Carbon dioxide makes up 0.039 percent of the atmosphere and human activity accounts for only 4 percent of total annual co2 production annually. Global warming is backed by western governments as it suits their political objectives. Developing nations are told they can't develop the easy way by burning fossil fuels and those in the west that like to protest have something they can protest about that doesn't change power structures.
The point about climate scientists being financially persuaded is an obvious one: "If there's a problem you'll have a job and millions in funding, if there's no problem you'll have no job and no money. So, is there a problem?"
As a mechanic if he thinks your car'll last longer if you get it serviced every week and the answer will be "of course". Should you believe the mechanic?
By all means we should look after our environment, but to polarise skeptics as 'deniers' is avoiding the question.
Global warming religious believers, if you wish to support your claims with data, stop using "anomaly" on your y axis. "Anomaly" is a judgment call, and it has been demonstrated how flawed the data processing method is (the hockey stick graph is an example).
Present honest graphs, show us your data, show how your data were obtained...and the world will see how biased your research is. Scientists start without a stated conclusion. You don't.
Beware people. An Inconvenient Truth is the leading propaganda film for the socialist wealth distribution scheme that is coming to all countries if Al Gore and David Suzuki, the two high priests of this global warming/climate change religion, get their wishes. You must resist. Thank God for the CRU email hack. Don't let your politicians sign any treaties. Resist the global warming SCAM!!!
Anti-environmenalists are the biggest hypocrites on earth. They elect Republicans and Democrats, instead of Socialists and Greens, in the USA. They do NOTHING to stop the TRILLIONS of dollars that Demopubs give to corporate welfare. They do NOTHING to stop unlimited CEO salaries. But, when some INSIGNIFICANT portion of taxes might be spent on GOOD, such as the environment, they are self-righteously up in arms.
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 30Bn tons. Using the IPCC's bloated figures, to forestall just 1C warming would require 1Tn tons CO2 abatement. Meaning, no cars, planes, industry or campfires, FOR 30 YEARS!! Back to the stone age boy.
Using the correct figures extends that to 200 years. Think that's gonna happen?
Pah!! Never..
CO2 is what plants breathe and has been 7000ppm in the past with no problem. Imagine your beloved govt tells you O2 is bad and we need to cut back. Fool.
@MrOllyK Wow I've never seen so much ignorance in one post. It's actually mind boggling. 7000ppm is no problem? Are you serious? Try breathing in a mixture with 7000ppm CO2 every day for 365 days a year and then we'll talk. But you'd probably won't last a week. If you, do let me know.
"Try breathing in a mixture with 7000ppm CO2 every day for 365 days a year"
That's nothing. You exhale 40,000ppm CO2 every breath (4%). In fact, most office buildings contain some 10,000ppm without good ventilation, which can cause headaches and tiredness. However, plants and animals evolving in high CO2 concentrations will have no problem. We'll never reach those levels again however. Now who's ignorant?
@MrOllyK You said that the world was "okay" at 7000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. That was during the Cambrian age, correct? As far as I know, there were NO placental mammals, or any other complex lifeforms at this time, aside from primitive invertebrates. The only autotrophs at the time were single-celled algae. Placental animals only appeared much earlier, apprx 65 m.y.a. because atmospheric conditions were optimal, among other factors.
@MrOllyK Besides, you contradicted yourself. Yes, we EXHALE co2. No kidding! Then you state that we get headaches and tiredness due to poor ventilation from high CO2. Alright, so what's your point? Did you know that the Cambrian Age had an explosion of biodiversity at one point, and then followed by a mass extinction? That was due to quick changes in the atmosphere (*hint*). Idiots need to stop using evolution too liberally to back up their statements. It takes eons for evolution to occur.
" Idiots need to stop using evolution too liberally to back up their statements. It takes eons for evolution to occur."
I'm aware of that, considering the Jurassic had some 5-10x the CO2 we have today, where life clearly thrived in non-acid oceans as proven by those pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish littering our museum shelves.
Will we ever reach 7000ppm CO2 again? Without a massive increase in volcano activity, I seriously doubt it.
That's such a stupid statement I wouldn't know how to begin a retort, excepting maybe "you fkn moron - in a world of assembly language coding, your massive intellect covers only batch files"..
"I sincerely thank your ignorance for making itself so evident."
I must thank you for outshining all ignorances. The history of this planet has been gleaned from the rocks over 100 years ago. Note that ancient manmade artifacts have been found under recently retreating glaciers, including tree stumps. The planet has been warmer in the past many times and all the evidence is there regarding solar and orbital eccentricities - which you continue to ignore. Even Mars is warmer now.
@MrOllyK But you haven't put forth any evidence to suggest that pumping billions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere every year has no effect on the temperature of it, especially when we've had an understanding of the greenhouse effect for over 150 years. The earth has been warmer, and the temperature would change if humans never existed, but that doesn't prove, or slightly suggest, that we're not altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, and consequently how it reacts to solar heat.
"But you haven't put forth any evidence to suggest that pumping billions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere every year has no effect on the temperature of it, especially when we've had an understanding of the greenhouse effect for over 150 years."
Once again - sheer ignorance.
Must I mention the billions of years of volcanoes and their outpourings of chemicals VASTLY exceeding Man's piffling attempts? The UNIVERSE changes our atmosphere more than you could ever fathom..
@MrOllyK Volcanoes (SO2) actually cools the atmosphere, one tool for combatting global warming if it comes to that. You deniers always make those same arguments, that there are "natural" cycles, therefore we shouldn't worry about effecting them one way or the other. Death is another "natural" cycle necessitated by the universe, but I doubt you'd use it to rationalize homicide, or your own suicide, but maybe I underestimate you.
What further evidence could you require? You accepted the planet was warmer in the past without Man's interference, however you still manage to avoid the FACT the planet was not only bombarded for its first billion years by space junk and, following billions of years of obliterating volcanic, tectonic and Milankovitch cycles, has an atmosphere that could be poison to alien life, but not our own. Man farts in this vast atmosphere and you wet the bed. Seriously dude..
