How It All Ends: Scare Tactics (Pt 3 of 6)

[lulumariemissypu]

Thumbs if Tracy Morgan brought you here.

[committeesq]

How 'bout we each contact a big-time policy maker,  or more than one, and ask how it's comming along. What their priorities are.

I'm a huge fan of Leon Panetta as a man that can make a dent in US environmental policies. Smart and willing to go the distance. Look him up.

[popingar]

bla bla bla bla...

[mamaschristmasbunny]

Man is only dumb for accepting the science of the people who would try to put us in any mess.

[GermyJer]

@mamaschristmasbunny Who are you to question science when you obviously have so little education you can't even write a coherent sentence? I'm sure you know SO much about science and we should all listen to you over the actual scientists... *end sarcasm*

[mamaschristmasbunny]

Have you ever watched the Video, the Global Warming Swindle by Martin Durkin? Or maybe End Game by Alex Jones? Or maybe Terror Storm by Alex Jones? Heard of Richard Lindzen who a Climatologist or John Christy or Roy Spencer? Maybe look at papers done by those guys of science who really do what you do, but-, for a living. It might invoke a type of thought that gets you thinking on a wide scale.

John Christy was on the IPCC, but took himself off of it. Richard Lindzen is tops in his field.

[mamaschristmasbunny]

Peter Schiff a Top Economist has said about economies. That you have to look at the symptoms of the problem, instead of trying to conquer the problem by throwing money at it. That is what I say here. Your solution is for us to give all of our money and time to Global Climate Change movement in hopes that man can save him or herself; without us really looking into the symptoms of any of the supposed problem.

Like who dislodges most of the poisons, or who creates the poison; and who benefits?

[mamaschristmasbunny]

Trust me you are only a Physics teacher who has a paper or college degree of knowledge that says you are allowed to teach physics, in an area where discovery is lost. You are reason I never accepted any scholarship to be taught by man.

And I don't like being cruel. Everything zygote being transferred from here to there is the same wasting crest that a person gets in nourishment from mold on bread.

To think that the everyday man is the cause of any harm to the planet, is absurdity.

[ltsgoyanks]

@mamaschristmasbunny Sorry bud, gotta call you out here. Only a physics teacher? Physics is perhaps one of the most difficult subject matters for most people to grasp. It combines scientific process and many levels of math, formulas, theorems and statistics deboot. You may be right that man will not destroy this planet, but I think it is very plausible that man will destroy Much- if not Most of mankind before my grandchildren have grandchildren. Lighten up on this guy, he's a good one.

[bugattibowler]

@ltsgoyanks I think he's a chemistry teacher. Nice post.

@mamaschristmasbunny - (sigh) Watch the videos or don't, but only critique them if you actually have. I don't believe you have.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

Wow -the Pentagon report.

Thats the same Pentagon that allowed the attacks on 9-11.

Yeh I believe them!

[mongoosedude122]

you just blew my f!@#$#cking mind.

[learningtotowerrush]

Prudence vs Skepticism?

[n0s1r]

Thresholds... Tipping points... Chaos... I want to see them.... I want to experience them... To live through them... And if necessary... To die in them.

I look out of my window everyday and wonder "is this it?" I'm sick of this sanitized existence where we do everything in our power to maintain the status-quo... Where we prevent every little possible problem before it arises... What are we afraid of? Climate change? I say bring it on.

[sniped101]

i dont want to see tipping points.

its just like cancer.. you would rather see have terminal cancer to see if you are really going to die or not while others would get just surgery because they don't want to get to the tipping point.,..

hopefully i explained that right.

[n0s1r]

You sound unsure of yourself. Frightened. Small.

[sniped101]

well.. out of 300 million people in the USA i feel small.. don't you? but we as 300 million are big...

[n0s1r]

Sorry, I'm into independence, not collectivism.

No, I don't feel small.

[sniped101]

funny, you don't feel small but 1 out of 300million is small if you didn't know.

sorry, I'm into helping everyone (collectivism).. not just myself(independence).

nuff said.

[n0s1r]

Scared. Bitch.

Ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? Problem, Reaction, Solution. Read about it. It just MIGHT teach you why cowering in fear and looking to collectivism for answers to your problems isn't a very good idea.

[sniped101]

@n0s1r hm?

[Zeuts85]

Then why don't you go ahead and move to Africa? Have fun drinking shit from a river that you trek 6 miles through tepid jungle or desolate desert to reach--possibly getting raped or killed along the way. Doesn't that sound like fun? Bring it on!

