Fact is simply that more GHG into the atmosphere WILL inevitably raise the radiative forcing of it, in other terms, it will "hold in" more heat. That is also a fact that the GHG concentration of the atmosphere is rising because the earth's natural GHG sinks are no more sufficient enough to maintain stability. So what about the heat source (sun)? Sun isn't more active than it usually is even considering the known cycles and the earth's orbit hasen't changed much in the last century.
@JayMark2049 research what has been going on with the sun over the past few months! Its activity has been unprecedented. In addition it seems you are ignoring the fact that the entire solar system is warming.
@AwakeToPresence Global warming has been going for a long time, not just the past months. Our GHG emissions has added about 2.5 W/m^2 of radiative forcing into the atmosphere so far. The sun's radiative diffrence between peaks and sinks (11 year cycles) is of app 1 W/m^2 but you need to divide by 4 because the earth is a sphere (0.25) and consider the planet absorbs about 70% of it so you get app. 0.2 W/m^2.
Soden, B.J. 2000. "The Sensitivity of the Tropical Hydrological Cycle to ENSO." Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
Soden, B.J., R.T. Wetherald, G.L. Stenchikov, and A. Robock 2002. "Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor." Science 296, 727-730.
Soden, B.J., D.L. Jackson, V. Ramaswamy, M.D. Schwarzkopf, and X. Huang, 2005. "The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening." Science 310, 841–844.
Sexton, D.M.H. 2001. "The effect of stratospheric ozone depletion on the phase of the Antarctic Oscillation." Geophysical Research Letters 28, 3697–3700.
Sherwood, S.C., J.R. Lanzante and C.L. Meyer 2005. "Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming." Science 309, 1556-1559.
Santer, B.D., M.F. Wehner, T.M.L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G.A. Meehl, K.E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W.M. Washington, J.S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann 2003.
"Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes." Science 301, 480-483.
Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, G.A. Meehl, M.F. Wehner, C. Mears, M. Schabel, F.J. Wentz, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, T. Bettge, W.M. Washington, K.E. Taylor, J.S. Boyle, W. Brüggemann and C. Doutriaux 2003. "Influence of Satellite Data Uncertainties on the Detection of Externally Forced Climate Change." Science 300, 1280-1284.
Rind, D., and D. Peteet, 1985. "Terrestrial conditions at the last glacial maximum and CLIMAP sea-surface temperature estimates: Are they consistent?" Quaternary Research 24, 1-22.
Rind, D., R. Goldberg, and R. Ruedy. 1989. "Change in climate variability in the 21st century." Climatic Change 14, 5-37.
Ramaswamy, V., M.D. Schwarzkopf and W.J. Randel 1996. "Fingerprint of ozone depletion in the spatial and temporal pattern of recent lower-stratospheric cooling." Letter. Nature 382, 616-618.
Ramaswamy, V., M.D. Schwarzkopf, W.J. Randel, B.D. Santer, B.J. Soden, G.L. Stenchikov 2006. "Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling." Science 311, 1138-1141.
Mears, Carl A. and Wentz, Frank J. 2005. "The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature." Science 309, 1548-1551.
Minschwaner, K., and A.E. Dessler, 2004. "Water vapor feedback in the tropical upper troposphere: Model results and observations." Journal of Climate 17, 1272–1282.
McGregor, H.V., M. Dima, H.W. Fischer, and S. Mulitza 2007. "Rapid 20th-Century Increase in Coastal Upwelling off Northwest Africa." Science 315, 637-639.
Melanda, M.Y., Jansen, E., and H. Elderfield 2005. "Constraints on SST estimates for the northern North Atlantic/Nordic Seas during the LGM."
Mann, M.E., Z. Zhang, M.K. Hughes, R.S. Bradley, S.K. Miller, S. Rutherford, and F. Ni 2008. "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia." Proceedings of the National Academies of Science 105, 13252-13257.
Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer. 1980. "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 5529–5554.
Lubin, D. 1994. "The Role of the Tropical Super Greenhouse Effect in Heating the Ocean Surface." Science 265, 224-227.
Manabe, S. and R.T. Wetherald 1967. "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-259.
Lau, K.-M., C.-H. Ho, and M.-D. Chou 1996. "Water vapor and cloud feedback over the tropical oceans: Can we use ENSO as a surrogate for climate change?" Geophysical Research Letters 23, 2971–2974.
Lean, J.L. and D.H. Rind 2008. "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006." Geophysical Research Letters 35, L18701.
Kushner, P.J., I.M. Held, and T.L. Delworth 2001. "Southern Hemisphere Atmospheric Circulation Response to Global Warming." Journal of Climate 14, 2238–2249.
Langematz, U., M. Kunze, K. Krüger, K. Labitzke, and G.L. Roff 2003. "Thermal and dynamical changes of the stratosphere since 1979 and their link to ozone and CO2 changes."