@MrOllyK And DID YOU KNOW: if the earth was a globe, the atmosphere would be only as thick as the lacquer covering it, and even that gets thinner the further from the surface you get. Not so vast....
As you now know (which I've been watching intently since 1975), the oceans have once again reversed their cycles and gone La Nina. The drought here in Australia is broken and all our dams are filling rapidly. Not forgetting the blizzards across the US and UK. Warming doesn't cause that.
The oceans are FAR more powerful than you currently understand. They're a deep heatsink with currents, buffering and transferring the Sun's energy over decades and continents. Think about it..
@MrOllyK Global climate is very complex and is something not fully understood yet, something no climatologist will deny, just as no climatologist will deny anthropogenic climate change. In 1975 you could be skeptical, even in 1985, but it's 2011, we have much more evidence and data, not to mention that the last decade was the warmest in the last 150 years, though short-term warming shouldn't necessarily be expected.
Why am I bothering? I might as well go debate a creationist... or maybe i am. ?
..and all our gubberments can put forward to a cause for unstable weather (warming, they mean) is Carbon (CO2, they mean), which is just another way to panic and feel-goodery your emotions into paying them money for an invented problem, just like the Ozone/CFC rubbish. That ALONE made billions for DuPont and their "Ozone friendly" refrigerant. Do you actually get it now and will you look deeper than the "green" ideology that will run us all into the poorhouse..?
@MrOllyK Governments invented the theory of anthropogenic climate change? hagaha Now you're confusing science and politics, clearly for political reasons so I'm gonna refrain from responding to your factless tantrum.
If anything related to the environment runs the country into the poorhouse it will be our slavery to oil. Follow the money and you'll see that the energy companies are the ones manipulating your unstable emotions to keep us chained to an energy source that Edison would recognize.
@MrOllyK Our planet also used to have an atmosphere devoid of oxygen, but microscopic organisms changed all that and created all the oxygen we breathe, and in the process killed off most organisms, proof that small creatures on a big planet can make enough difference in the atmosphere to trigger a mass extinction.
If microscopic single-celled organisms could accomplish it, what makes it so insane to think that thousands of factories and billions of tons of pollutants each year can?
I have - which is 100% more than you climate bed-wetters ever do. All you demand are answers from us. Why don't YOU lot put forward your evidence for a change, and PROVE that CO2 is "dangerously" warming the planet. It's that simple really.
And uhhh... every climatologist (you know, the people who directly study what we're talking about, scientists, the experts, the pros) believes that man is affecting the climate. As for CO2 alone being dangerous, not likely, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, and it has increased five times as much as CO2 has increased since before the Industrial Revolution, but CO2 lasts longer.
Dude, the greenhouse effect is real whether you believe it or not.
True, per molecule, but methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2.
So, in terms of what humans actually output into the air, we are causing more climate change via CO2 than methane. If ALL our CO2 emissions stopped right now, we would STILL be committed to another 1 to 2 deg C in global average temperature rise.
@ScottBrown666 It is not true that every climatologist agrees on global warming, how do global warming apologists explain the little ice age, the medieval warm period, the dark ages, the roman warm period?
@MrOllyK All you need to do is prove to me that you can haphazardly change the chemical makeup of a closed system subjected to light and heat without altering the temperature. Should be easy, right?
@MrOllyK Anyway, you also are only noting CO2. What about other greenhouse gases, specifically methane, which is released feedback loop-style thanks to the slight warming brought about by CO2 emissions?
The world's gubberments are only quoting CO2 to be taxed. What about water vapour, which is 95% of "greenhouse" gases. Want your shower steam taxed too?
I've scientifically proven my point before this retort and shown how history has the answers in the ice and rocks of the past - which you continue to ignore. How about returning with some intellect in future?
Global CO2 is just 0.03% of the atmosphere, and man's contribution is just 3% of THAT. Our impact is just 0.0009%. Meaning 97% of CO2 is due to nature, and temp precedes CO2 change by some 800 years. It's obviously NOT CO2, or methane:
w. celsias. com/media/uploads/admin/methanegraph. gif
If YOU want to pay carbon tax for a non-problem, YOU pay.
no. that is demonstrably wrong. no one with half a brain claims that CO2 is the ONLY factor. you have people on one side pointing out the solar cycles interplay with reflective properties of ice and air borne particulate and the absorbing properties of greenhouse gasses like water CO2 and methane, and on the other side saying "they say CO2 is the only thing and that doesn't match." it's a strawman drop it.
Exactly my point. CO2 isn't the only factor, in fact, it barely rates as a greenhouse gas due to its logarithmic scale of IR absorbency. The IPCC claiming it's the only factor means they don't even have half a brain, but they're pushing for world government and massive taxes based on CO2 alone.
no sir that is where you are wrong. as the co2 only contributes a slight warming by its self but that doesn't mean it is insignificant. the warming caused by co2 is reinforced by the other factors such as the melting ice, release of other greenhouse gasses in the oceans and tundra and the fact that the air can hold more water than on a cooler world. and despite your continuing claims to the contrary the ipcc is aware of and acknowledges this fact in it's reports.
I'm aware that there was no such event as the little ice age nor the medieval warm period. they are the artifacts of a very small sample set in the original reports on the subject. further the little ice age is claimed to have started 600 years ago, but as I pointed out the current record has only been seen long before that. I do have to admit an error here however. in my comment I left of a 0 it has been 150,000 not 15,000 year sense current temperatures have been seen.
further I am all so aware of the lag of co2 but as it wasn't the driving force then but the reinforcing force it is immaterial. back then the temperatures where driven by the sun's and earth's variation, currently no such correlation is happening.
next the speculation about the co2 being fully saturated and further will play no effect is dead wrong and pointless. cont...
the fact is we can and do look at earth. it is still leaking radiation in the bands that co2 absorbs. there is still plenty of energy escaping that could be captured by co2. but like I said it is pointless. the current temperatures are sufficient to drive others like the release of methane and the melting of reflective ice. as co2 lagged the primary cause in the past now too do other forces lag co2, meaning that we can't just sit back anymore.
dose that mean that we must tax people for release of CO2? no that would be pointless too. we must focus on ways of sequestering the current co2. there are plans ranging from factory farms to producing plastics from the co2 that will pay for the efforts.
next yes .03% seems small but that is what keeps the temperature of earth 60 degrees Fahrenheit. warmer than it would be wrought it.
how ever if you want to talk about other factors lets talk about how the sun has been on it's downward trend in irradiance and only now is starting back up yet we have seen the warmest decade in the last 15,000 years. I don't even want to think what 1215 will be like when the sun again hits it's new peek.
