewed and appearing in a journal that is respected for its scientific integrity and rigour, I'll consider it. Nothing you have given me falls into this category. Everything I have given you, that you have so far refused to even look at does.
I know you will no doubt reply by criticising the peer review system, but that will just demonstrate your ignorance of independent peer review.
mikefmale 2 years ago
The reason im criticising the peer review system is this:
You assume its being correctly implemented.
It is however not the case.
Proof?
Philip D Jones: " we'll keep that paper out even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
That is a problem as it orginates in a facility and with people who feed directly into the all so powerful ipcc on which this whole shenanigans is founded.
Address it, dismiss it, i dont mind but there you have it in writing. Conspiracy,subversion.
Tacair1 2 years ago
I have copies of all these emails in their entirety. I have read them all in full context. Jones was referring to a way to block an extremely dodgy paper that the lead editor wanted to publish even though "he" knew the science was dodgy. The journal was the International Journal of Climatology. This is the same one I already mentioned earlier where the editor brought the journal into disrepute by arguing that debate should be fostered by allowing dodgy papers in.
mikefmale 2 years ago
So even if i accept your view ( which i dont), youre telling me that its all above board and ethical to alter peer review?
Youre (pardon my francais) "Full of shit."
If the science was "dodgy" then itd be exposed upon publication, by other scientists!
No need to do anything!
Pathetic attempt to explain nefarious activities by crooks at CRU who have for years had it all their own way.
As for full context: "we cant explain the lack of warming its a travesty".
Put that in context.
Tacair1 2 years ago
I'm not even going to bother. You haven't read the emails in their entirety and until you do you won't get it and you'll continue to handpick the tiny bits that you feel gives you the chance to rant on. You are ignorant, unintelligent and possibly one of the most arrogant I have come across. I feel sorry for you and hope one day when the worst fears of scientists is realised you have the balls to admit you are wrong.
mikefmale 2 years ago
@mikefmale
Interesting.
You state that im arrogant and yet you profess to tell me and others whats right for us when you dont understand the complexities of the mechanisms at work- no one does but you ignore that fact.
You state that your interference in natural cycles is to redress some balance that you feel is lost.
You think in your own deluded world that you can control nature.
On all points, you, are wrong.
You are the arrogant , conceited one, you profess to being as a God.
Tacair1 2 years ago
@mikefmale
The question of admittance of error isnt one that i would have any qualms in stating.
If i am wrong in my conviction that agw isnt an issue, then i would be first to state my apologies.
The question is however- Will you?
Tacair1 2 years ago
The sun is a massive fusion reactor that is only 8 light minutes away in space. It goes through regular cycles of activity. To say it has no impact on earth's temperature characteristics is absolutely insane.
They really do think we're stupid. And yes, the world really is COOLING at present.
XTL446 2 years ago
Yes, it have an impact. But if you will check sun activity and increase in global temperature you will notice that there is no correlation in recent climate change.
starrdreams 2 years ago
if the sun would influence the earth climate, it should be coolingby now,.......but i understand it IS actually COOLING!!!
schillie7 2 years ago
Temperature is actually increasing. Don't look at few years, look at tens of years.
starrdreams 2 years ago
Hmm:
"This new research is an important rebuff to climate change sceptics.."
Perhaps the Royal Society should consider that the hacked documents and communications from the University of East Anglias Hadley Climate Research Unit are an important rebuff to the lying scum who stand to profit from ushering in this new carbon tax?
You idiots really think the public are idiots don't you?
youchoobeguy 2 years ago
Hacked documents didn't change basic understanding of climate change and it's reasons. So everything is the same.
starrdreams 2 years ago
Try do not limit source of your information only to some blogs.
starrdreams 2 years ago
Utter hogwash
rialcnis 2 years ago
How can you rule out the sun for crying out loud!! The sun is the nr1 cause of all temperature variations that exist on your planet.
2014andBeyonD 2 years ago
No, sun is not ruled out. But sun's activity is not enough to explain recent climate change.
starrdreams 2 years ago
First of all this come from Reuters. The same outfit that touted one scientists prediction that the ice caps will be gone in 20 years in a year of growing ice. Where did these guys go to find what the global cloud cover was for the periods of high radiation? They didn't. There are only localized records of this. This is bad science being touted because it threatens the gravy train.
Sigifrith 2 years ago
It is not about Reuters. Check the collection of links in describtion of this video - there are many sources.
starrdreams 2 years ago
Please. The lie is unraveling as we speak.
Sigifrith 2 years ago