In The Mount Pinatubo Eruption: Effects on the Atmosphere and Climate, NATO ASI Series Vol. I 42. G. Fiocco, D. Fua, and G. Visconti, Eds. Springer-Verlag, pp. 233-272.
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, K. Asamoah, S. Borenstein, E. Brown, B. Cairns, G. Caliri, M. Campbell, B. Curran, S. de Castro, L. Druyan, M. Fox, C. Johnson, J. Lerner, M.P. McCormick, R.L. Miller, P. Minnis, A. Morrison, L. Pandolfo, I. Ramberran, F. Zaucker, M. Robinson, P. Russell, K. Shah, P. Stone, I. Tegen, L. Thomason, J. Wilder, and H. Wilson 1996. "A Pinatubo climate modeling investigation."
Gettelman, A. and Q. Fu 2008. "Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback." Journal of Climate 21, 3282-3289.
Goes, J.I., P.G. Thoppil, B. do R. Gomes, and J.T. Fasullo 2005. "Warming of the Eurasian Landmass Is Making the Arabian Sea More Productive." Science 308, 545-547.
Fyfe, J.C., G.J. Boer, and G.M. Flato 1999. "The Arctic and Antarctic oscillations and their projected changes under global warming." Geophysical Research Letters 26, 1601–1604.
Farrera1, I., S.P. Harrison, I.C. Prentice, G. Ramstein, J. Guiot, P.J. Bartlein, R. Bonnefille, M. Bush, W. Cramer, U. von Grafenstein, K. Holmgren, H. Hooghiemstra, G. Hope,
D. Jolly, S.-E. Lauritzen, Y. Ono, S. Pinot, M. Stute and G. Yu 1999. "Tropical climates at the Last Glacial Maximum: a new synthesis of terrestrial palaeoclimate data. I.
Vegetation, lake-levels and geochemistry." Climate Dynamics 15, 823-856.
Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. "Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate." 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
de F. Forster, P.M., and K.P. Shine 1999. "Stratospheric water vapour changes as a possible contributor to observed stratospheric cooling." Geophysical Research Letters 26, 3309–3312.
Dai, A., K.E. Trenberth, and T.R. Karl 1999. "Effects of Clouds, Soil Moisture, Precipitation, and Water Vapor on Diurnal Temperature Range." Journal of Climate 12, 2451-2473.
Dessler, A.E. and S. Wong 2009. "Estimates of the Water Vapor Climate Feedback during El Niño–Southern Oscillation." Journal of Climate 22, 6404-6412.
Yes, the temperature has changed in the past. However, the kind of change that has taken millions of years before has happened in only about 10,000 years due to the presence of humans.
Remember, The Earth is an iron core object (electro-magnet), trapped by the gravity of the sun, trapped by the gravity of the matter at the center of the galaxy... matter, when crushed, turns into energy. Current through an iron core object heats and magnetizes it. A correct climate measurement must be done over millions of years, also taking the above into account. - R Gallaher PhD Astrophysics
Three people are asked to describe an elephant. Each are only permitted to touch one part of the elephant to describe it... one the tail... one the body... and one the trunk... each will have a different description of the elephant. You must take all parts of the elephant into consideration. CO2 has very little if any long term effect on climate. Even the sun has short term radiant effect, the cycle doesn't coincide with the suns cycle... Effects are galactic and on a galactic cycle.
The solar system is traveling in a sine wave through the galactic plane. Matter is attracted to the center of our galaxy and crushed into energy. This energy is ejected 90 degrees from the matter plane. Some of the energy returns in the matter plane of the galaxy. This creates 2 galactic current fields. When the earth passes the galactic matter plane earth in at max current and inductive global warming. Crossing the plane flips the magnetic poles when the galactic current changes (Amperes Law).
FYI The term Climate Change was created by the GOP during GWB to persuade idiots like you that what humans have done to the planet is not disgusting and that we should continue to pollute at an even greater rate in the name of jobs and the economy. Tells your kids they will have jobs, but no planet to live on!
@SimXLive BRAVO! AGW-deniers should have all their property, clean water, and clean air taken away from them and given to the liberals and Greens who deserve them and have earned them.
AGW = Arctic Winter Games? The liberals don't deserve anything because they are the ignorant and stupid ones. They want to save the planet but yet they don't know how to reduce their environmental footprints. Some green conservatives (like me) KNOW what to do to reduce their environmental impact and are doing it with no help from the government.
@albertabeefcowboy84 Conservatives don't deserve to live because they are the ones who oppose animal rights, who eat meat, breed, and defend rightwing religions like xtianity, islamofascism, and scientology that destroy children's minds with fairytales and destructive beliefs that "prayer" will save us.
Conservatives are the ones who hate freedom. Why else don't they support freeing all prisoners?