You should be aware that the oceans take a long time to warm and cool, therefore have a decadal temp memory (decadal oscillation) and have a large contribution to warming and cooling not immediately correlating to solar output.
The only thing I'm worried about is cooling, as the past ice age showed disease and famine. Grain doesn't grow well in ice and the cows don't like it much either.
the oceans lag the air by 7 years and there temperatures also don't correlate to the sun. the fact is that the oceans like the air correlate to co2.
as for your worries about another cold period you are misguided. we are at the low now for solar activity we aren't going to see a effect from the irregularity of the earths rotation or progression for thousands of years and atmospheric conditions and ice coverage will continue to promote warming. we are looking at a hot decade.
the depleting ice cover reflects radiation. water and rock do absorb it more readily. it's only an observation that a planet with less ice will be hotter than one with more.
no you merely didn't read everything I said for if you did you would have read where I previously referenced that in more detail making the complete reference redundant to anyone who bothered to read the first.
I read everything you said. It appears your stance is adjusting to my replies, not coming from your knowledge. If you really want to educate yourself (autodidactism), you should read and watch the links I've prepared for you.
no my points remain as they have been. claiming that because I said "ice coverage will continue to promote warming" instead of changing ice coverage will continue to promote warming means Meant that ice warms the planet it is the lack of ice implicit in both statements and it remains the bare fact of it.
further I have no need to read all your comments or watch the video you provided as I have literally heard it all before in fact I can't tell you how many nights I've spent having basically this same discussion with someone. that said I have read every word you said. (the video was pointless as I have seen that "documentary from start to end and find it full of falsehoods like volcanoes produce more co2 than man.)
I must blame youtube for that one. the first link you gave sent me to a mirror of the great global warming swindle. how ever the video you apparently are attempting to put forward is also flawed as again it only shows 1 data point. again Greenland is in the north Atlantic. this still imply a region effect when accounted for with the data from the southern hemisphere.
as for your map with graphs have you noted that none of the graphs give the same image? a lot of them are poorly sourced and frankly it is pointless because the data was processed into the current global temperature maps. this one graph shows all the actual data ncdc. noaa. gov/ paleo/ pubs/ pcn/ fig6- 10b. png and yes the is a slight dip and rise inline with the progression of the earth's axis. but again there is no great spike of war more the the fact no great increase in cold.
when your source deliberately muddies the water by spamming facts instead of clarifying the data set you must ask their sincerity.
cherry pick is all they have done and including a paper on sediment deposits on Antarctica as temperature data. really, that's who you are going to site.
now if you instead choose to actually educate yourself there are simple graphs freely available on Google to show you how when looked at the whole world instead of Europe with a focus on England the MWP and LIA weren't global events as claimed.
In fact, CO2 was much higher in ice ages and lower in the MWP - no correlation.
99% of species live near the equator because it's warm. The Jurassic had some 10-20x the CO2 we have today where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans. It was also much warmer then due to higher oceans creating inland seas and more water vapour, possibly due to a Milankovich cycle.
I already cover the MWP an the little ice age but again you are right in facts but wrong in conclusions about the Jurassic. solar dynamics tells us that the sun slowly increases in brightness over time. this means that the earth has been slowly sequestering co2 to counteract the effects of a hotter sun. in this vein we know that the biosphere won't be able to be supported by the CO2 in the atmosphere and stay cool enough in just over a billion years.
actually best case scenario is 2 billion years before earth isn't arable anymore (that is if we thin the atmosphere) but that is besides the point. we need worry about the next hundred before we worry about billions.
next do you think it is an accident? no it's teraforming. plants adapt over the eons. evolution is what shaped our world to the paradise we enjoy.
finally the ipcc has made no such recommendation(the ipcc only recommends a 40% reduction not methods), but members have said some things along the lines. that given it is misguided. I look at cigarette sails and see the effects of such efforts. as I said before the only way to remedy the problem we have stuck ourselves in is to reverse the increase of co2 not just cut back.
I think your main problem is that you disbelieve in the Little Ice Age, which has been proven and depicted in paintings where the Thames and the Huson rivers froze deeply every winter. How do you not see this?
Sequestering CO2 is blind madness as the very plants that feed us and our cattle rely on this for photosynthesis. Thanks to higher CO2, the Sahara is giving way to - vegetation!
Farmers use CO2 in their greenhouses to max plant growth. Look it up.
I dispute the little ice age because it has been proven a regional and insignificant event. temperatures of the world remained about constant for the last 4-5 thousand years world wide.
the plants that feed us don't need anywhere near the amount currently in the atmosphere and they will die from other effects of the high co2 such as the fact that many cereal crops can't defend themselves under the warmer weather dew to the break down of defensive proteins.
as you aren't even bothering to pretend to read my posts anymore I must ask why should I continue. you once claimed that my mind was shut. however you still cling to this imaginary little ice age. it is discredited. you can give me all the links you want the facts are that only samples from Europe where analyzed in the model that showed the MWP and LIA. later studies incorporating samples world wide found no such things.
and evolution is slow. for that matter humans with our large stable population aren't likely to evolve and our inbred plants don't have much variation for natural selection to work on. the fact is that our current crops can't survive on a hotter earth and neither can we.
What is the optimum temp of our planet? Nobody knows, but I bet it's not zero.
Water vapor represents 95% of greenhouse gas, next is CH4, which is stable or declining.
Sure, put scrubbers on smokestacks to remove SO4 and particulates, but leave CO2 alone as it's airborne fertiliser and now contributes little to the greenhouse effect.