[n0s1r]

That wouldn't be nearly as lively as watching the foundation be torn out from under a population that is used to having everything they need provided for them.

What you described isn't a tipping point... Nor is it chaotic... That is the natural state of the region... If I wanted that I could just go out into the woods... Sure it's more dangerous... But it is also orderly... You don't trek to the water you die... Nothing chaotic about that...

[medicvet]

nothing chaotic about death? Brother, then you have never seen it first hand, up close and personal.

[n0s1r]

@medicvet You do not know what I have and have not seen. So that part of your statement is completely invalid. Moving on.

No. There is NOTHING chaotic about death. The MANNER of death can be Chaotic, but DEATH in and of itself is not chaotic in the least, EVERYTHING that lives w.ill die at some point. Something that DOESN'T DIE would be the aberration.

As for the people down voting me. Please. Continue. Down vote me some more. When the apes agree with me THAT'S when I start to worry.

[medicvet]

@n0s1r Sorry it took so long to reply. I see what you are trying to say there, but still don't think that there is anything unchatic about death..it may be normal, but that doesn't make it unchaotic. If nothing else, then death is the Great Mystery, and only after having it happen does anyone find out what it's really all about. And sorry for "presuming" about how much you have seen death first hand.

[kuraiken]

Fear not my friend, fear not.

For this boredom can be alleviated.

Just take something sharp and put it through your eyes. You will most certainly find the simplest of things like cooking or walking down the stairs a new and fascinating adventure! Even crossing a road on the boring way to work becomes your personal adventure! And as soon as that gets old, you can break your legs and see how you fare then. And communication becomes more interesting if you can neither speak nor hear. Stand amazed

[n0s1r]

Dickface. Chaos.

You lose an eye, OF COURSE shit will be different.

I didn't say different. I said. CHAOTIC. As in, lacking ORDER.

Chaotic, dumbass. Chaotic.

[JackiexAndxGeorge]

I can't hear anything, my ears exploded :(

[LarsAvWKT]

Would be interesting if the clima change we notice now is in fact a reaction to the industrial revolution in the late 18th century, four-five turns of the wheel ago.

[MaToHim]

Could be, but don't bet your money on that. I'm fairly convinces the CO-emissions now are way higher then the once we had let's say one or two hundred years ago. How many factories, cars, airplanes, ... were there at that time ... and now? If you are right, it means we're doomed bedcause all the emission from the last four turns of the wheel are yet to come in later decades.

[Hykon1234]

Seen the wholes series now. Fantastic video(s). I bet you're an awsome science teacher.

Funny how only the anti-science crazies seem to dominate posts though.

[FLPman]

@Hykon1234

I truly think having this guy for a teacher, could have swayed me to persue science on a higher level or atleast be more active in these things.

[fireofenergy]

Ya, I am talk'n mirrors (from exponential solar power) to offset melting icecaps...

[Starstreamtracker]

Get a job.

[KJShackx]

whenever you talk about sea levels rising do to warming and melting at the ice caps, I can't help but laugh because of this example: in Antarctica, the temperatures are so far below zero, that if temperatures raise 10 degrees farenheit (very unlikely), temperatures will still be significantly low enough to maintain the ice. In fact, the raised temperatures would increase humidity, which would radically INCREASE ice growth, decreasing sea levels.

[ecordy75]

Does nothing to disprove Human-Caused GW, unless you put it (this one observation you make) into the computer and dump in all the other factors and variables and observations that the experts have and sum them all up.

NASA, the Pentagon, and tens of universities across the planet have done that. You haven't (I assume - unless you have a supercomputer in your house and are a phenomenal programmer who can do the work of hundreds of great NASA and Pentagon and university programmers).

[barbarossa0067]

4:02 LOL!!!

[shutemdwn]

ok i cant take it anymore.... whats with the 5 lb bag of coal???

[Terlin1466]

AMEN To that

[sdcarnes]

Pt. 1: I also enjoyed the ship stearing anology, and I too have a similar anaolgy from my own real expereience: driving tanks in the Army. As an inexperienced "green" tanker, I would over stear slightly in one direction. The impuls was to correct, but you tend to over correct. Thus you end up swerving back and forth.

[sdcarnes]

Pt.2: Once 60 tons of armor is weaving back and forth at 30 MPH, the only option is to STOP. Two things about that; its damn hard on the tank crew to come to such an abrubt stop, and we CAN'T just stop the climat and start over from a steady state.

[Nails077]

The really disturbing thought is if a natural climate cycle is happening, and on top of that we are giving it a push, that it may result in far more severe climate related disasters than this planet has ever seen before.