@albertabeefcowboy84 What do you mean they don't know how? Could you explain that? Not a single politician IMO will say the truth about what we REALLY need to do in order to save the planet because it implies so much change that most people (to this day) will sadly refuse to go through and I understand why. I'm doing research in environment to and am getting into new technologies to make clean energy. Peace buddy.
The graph above has no " y"scale, its is therefore scientifically as useful as a chocolate teapot. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions disproves the graph above thoroughly.
While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.See the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions for confirmation. The graph above is not from a peer reviewed source, nor does it have scales?!
@checkyoursources Just to illustrate an attribution technique. X1 = n% After an observed period of time X2 = (n+1)%. During that time Y1=m% and Y2=(m+6)%. Attribution simply implies that variable X was influenced by variable Y. Than again strong correlation can still imply independent variables. If you boil water with wood you will increase CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.That variable would still be independent (decreasing CO2 will not aid you to decrease H2O).
@checkyoursources Attribuation does not equal causation. Check your dictionary. Attribuation is an arbitrary process.Dictionary:the act of attributing; ascription. Pure H2O molecules can not be fingerprinted. That pure H2O molecules are conserving heat, as they lack the reflectiveness.Water in the gas, using fuel to heat water both generate water droplets with CO2 traces.
moron, did you see the record heat in texas and the rest of the country the last two years, look up texas drought, new mexico wilfires, geogia drought with 2010 2011 in the search terms, fools!
Do you remember dinosaurs? What about mammoths? I'll bet you a million dollars that in a few thousand years, the temperature outside is going to be just a little bit different than it is today. I'll bet you a million more dollars that the humans aren't going to be the right people to blame for this. I might be wrong. Maybe "ice ages" are fake...
@checkyoursources"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions." That statement is provably false. Ice core records, peatbog, stalagmites, etc, from all over the world prove that to be false.
Both the northern and southern hemisphere ice cores all show warming of the MWP and Holocene period, and during this time temperatures did not go down around the equator. Therefore global temps were higher.
"The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made." is like saying:
'The Black Death in the middle ages is estimated to have killed more of Europe's population than World War 2. This means that deaths during World War 2 were not unusual, and hence must be due to natural causes, not man-made' ?!
@checkyoursources Trailling along the Black Death was an example of biological warfare. As we are all familiar, the Mongols threw diseased bodies into the city of Caffa to drive the defenders out. Despite the vehicles of destruction ware different (biological warfare vs. physical warfare), the causes was the same (WAR).
@Researchrules The black death was not man made, bullets are, both kill. You made the error of assuming that if an observation had a natural cause in the past, it automatically has the same cause in the future. e.g. Its the same as saying: "A dinosaur breaks a leaf off a plant therefore any leaves on the ground must have been knocked off by dinosaurs?!" Which is the same as an AGW skeptic saying that past changes were natural therefore every change is natural and not influenced by humans.
@checkyoursources Yestimia Pestis might have been a local event in the Asian Steppes. Without human policies (killing dogs and cats, spreading the disease through primitive biological warfare, we might still have a densely populated Europe). Black death was the conscious appliance of a natural phenomenon to kill people, so the event was anthropic (at least for the European development). Black death ceased to be a natural event when it was deliberately applied to warfare.
@Researchrules So you do agree that both natural AND/OR just human influenced causes can lead to changes in the environment which was my original point.
@checkyoursources Climate is a function of landscape, atmospheric compounds, solar activity, weakness in Earth's magnetic field, supernovae. The active parts of the system are those which release energy into the system. The catalysts are elements of the system which amplify the effects of that release. CO2 is a catalyst, not a cause for the system.
@checkyoursources That is called disjunction. You can't simply invert cause and effect in a theory arbitrarily. The scientific method calls for consistency. It is like saying (Big Bang created the Universe) but now the Universe is preparing another Big Bang.
@checkyoursources Since the Medieval Period Holland has increased in size through damming and water management.Dam construction projects for hydroelectric plants can alter wind patterns in mountain regions.Land use policies can turn prairie into deserts (Dust Bowl). The question remains: Are those risks probable enough to determine policy changes?
@checkyoursources You might imply the butterfly effect theory. From that point of view AGW might sound reasonable and valid (from common sense and science). But the point comes to causality, feedback and statistical significance of the phenomenon.
@checkyoursources Currently the sample range isn't enough for any opinions (both for and against) to be expressed on the matter. As I've said earlier in the CGW video, modelers would still need at least 100 years of instrumental data.That would eliminate proxy uncertainties and allow a valid equation to be constructed.
@Researchrules The longest-running quasi-global record starts in 1850. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
@checkyoursources Making a model to fit the theory and data sets I call this. That is why they need supercomputers. It is like adding dimensions to an observation so you can keep your theory without negating the data.