CO2 was some 7000ppm in the Carboniferous and Jurassic, without a runaway greenhouse, ever.
as I said before water vapor is dependent on other factors in this case it's co2. the warming permits more to be in the atmosphere then otherwise. and CH4 is not as you claim falling but indeed rising as the warmer oceans cant hold as much forcing it in to the atmosphere.
next there is no optimal temperature of earth only the one we and our food evolved to live in. it has been show that conditions likely in just a few years will prove deadly to our crops.
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
This video debunks AGW - the man is trying to debunk 'swindle' but then states that the theory of CO2-driven climate change is wrong. What a moron. He proved the point of the movie.
No, he isn't debunking AGW. Generally speaking peer-reviewed papers would offer our best, most current and most reliable understanding of a field. CO2 is just one thing causing climate change.The last decade has been the hottest on record. As for the false information used in the Global Warming Swindle movie, watch this vid boj9ccV9htk
It has had a large chunk removed from the middle, so that the slide at 4:07 is implied to be aimed at (and criticising) his own data. Originally, this slide was discussing data from the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary... amazing...
However, if you google: Christopher Merchant school of geosciences edinburgh, you will get to his homepage, where you can download the FULL LENGTH, UNEDITED video.
***This video is COMPLETE and supersedes the above***
No one implied global warming wasn't true BECAUSE scientists wanted to increase funding ... they only gave accounts on the nature of the scientific community on those viewers that would naturally question the alarming propoganda pushed for global warming. Considering you spend most of the time 'debunking' the doco on those grounds you're obviously a hypocrite! Also the only data you presented was direct from the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! So to sum up, two words EPIC FAIL
GrandFunker: how stupid are you? So CO2 in regular amounts is not a pollutant. And it's out there now in egregious amounts. So no, *obviously* we shouldn't reduce CO2 levels.
Did I read you right? I think I just heard you say "the past 10 year's cooling" (sic). Are you kidding? The past eleven years are historically the hottest such period man has ever experienced. All updated peer-reviewed scientific literature agrees on this. Yes, man never got to the moon.
It has been cooling for the past decade. Just saying 'all updated peer-reviewed blah blah says the opposite' doesn't make it true. Google '10 year cooling' and the problem it is causing with this idiotic swindle.
no it hasn't. 1998 was an intense el nino year and 2007 was a bad la nina year. this means 1998 was a upward spike and 07 was a downward one. draw the trend line from 98 to 06 or 09 and it is about even for the former without an el nino and a slight increase for the latter. draw the line from 1999 or 1997 to 2007 and it's clearly an upward trend. 2010 is predicted to be another hot year so we may be looking at the obliteration of the 1998 record.
wake up and smell the coffee - haven't you noticed that you never hear the phrase "Global Warming" anymore. The reason why you never hear that is because the globe isn't warming. The correct phrase now is "climate change" - but the the climate is always changing
You haven't debunked this video, even though you have made some logical points. Any documentary has an agenda, and therefore within editing they highlight and sometimes exaggerate this agenda. The real issue is the lack of a public debate on the matter. At least this film interviews scientists, where "The Inconvenient Truth" interviews none, and the suns influence isn't even mentioned. Every planet is warming. Why? The founder of The Weather Channel is suing Al Gore to force a debate. Why?
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.039 percent of the atmosphere and human activity accounts for only 4 percent of total annual co2 production annually. Global warming is backed by western governments as it suits their political objectives. Developing nations are told they can't develop the easy way by burning fossil fuels and those in the west that like to protest have something they can protest about that doesn't change power structures.
thehorrorification 1 month ago
FIGHT THE DENIERS <<<< WTF???? Fighting, this is just a discussion...
TeunisD 4 months ago
Comment removed
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
The point about climate scientists being financially persuaded is an obvious one: "If there's a problem you'll have a job and millions in funding, if there's no problem you'll have no job and no money. So, is there a problem?"
As a mechanic if he thinks your car'll last longer if you get it serviced every week and the answer will be "of course". Should you believe the mechanic?
By all means we should look after our environment, but to polarise skeptics as 'deniers' is avoiding the question.
PositiveThinker72 6 months ago
Try studying some thermodynamics. The Atmosphere cools the Planet in daytime and warms it at night.
david222444 10 months ago
I believe them and not you. Sorry. You seem to have interpreted them wrong. THE ACCUSER
supergsx 11 months ago
Global warming religious believers, if you wish to support your claims with data, stop using "anomaly" on your y axis. "Anomaly" is a judgment call, and it has been demonstrated how flawed the data processing method is (the hockey stick graph is an example).
Present honest graphs, show us your data, show how your data were obtained...and the world will see how biased your research is. Scientists start without a stated conclusion. You don't.
runr100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beware people. An Inconvenient Truth is the leading propaganda film for the socialist wealth distribution scheme that is coming to all countries if Al Gore and David Suzuki, the two high priests of this global warming/climate change religion, get their wishes. You must resist. Thank God for the CRU email hack. Don't let your politicians sign any treaties. Resist the global warming SCAM!!!
harbar3000 1 year ago 2
duck is a moron!
TheBojagles 1 year ago
Anti-environmenalists are the biggest hypocrites on earth. They elect Republicans and Democrats, instead of Socialists and Greens, in the USA. They do NOTHING to stop the TRILLIONS of dollars that Demopubs give to corporate welfare. They do NOTHING to stop unlimited CEO salaries. But, when some INSIGNIFICANT portion of taxes might be spent on GOOD, such as the environment, they are self-righteously up in arms.
duck24x 1 year ago
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 30Bn tons. Using the IPCC's bloated figures, to forestall just 1C warming would require 1Tn tons CO2 abatement. Meaning, no cars, planes, industry or campfires, FOR 30 YEARS!! Back to the stone age boy.
Using the correct figures extends that to 200 years. Think that's gonna happen?
Pah!! Never..