[plevyman]

Ok, enough with the feedback now, I have tinnitus.

[ExtremeBillsfan247]

The ship analogy was great. The same example can be used when backing a 53 foot trailer into a dock.That is something I have experience in both as a driver and as a teacher. Over steering is a common mistake made by new drivers. Come to think of it, we as humans are a new driver in a climate reactive planet. We are over steering as species in other words. lol

[ExtremeBillsfan247]

a ? about climate change I have is what effect might it have on the gravitational field around the earth? It has been recently proven that gravity in the French Quarter is quite different from the gravity in Mile High Stadium. As it was once thought that gravity was the same everywhere. I guess what I'm asking is how does gravity play a part in all this? or does it?

[KID433321]

man that ship analogy is such a good one eh

[60l23]

@gmoliveira814, rufusy12

manpollo*DOT*org/education/obj­ections/objections.html

[gmoliveira814]

the sun is getting hotter and thusly the planet, not co2!!! also, as temps go up so does co2, not the other way around!!!! al gore is saying that co2 is increasing temps but it is the opposite..

watch "global warming hoax"... global warming is a hoax and the gov wants to put a co2 tax on people!!!!! why should we pay more taxes when the sun is warming the globe?

please do more research on how global warming is a hoax, dont let them put an extra tax on the people... its BS

[viper002060]

have you been watching these videos at all? are the sources that you are taking those claims from creditable? Are they able to go head to head with aaas and nas?

[gmoliveira814]

Yes my sources are credible. I have actually done much research on the global warming subject and I have concluded that Al Gore is full of shit, and co2 has the slightest effect on temps. Our present co2 levels are actually almost starving our green plants because its under 400ppm. Plants thrive in 2000ppm concentractions. There is not enough room for me to debate global warming, I'm just letting you guys know that its fake and to do your own research. Its mental warfare with the gov't and ppl.

[viper002060]

the statement you just is entirely false. co2 concentration has not been above 300 ppm in the last 650 thousand years. have our plants not been thriving at all in that period of time. please, i want to know what website or creditable organization gave you that information.

[KJShackx]

yeah, but 650 thousand years is such a tiny fraction of the time that the earth has existed. When dinosaurs existed, hundreds of millions of years ago, CO2 levels were 10 times higher than they are now. Temperatures were the same, and there were a hell of a lot more plants.

[irishbull777]

yeah but those plants were conditioned to those CO2 levels and temperatures. The plants around us now our conditioned to what our planet is like now. It's like taking a tropical plant and putting it in a area that has a lower temperature. There are still plants around there. However those plants are conditioned to the cold. Where the tropical plant is not. So abrupt changes will cause the damage to plant populations.

[ash4432]

oh please then you should work at nasa there all idiots.

[plevyman]

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. So your misguided little rant proves nothing.

[mdiem]

Right.. I'm sure the NAS, AAAS, NRC, NASA, the Pentagon, IPCC, AMS, AGU, 'Science', 'Nature', NOAA, RSC, CAS, ADS, SCJ, RAS, etc. just overlooked that somehow.

[mdiem]

"dont let them put an extra tax on the people... its BS "

Well then that means that 'them" are all the governments of the largest industrialized nations of the world, so they all want to tax us?

This isn't just happening here in the U.S. bubba.

Besides it isn't the government(s) that started talking about this, it was independent scientific organizations from around the world coming to a consensus.

[rufusy12]

all your videos assume CO2 affects temperature. and this is not proven

[TempestStormwind]

Yes, it is.

A sample experiment to demonstrate this would look something like this:

espere net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_wat­expgreenhouse htm

This has been understood since Fourier, over 150 years ago. It has never been rebutted, and is in fact the explanation for the globe being roughly 30 degrees warmer than it should be from radiative transfer alone.

And while I'm at it, Venus is roughly four times as hot as Mercury, despite being further from the sun, due to this very effect.

[guffpot]

"This time we are the forcing". Unsubstanstiated assertion.

There are credible arguments for feedback in climate systems. But NOTHING has been proved, let alone quantifed.

If there is positive feedback, it will almost certainly exist in some form of saturation or equilibrium state (more to follow on that).

AGW positivley depends on an argument that postive feedback amplifies climate sensitivty. Without it, you just don't get the "desired" temperature response for CO2 doubling.

[ecordy75]

Does nothing to disprove Human-Caused GW, unless you put it

(this one observation you make) into the computer

and dump in all the other factors and variables and observations

that the experts have and sum them all up.