CO2 is what plants breathe and has been 7000ppm in the past with no problem. Imagine your beloved govt tells you O2 is bad and we need to cut back. Fool.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
@MrOllyK Wow I've never seen so much ignorance in one post. It's actually mind boggling. 7000ppm is no problem? Are you serious? Try breathing in a mixture with 7000ppm CO2 every day for 365 days a year and then we'll talk. But you'd probably won't last a week. If you, do let me know.
recharged01 1 year ago
@recharged01
"Try breathing in a mixture with 7000ppm CO2 every day for 365 days a year"
That's nothing. You exhale 40,000ppm CO2 every breath (4%). In fact, most office buildings contain some 10,000ppm without good ventilation, which can cause headaches and tiredness. However, plants and animals evolving in high CO2 concentrations will have no problem. We'll never reach those levels again however. Now who's ignorant?
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK You said that the world was "okay" at 7000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. That was during the Cambrian age, correct? As far as I know, there were NO placental mammals, or any other complex lifeforms at this time, aside from primitive invertebrates. The only autotrophs at the time were single-celled algae. Placental animals only appeared much earlier, apprx 65 m.y.a. because atmospheric conditions were optimal, among other factors.
recharged01 1 year ago
@MrOllyK Besides, you contradicted yourself. Yes, we EXHALE co2. No kidding! Then you state that we get headaches and tiredness due to poor ventilation from high CO2. Alright, so what's your point? Did you know that the Cambrian Age had an explosion of biodiversity at one point, and then followed by a mass extinction? That was due to quick changes in the atmosphere (*hint*). Idiots need to stop using evolution too liberally to back up their statements. It takes eons for evolution to occur.
recharged01 1 year ago
@recharged01
" Idiots need to stop using evolution too liberally to back up their statements. It takes eons for evolution to occur."
I'm aware of that, considering the Jurassic had some 5-10x the CO2 we have today, where life clearly thrived in non-acid oceans as proven by those pesky un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish littering our museum shelves.
Will we ever reach 7000ppm CO2 again? Without a massive increase in volcano activity, I seriously doubt it.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
@MrOllyK Life can also thrive in undersea thermal vents, should we all go underwater and suck on suboceanic sulfur jets?
ScottBrown666 7 months ago
@ScottBrown666
That's such a stupid statement I wouldn't know how to begin a retort, excepting maybe "you fkn moron - in a world of assembly language coding, your massive intellect covers only batch files"..
MrOllyK 7 months ago
@MrOllyK I sincerely thank your ignorance for making itself so evident.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
"I sincerely thank your ignorance for making itself so evident."
I must thank you for outshining all ignorances. The history of this planet has been gleaned from the rocks over 100 years ago. Note that ancient manmade artifacts have been found under recently retreating glaciers, including tree stumps. The planet has been warmer in the past many times and all the evidence is there regarding solar and orbital eccentricities - which you continue to ignore. Even Mars is warmer now.
MrOllyK 6 months ago
@MrOllyK But you haven't put forth any evidence to suggest that pumping billions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere every year has no effect on the temperature of it, especially when we've had an understanding of the greenhouse effect for over 150 years. The earth has been warmer, and the temperature would change if humans never existed, but that doesn't prove, or slightly suggest, that we're not altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, and consequently how it reacts to solar heat.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
"But you haven't put forth any evidence to suggest that pumping billions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere every year has no effect on the temperature of it, especially when we've had an understanding of the greenhouse effect for over 150 years."
Once again - sheer ignorance.
Must I mention the billions of years of volcanoes and their outpourings of chemicals VASTLY exceeding Man's piffling attempts? The UNIVERSE changes our atmosphere more than you could ever fathom..
MrOllyK 6 months ago
@MrOllyK Volcanoes (SO2) actually cools the atmosphere, one tool for combatting global warming if it comes to that. You deniers always make those same arguments, that there are "natural" cycles, therefore we shouldn't worry about effecting them one way or the other. Death is another "natural" cycle necessitated by the universe, but I doubt you'd use it to rationalize homicide, or your own suicide, but maybe I underestimate you.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
What further evidence could you require? You accepted the planet was warmer in the past without Man's interference, however you still manage to avoid the FACT the planet was not only bombarded for its first billion years by space junk and, following billions of years of obliterating volcanic, tectonic and Milankovitch cycles, has an atmosphere that could be poison to alien life, but not our own. Man farts in this vast atmosphere and you wet the bed. Seriously dude..
MrOllyK 6 months ago
Comment removed
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@MrOllyK And DID YOU KNOW: if the earth was a globe, the atmosphere would be only as thick as the lacquer covering it, and even that gets thinner the further from the surface you get. Not so vast....
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
As you now know (which I've been watching intently since 1975), the oceans have once again reversed their cycles and gone La Nina. The drought here in Australia is broken and all our dams are filling rapidly. Not forgetting the blizzards across the US and UK. Warming doesn't cause that.
The oceans are FAR more powerful than you currently understand. They're a deep heatsink with currents, buffering and transferring the Sun's energy over decades and continents. Think about it..
MrOllyK 6 months ago
@MrOllyK Global climate is very complex and is something not fully understood yet, something no climatologist will deny, just as no climatologist will deny anthropogenic climate change. In 1975 you could be skeptical, even in 1985, but it's 2011, we have much more evidence and data, not to mention that the last decade was the warmest in the last 150 years, though short-term warming shouldn't necessarily be expected.
Why am I bothering? I might as well go debate a creationist... or maybe i am. ?
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
..and all our gubberments can put forward to a cause for unstable weather (warming, they mean) is Carbon (CO2, they mean), which is just another way to panic and feel-goodery your emotions into paying them money for an invented problem, just like the Ozone/CFC rubbish. That ALONE made billions for DuPont and their "Ozone friendly" refrigerant. Do you actually get it now and will you look deeper than the "green" ideology that will run us all into the poorhouse..?
MrOllyK 6 months ago
@MrOllyK Governments invented the theory of anthropogenic climate change? hagaha Now you're confusing science and politics, clearly for political reasons so I'm gonna refrain from responding to your factless tantrum.
If anything related to the environment runs the country into the poorhouse it will be our slavery to oil. Follow the money and you'll see that the energy companies are the ones manipulating your unstable emotions to keep us chained to an energy source that Edison would recognize.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666 Keep up the great work! Fight the deniers!
mphello 5 months ago
@MrOllyK Our planet also used to have an atmosphere devoid of oxygen, but microscopic organisms changed all that and created all the oxygen we breathe, and in the process killed off most organisms, proof that small creatures on a big planet can make enough difference in the atmosphere to trigger a mass extinction.
If microscopic single-celled organisms could accomplish it, what makes it so insane to think that thousands of factories and billions of tons of pollutants each year can?
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
"But you haven't put forth any evidence"..
I have - which is 100% more than you climate bed-wetters ever do. All you demand are answers from us. Why don't YOU lot put forward your evidence for a change, and PROVE that CO2 is "dangerously" warming the planet. It's that simple really.
MrOllyK 6 months ago
@MrOllyK Where's that "evidence?"
And uhhh... every climatologist (you know, the people who directly study what we're talking about, scientists, the experts, the pros) believes that man is affecting the climate. As for CO2 alone being dangerous, not likely, methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, and it has increased five times as much as CO2 has increased since before the Industrial Revolution, but CO2 lasts longer.
Dude, the greenhouse effect is real whether you believe it or not.
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
= methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas =
True, per molecule, but methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2.
So, in terms of what humans actually output into the air, we are causing more climate change via CO2 than methane. If ALL our CO2 emissions stopped right now, we would STILL be committed to another 1 to 2 deg C in global average temperature rise.
mphello 5 months ago
@ScottBrown666 It is not true that every climatologist agrees on global warming, how do global warming apologists explain the little ice age, the medieval warm period, the dark ages, the roman warm period?
thehorrorification 1 month ago
@MrOllyK All you need to do is prove to me that you can haphazardly change the chemical makeup of a closed system subjected to light and heat without altering the temperature. Should be easy, right?
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@MrOllyK Anyway, you also are only noting CO2. What about other greenhouse gases, specifically methane, which is released feedback loop-style thanks to the slight warming brought about by CO2 emissions?
ScottBrown666 6 months ago
@ScottBrown666
The world's gubberments are only quoting CO2 to be taxed. What about water vapour, which is 95% of "greenhouse" gases. Want your shower steam taxed too?
I've scientifically proven my point before this retort and shown how history has the answers in the ice and rocks of the past - which you continue to ignore. How about returning with some intellect in future?
MrOllyK 6 months ago
Horaldo..
Once again you're just babbling rubbish.
Global CO2 is just 0.03% of the atmosphere, and man's contribution is just 3% of THAT. Our impact is just 0.0009%. Meaning 97% of CO2 is due to nature, and temp precedes CO2 change by some 800 years. It's obviously NOT CO2, or methane:
w. celsias. com/media/uploads/admin/methanegraph. gif
If YOU want to pay carbon tax for a non-problem, YOU pay.
You want reductions in CO2?? (cont)..
MrOllyK 2 years ago
This vid implies that in the cooling during the '40's to '70's that CO2 isn't the cause is too simplistic. WTF??
The government run and funded IPCC says CO2 is the ONLY factor!
Fact: Models don't reflect anything except the wishes of the programmer.
Solar V temp correlations have skewed in the past also, but are a clearer indication than CO2.
In it for the money: Only 53 scientists work for the IPCC, Chandra is only a railroad engineer with carbon tax interests in India. Swindle? Yup!
MrOllyK 2 years ago
no. that is demonstrably wrong. no one with half a brain claims that CO2 is the ONLY factor. you have people on one side pointing out the solar cycles interplay with reflective properties of ice and air borne particulate and the absorbing properties of greenhouse gasses like water CO2 and methane, and on the other side saying "they say CO2 is the only thing and that doesn't match." it's a strawman drop it.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
Exactly my point. CO2 isn't the only factor, in fact, it barely rates as a greenhouse gas due to its logarithmic scale of IR absorbency. The IPCC claiming it's the only factor means they don't even have half a brain, but they're pushing for world government and massive taxes based on CO2 alone.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
no sir that is where you are wrong. as the co2 only contributes a slight warming by its self but that doesn't mean it is insignificant. the warming caused by co2 is reinforced by the other factors such as the melting ice, release of other greenhouse gasses in the oceans and tundra and the fact that the air can hold more water than on a cooler world. and despite your continuing claims to the contrary the ipcc is aware of and acknowledges this fact in it's reports.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
You're aware that melting of any degree will occur as we've just come out of the Little Ice Age in 1800 and that warming we had nothing to do with.
You're also aware the temp changes precede CO2 change by some 800 years.
Less heat=less evap so cold air is naturally drier (humidity).
Global CO2 is just 0.03% and man's contribution is just 3% of THAT. It's almost reached saturation point:
joannenova. com. au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I'm aware that there was no such event as the little ice age nor the medieval warm period. they are the artifacts of a very small sample set in the original reports on the subject. further the little ice age is claimed to have started 600 years ago, but as I pointed out the current record has only been seen long before that. I do have to admit an error here however. in my comment I left of a 0 it has been 150,000 not 15,000 year sense current temperatures have been seen.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
further I am all so aware of the lag of co2 but as it wasn't the driving force then but the reinforcing force it is immaterial. back then the temperatures where driven by the sun's and earth's variation, currently no such correlation is happening.
next the speculation about the co2 being fully saturated and further will play no effect is dead wrong and pointless. cont...
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
the fact is we can and do look at earth. it is still leaking radiation in the bands that co2 absorbs. there is still plenty of energy escaping that could be captured by co2. but like I said it is pointless. the current temperatures are sufficient to drive others like the release of methane and the melting of reflective ice. as co2 lagged the primary cause in the past now too do other forces lag co2, meaning that we can't just sit back anymore.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
dose that mean that we must tax people for release of CO2? no that would be pointless too. we must focus on ways of sequestering the current co2. there are plans ranging from factory farms to producing plastics from the co2 that will pay for the efforts.
next yes .03% seems small but that is what keeps the temperature of earth 60 degrees Fahrenheit. warmer than it would be wrought it.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
how ever if you want to talk about other factors lets talk about how the sun has been on it's downward trend in irradiance and only now is starting back up yet we have seen the warmest decade in the last 15,000 years. I don't even want to think what 1215 will be like when the sun again hits it's new peek.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
You should be aware that the oceans take a long time to warm and cool, therefore have a decadal temp memory (decadal oscillation) and have a large contribution to warming and cooling not immediately correlating to solar output.