NASA, the Pentagon, and tens of universities across the planet

have done that. You haven't (I assume -

unless you have a supercomputer in your house

and are a phenomenal programmer who can do the work

of hundreds of programmers).

[guffpot]

"not comforting".

This is something you hear drom religious folks. I often hear the case for faith being argued becuase it gives comfort - sense of belonging, wider meaning, and therefore that very human need - security .

Comfort is irrelevant to science.

So please don't try to twist the scientific case for AGW by appealing to emotions.

[m4ilm4n]

Sometimes you have to use rhetoric elements that seem inappropriate, if you want people to listen. Normal people will only care for something like this if you make them scared, and to do so, you have to appeal to their emotions. It may not be very "scientific", but it may be the only thing that works. We need people to listen, so we must make them listen in every way we can.

[guffpot]

I have to disagree. We do not *need people to listen*. You assume that you know better and the only thing left to do is to "sell AGW", by fair means or foul.

It is terribly short-sighted to underestimate peoples' intelligence in this way. They will eventually get sick of you and stop listening.

Present the facts and the evidence, then let people make their minds up.

If you have any doubts, ask yourself why the British jury system survives to this day.

[guffpot]

Good demonstration of the Nyquist Stability Criterion. Nothing new - the concepts and the maths are thoroughly understood.

Here's a tip .... put the microphone down and twiddle the amp's volume control. Less dramatic, and more obvious what you are really doing.

[nowaskmehow]

On the contrary, viewers might only see the weaker point that more gain equals more output. This is about dampening or delays, depending on your model. BTW, what IS your model for this?

[guffpot]

nowask:

MY model? You can easily find a pretty standard analysis for saturating feedback in engineering(university text book stuff). Look up "limit cycle", for a nice little wikki on what's going on.

Also, don't miss that point about "gain". A lot of the ideas about climate instability need some form of gain in the climate system.

[nowaskmehow]

guffpot: Were you thinking of that simple experiment as linear with changing coefficients (and using Nyquist) or as non-linear (with a saturating feedback and limit cycles)?

Also: pointers to criticism of misuse of gain in climate models?

[guffpot]

nowask:

The experiment will behave very much as a linear system at low signal amplitude. The growing amplitude of the signal (due to positive feedback) eventually causes something in the loop to saturate(probably the amplifier) and the system settles into a limit cycle.

An important point is that the limit cycle will be resistant to change.

I don't understand your point about "misuse of gain".

[guffpot]

Oh dear, CROCODILES under the bed again!

Agreed - evidence says sudden climate change. But it is pure assertion to say: "we seem to be" (driving it), or "it's not the sun".

Here's a question: Why do you give CO2 the benefit of lag (which obscures correlation) but demand the solar response be instantaneous?

Other explanations have not been removed. The influence of the sun has not been explained.

[KamiKaziChicken]

There's lots of variables which should be explained.

Problem is, you could fill up many more videos with them, unless they're already mentioned. There probably should be something mentioned on it though.

[nowaskmehow]

Watch it again, cos it's a pretty good vid and you can still benefit from it.

The assertion really was that no model without the (CO2) forcing tracks data from the last 20 years. Are you arguing against that? Genuine question.

[guffpot]

I don't buy the argument that we've explained everything and the only thing left is human forcing. Believe that if you like.

The ship example describes a "transport lag" - like placing parcels on a conveyor belt. Not like the climate at all. Not even like a ship.

Spot the CROCODILES under the bed: "likely presence of tipping points", "some threshold", "only need to be in a ticklish spot", "can only identify from other side".

Are you really going to lose sleep over that?

[nowaskmehow]

guffpot: it wasn't claimed in that "we've explained everything". Where did you get that from? It's a matter of "what is most likely, given what we know now".

Also: the ship example is NOT transport lag. The analogy is between accumulation of momentum in the ship and accumulation of CO2 stock. Both integrators, not lags.

[guffpot]

The "attribution" proposition is "all other explanations have been accounted for, human forcing is needed to explain the warming" (my words).

I thought that is what you were challenging when you said "no model without (human forcing) ... tracks data from the last 20 years".

I agree that momentum gets to a second order system. I made the point that the example given was closer to "transport lag". Thermal systems are first order.

[776281]

Doesn't have to be such a big ship

[DeCapitator7]

Why dont we just turn the boat in the other direction, and put the planet back to were it was before the industrial revolution started.

[TempestStormwind]

For two reasons.

1) CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for a very, very long time, and capture/sequestration is expensive and isn't as effective as it could be.