The only thing I'm worried about is cooling, as the past ice age showed disease and famine. Grain doesn't grow well in ice and the cows don't like it much either.
Temp has been much higher in the past (cont)..
MrOllyK 2 years ago
the oceans lag the air by 7 years and there temperatures also don't correlate to the sun. the fact is that the oceans like the air correlate to co2.
as for your worries about another cold period you are misguided. we are at the low now for solar activity we aren't going to see a effect from the irregularity of the earths rotation or progression for thousands of years and atmospheric conditions and ice coverage will continue to promote warming. we are looking at a hot decade.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
.." and ice coverage will continue to promote warming"..
Now I see you know little of albedo, let alone science and physics, this conversation is over. Nobody can educate you unless you open your mind.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
the depleting ice cover reflects radiation. water and rock do absorb it more readily. it's only an observation that a planet with less ice will be hotter than one with more.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
First you said:
.." and ice coverage will continue to promote warming"..
Then:
.."the depleting ice cover reflects radiation"..
Are you on an acid trip?
MrOllyK 2 years ago
no you merely didn't read everything I said for if you did you would have read where I previously referenced that in more detail making the complete reference redundant to anyone who bothered to read the first.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
I read everything you said. It appears your stance is adjusting to my replies, not coming from your knowledge. If you really want to educate yourself (autodidactism), you should read and watch the links I've prepared for you.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no my points remain as they have been. claiming that because I said "ice coverage will continue to promote warming" instead of changing ice coverage will continue to promote warming means Meant that ice warms the planet it is the lack of ice implicit in both statements and it remains the bare fact of it.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
further I have no need to read all your comments or watch the video you provided as I have literally heard it all before in fact I can't tell you how many nights I've spent having basically this same discussion with someone. that said I have read every word you said. (the video was pointless as I have seen that "documentary from start to end and find it full of falsehoods like volcanoes produce more co2 than man.)
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
That vid has nothing to do with volcanoes! It shows from NOAA GISP ice core data that temps were higher in the past:
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
Also, this link shows global data regarding the MWP and LIA:
pages. science-skeptical. de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x 768. html
You tell me I'm wrong then refuse to educate yourself and avoid my links. Crybaby.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I must blame youtube for that one. the first link you gave sent me to a mirror of the great global warming swindle. how ever the video you apparently are attempting to put forward is also flawed as again it only shows 1 data point. again Greenland is in the north Atlantic. this still imply a region effect when accounted for with the data from the southern hemisphere.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
as for your map with graphs have you noted that none of the graphs give the same image? a lot of them are poorly sourced and frankly it is pointless because the data was processed into the current global temperature maps. this one graph shows all the actual data ncdc. noaa. gov/ paleo/ pubs/ pcn/ fig6- 10b. png and yes the is a slight dip and rise inline with the progression of the earth's axis. but again there is no great spike of war more the the fact no great increase in cold.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago 2
when your source deliberately muddies the water by spamming facts instead of clarifying the data set you must ask their sincerity.
cherry pick is all they have done and including a paper on sediment deposits on Antarctica as temperature data. really, that's who you are going to site.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
now if you instead choose to actually educate yourself there are simple graphs freely available on Google to show you how when looked at the whole world instead of Europe with a focus on England the MWP and LIA weren't global events as claimed.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
(cont)..
In fact, CO2 was much higher in ice ages and lower in the MWP - no correlation.
99% of species live near the equator because it's warm. The Jurassic had some 10-20x the CO2 we have today where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans. It was also much warmer then due to higher oceans creating inland seas and more water vapour, possibly due to a Milankovich cycle.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I already cover the MWP an the little ice age but again you are right in facts but wrong in conclusions about the Jurassic. solar dynamics tells us that the sun slowly increases in brightness over time. this means that the earth has been slowly sequestering co2 to counteract the effects of a hotter sun. in this vein we know that the biosphere won't be able to be supported by the CO2 in the atmosphere and stay cool enough in just over a billion years.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
The Sun grows 10% hotter every billion years, I reckon we've got half that time before we need to leave, regardless how clean we live.
The Earth has been sequestering CO2 accidentally through plant growth, tectonics and chemical reaction (limestone), not through any thought process.
Regardless, there hasn't been any warming for the past 10 years and the IPCC continues to persuade govt to tax us on naturally vital CO2.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
actually best case scenario is 2 billion years before earth isn't arable anymore (that is if we thin the atmosphere) but that is besides the point. we need worry about the next hundred before we worry about billions.
next do you think it is an accident? no it's teraforming. plants adapt over the eons. evolution is what shaped our world to the paradise we enjoy.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
finally the ipcc has made no such recommendation(the ipcc only recommends a 40% reduction not methods), but members have said some things along the lines. that given it is misguided. I look at cigarette sails and see the effects of such efforts. as I said before the only way to remedy the problem we have stuck ourselves in is to reverse the increase of co2 not just cut back.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
I think your main problem is that you disbelieve in the Little Ice Age, which has been proven and depicted in paintings where the Thames and the Huson rivers froze deeply every winter. How do you not see this?
Sequestering CO2 is blind madness as the very plants that feed us and our cattle rely on this for photosynthesis. Thanks to higher CO2, the Sahara is giving way to - vegetation!
Farmers use CO2 in their greenhouses to max plant growth. Look it up.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
I dispute the little ice age because it has been proven a regional and insignificant event. temperatures of the world remained about constant for the last 4-5 thousand years world wide.
the plants that feed us don't need anywhere near the amount currently in the atmosphere and they will die from other effects of the high co2 such as the fact that many cereal crops can't defend themselves under the warmer weather dew to the break down of defensive proteins.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
The Little Ice Age lasted hundreds of years, which you can't hide from the rest of the planet like the MWP:
pages. science-skeptical. de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768. html
.." temperatures of the world remained about constant for the last 4-5 thousand years world wide"..
Nope.
watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
Some grains evolved to cope with low CO2, however they still thrive in higher CO2, such as C4 grains.
Warmer weather is just weather. It's all about evolution.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
as you aren't even bothering to pretend to read my posts anymore I must ask why should I continue. you once claimed that my mind was shut. however you still cling to this imaginary little ice age. it is discredited. you can give me all the links you want the facts are that only samples from Europe where analyzed in the model that showed the MWP and LIA. later studies incorporating samples world wide found no such things.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
and evolution is slow. for that matter humans with our large stable population aren't likely to evolve and our inbred plants don't have much variation for natural selection to work on. the fact is that our current crops can't survive on a hotter earth and neither can we.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Horaldo..
What is the optimum temp of our planet? Nobody knows, but I bet it's not zero.
Water vapor represents 95% of greenhouse gas, next is CH4, which is stable or declining.
Sure, put scrubbers on smokestacks to remove SO4 and particulates, but leave CO2 alone as it's airborne fertiliser and now contributes little to the greenhouse effect.
CO2 was some 7000ppm in the Carboniferous and Jurassic, without a runaway greenhouse, ever.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
as I said before water vapor is dependent on other factors in this case it's co2. the warming permits more to be in the atmosphere then otherwise. and CH4 is not as you claim falling but indeed rising as the warmer oceans cant hold as much forcing it in to the atmosphere.
next there is no optimal temperature of earth only the one we and our food evolved to live in. it has been show that conditions likely in just a few years will prove deadly to our crops.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
Good WORK Lord Monckton.
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
Cheers to you Monckton
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
This video debunks AGW - the man is trying to debunk 'swindle' but then states that the theory of CO2-driven climate change is wrong. What a moron. He proved the point of the movie.
brainiacgames 2 years ago
No, he isn't debunking AGW. Generally speaking peer-reviewed papers would offer our best, most current and most reliable understanding of a field. CO2 is just one thing causing climate change.The last decade has been the hottest on record. As for the false information used in the Global Warming Swindle movie, watch this vid boj9ccV9htk
rajasmasala 2 years ago
***THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN DOCTORED!!***
It has had a large chunk removed from the middle, so that the slide at 4:07 is implied to be aimed at (and criticising) his own data. Originally, this slide was discussing data from the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary... amazing...
However, if you google: Christopher Merchant school of geosciences edinburgh, you will get to his homepage, where you can download the FULL LENGTH, UNEDITED video.
***This video is COMPLETE and supersedes the above***
TheMastaRob 2 years ago
No one implied global warming wasn't true BECAUSE scientists wanted to increase funding ... they only gave accounts on the nature of the scientific community on those viewers that would naturally question the alarming propoganda pushed for global warming. Considering you spend most of the time 'debunking' the doco on those grounds you're obviously a hypocrite! Also the only data you presented was direct from the IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! So to sum up, two words EPIC FAIL
pheynixll 2 years ago
cunt
alexkillsdie 2 years ago
Alarmists should attempt to give a single piece of evidence that man's CO2 is causing global warming ... or the current cooling.
IPCC 2007 has none.
Come on guys, give it your best shot.
sydneydoc 2 years ago
They can't!! The EPA has admitted in senate documents, that co2 is NOT A POLLUTANT, but a natural part of the environment
GrandFunker 2 years ago
Interesting ... sounds like a turn around for the EPA. Perhaps the moves to sack its head for suppressing the real story are having an effect !
sydneydoc 2 years ago
GrandFunker: how stupid are you? So CO2 in regular amounts is not a pollutant. And it's out there now in egregious amounts. So no, *obviously* we shouldn't reduce CO2 levels.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Yes, we all know that CO2 is a minor trace greenhouse gas and 2 % of the 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels.
The effect of this on climate is negligible compared to natural effects.
We also know that models can easily be made to give any output you want.
Funny how the IPCC models didn't predict the past 10 year's cooling !
sydneydoc 3 years ago
The nasa data shows the last 10 years have been warmer., there has not been cooling
elnauhual 2 years ago
Hansen has fraudulently manipulated his data ... lots published on this.
Look at the data used by IPCC ... 10 years cooling !!!
Hadcrut; UK Met Office.
The IPCC is responsible for the GW nonsense !
sydneydoc 2 years ago
sydneydoc,
Did I read you right? I think I just heard you say "the past 10 year's cooling" (sic). Are you kidding? The past eleven years are historically the hottest such period man has ever experienced. All updated peer-reviewed scientific literature agrees on this. Yes, man never got to the moon.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
It has been cooling for the past decade. Just saying 'all updated peer-reviewed blah blah says the opposite' doesn't make it true. Google '10 year cooling' and the problem it is causing with this idiotic swindle.
brainiacgames 2 years ago
no it hasn't. 1998 was an intense el nino year and 2007 was a bad la nina year. this means 1998 was a upward spike and 07 was a downward one. draw the trend line from 98 to 06 or 09 and it is about even for the former without an el nino and a slight increase for the latter. draw the line from 1999 or 1997 to 2007 and it's clearly an upward trend. 2010 is predicted to be another hot year so we may be looking at the obliteration of the 1998 record.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
wake up and smell the coffee - haven't you noticed that you never hear the phrase "Global Warming" anymore. The reason why you never hear that is because the globe isn't warming. The correct phrase now is "climate change" - but the the climate is always changing
The MWP was warmer than today.
radagastbirdtamer 2 years ago
You haven't debunked this video, even though you have made some logical points. Any documentary has an agenda, and therefore within editing they highlight and sometimes exaggerate this agenda. The real issue is the lack of a public debate on the matter. At least this film interviews scientists, where "The Inconvenient Truth" interviews none, and the suns influence isn't even mentioned. Every planet is warming. Why? The founder of The Weather Channel is suing Al Gore to force a debate. Why?
musicequalstruth 3 years ago
Some of those scientist have made public denounces of how their data has been missrepresented or twisted.
Other people interviewed has known economic ties to the industry and no valid scientific background.,
elnauhual 2 years ago