2) "turning the ship around" implies undoing all that industrialization has done -- not a prospect people like. Nor is it necessary: We can continue to go forward, but we need to stop turning the wheel and straighten out. We can do this by getting off of fossil fuels.

[DeCapitator7]

Thanks for the response TempestStormwind. I find your argument very compelling, but I will continue to seek the possibilities of carbon sequestration. If I can figure out how to reduce the cost and efficiency this could become another solution to stop global climate destabilization. I will try my best to help the cause.

[TempestStormwind]

Oh, don't get me wrong; I DO think sequestration is required (there's just room for improvement, hence "not as effective as it could be"). It just can't be the *only* action we're taking.

The phrase "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is true here -- cutting emissions is prevention, sequestration is cure. That said, prevention only helps before the damage is done, and some damage *has* been done -- hence the need for sequestration.

[DeCapitator7]

I just have a few questions.  -Why havent I heard anything about carbon sequestration and how to make something that would sequestrate carbon from the air? -Has there been research done on this type of technology? -If so, could you tell me where I might find this info?

Im just looking for answers, but dont know where to find them. If you answer these questions...well thanks, I greatly appreciate it.

[TempestStormwind]

Look up "Carbon Dioxide Sink" on Wikipedia and use the references as a starting point. It's a decent source for general info on this, but (as always for Wiki) don't let it be your only source.

Do some googling and see what you can dig up. Remember, just as it's always easier to not make a mess in the first place than to clean up afterward, lowering emissions will be easier than sequestration. (You can do this *and* sequester at the same time; it's not like we have to choose between them.)

[18masterkyle]

Cluster F... LMAO. ROFL

[commoneagle]

earth is a ship... a space ship... think about it. and we are like a jockey on a horse or the pilots on the ship. how ever one looks at it the fact is we are not small. when people don't see how big we really are in terms of the earth it can only mean blindness. is it like three blind mice or here no evil see no evil what what what people just start thinking about it if you aren't stupid you will see what is being said.

[RichTCS]

hmmm, the term "Ship of Fools" has new meaning!

[darknes1124]

HA! HA! . . . So, we're a planet of Landlubber's?

[theangryocelot]

Global Climate Clusterfuck...that's the term I'm using from now on.  Can't say it much better than that ^_^

[tdsinfo]

These videos are great. I'm also impressed with your ability to tolerate sustained audio feedback. I work as a live sound engineer, I know of tipping points re: "feedback dude!".

In any case, this is excellent work here.

[smarthandsomeguy]

I'd like to add, that even if we had found out, that GW initially wasn't caused by humans, it certainly wouldn't mean, that we shouldn't take action. That would as silly as sitting in a car, that is going in a foggy night without lights towards a cliff of which one doesn't know how far it is away, or how deep it goes down, just that it is somewhere over there, and not to break, just because somebody else pushed the car in the first place.

[spiderveloce]

great job steering that boat analogy.

[redblondehead]

I love watching your videos...I think you should be the one who won the Oscar and Nobel Prize. This does a much better job of explaining the intricacies in the system of global climate than Al Gore's movie. It's too bad people would rather listen to broad generalizations than the actual facts of the matter.

[smarthandsomeguy]

If you want some facts, I highly recommend to google for the IPCC report, having in mind that those guys are super conservative bunch.

It is extremely interesting, how eg. those models are set up, and what things might happen. You would learn, why it is not possible to simply say how likely or unlikely a possible event is, and why one of the trickiest things to predict is actually not the climate, but how the human civilisation changes in the next 50-100 yrs.

[guffpot]

The IPCC looks at evidence in favour of warming. It is not a balanced look at the evidence for-and-against, as that would need to go through the contradictory evidence.

That makes it more like the AGW marketing department. Nothing to do with science or balance.

And then there's the Briffa reconstruction. Have a look at climateaudit(dot)org to find out more, but be prepared to be shocked.

[ecordy75]

Does nothing to disprove Human-Caused GW, unless you put it

(this one observation you make) into the computer

and dump in all the other factors and variables and observations

that the experts have and sum them all up.

NASA, the Pentagon, and tens of universities across the planet

have done that. You haven't (I assume -

unless you have a supercomputer in your house

and are a phenomenal programmer who can do the work

of hundreds of programmers).

[Saintlyghost]

Like George Carlin said "I love it when nature gets even with man"

[KasaiAisu1]

These vids are great, but there's so many...

Then again, that's a good thing as well

[krabstarr]

Prepare for Global Climate Clusterf-

[Mashdom]

Do you have your videos in uncoded format, in case somebody wants to clip your videos to more digestible bites?

Re-encoding these clips will probably not do good for the quality...