If I said speed = kilometers/time^2 and the speedometer detected a speed which corresponds to kilometers/time, I could add a "correction" equation to it like speed = time' *(kilometers/time). Make time' = time *99% and you have slipped your model.
@Researchrules Several models including those of purely natural causes have been made to try and explain the recent warming trend but the model that fits bests is the one that includes AGW.
@checkyoursources Just as I told you. You can keep a constant in a system and distort the impact of other variables through weighting. Without the feedback system AGW would be an insignificant variable, and that system can be challenged. A trend-line is arbitrarily drawn. A geometric, harmonic or arithmetic average with weights attached yield different results. Using a harmonic average provides lower averages than arithmetic averages.
@Researchrules "Without the feedback system AGW would be an insignificant variable" I disagree, even without any feedbacks taken into account, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006).
@checkyoursources And volcanic eruptions increase it, and vegetation decay increase it, and a lot of other factors increase it. In a risk based audit Risk = probability * impact. So far the samples required to obtain a reasonable insurance that the probability has been properly evaluated are insufficient for a 95% probability and 5% error. And results over the impacts are ambivalent.
@checkyoursources Argument from numbers and argument from authority do not change the facts. Scientific arguments are not like politics. If overwhelming numbers agree on something it does not imply that their arguments are valid.
@checkyoursources Non sequitur. Treatment for that particular type of cancer would have empirical confirmations from all parties and would be experimental. The patients' bodies would provide direct feedback for the treatment, observable in a controlled environment. Climate however is a different story, and consensus on a topic where direct and observable feedback can not be obtained is ignorable.
@Researchrules "Climate however is a different story." Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
@checkyoursources Magnetic interference can distort the infrared spectrum recorded by instruments. Just to give you an example. Place an electric magnet near a CRT monitor. Use a camera to record the images from the screen. Increase the power of the magnet gradually. That magnetic interference distorts the light spectrum as it is captured by sensors.
@checkyoursources No conclusion can be yet drawn (both for and against) as the evidence is insufficient for relevant conclusions. And in a court of law, if the prosecution fails to deliver relevant and reliable evidence the case is closed. The defense is not required to put the same amount of evidence as the prosecution to obtain an acquittal. The judge has a responsibility to weight the evidence. The AGW movement is the prosecution in this case, I might add.
@Researchrules A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
When inaction is likely to be much worse than action , why would you not take the action?
We should be more worried about clean air and clean water than global warming. Smog is actually dangerous to breathe, which people in Los Angeles would understand perfectly.... But no... instead we're worried about a half a degree in temperature variation. Silly humans.
And yes, global climate shifts dramatically over time. There's nothing you can do about it, except to ADAPT. And putting a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to prevent a volcanic winter either, so dont get any ideas.
@vendurra absolutely, just because someone argues against global warming, and the carbon taxes promoted by left wing radicals, doesn't mean you support pollution
because you see AGW as shit theory, doesn't mean you want dirty air
I think I will unpack my crayons today and draw some squigly lines. Lets see, i heard something about a middle age warm period. Lets put a big bump there, and maybe scatter some volcanos around. squiggle squiggle squiggle
@ollywatkins Volcanic eruptions are a matter of historical record... And they do cause significant cooldowns... The recent Mount Pinatubo eruption had a VEI of 6, which is no joke.
Oh, and lastly - I dislike all things right-wing... But I also believe the global warming issue is weak. Stick to clean air, clean water, and food safety regulations. We need clean air and clean water to live.
@vendurra right on. But still you are talking about volcanic ash... which is interesting in its own right, but has nothing (or barely anything) to do with CO2 levels.
Did you pull this graph out of your ass? the middle age warming period was not as warm as it has been in the last two decades. And what do volcanos have to do with the current warming? The CO2 they spit out are a miniscule fraction as to the CO2 that humans produce.
@ollywatkins I have a link to the graph in the description. I "pulled" it from there, not from the other place. Try not to be so rude in your next comment. Thanks.
@jbranstetter04 google "reconstructed Temperature Comparison" for the actual scientifically created graph. Does it look any different to your pretty graph? The guy who drew that graph of yours is living in fantasy land.
@ollywatkins CO2 levels from nature is beyond anything we will ever reach, which makes it hard for many of us to believe our CO2 production has any effect on the temperatures around the world.
Please find out the levels coming from THE SEVEN SEAS, VULCANOES, FORESTS, RAINFORESTS and then compare them to human CO2 production and make a new conclusion.
@puttefnask forest and land (including volcanos) 439gt going out, 450gt going in, oceans : 332gt out, 338gt in. Humans contribute 29gt to the atmosphere. Its small, i agree, but it is throwing the balance out of whack. You can see this by noticing how CO2ppm has steadily increased over the last 100 years. The oceans and ofrests cannot work fast enough to eat up all that extra CO2.
@ollywatkins And there's your problem and Al Gore's. It's based on the research of Michael E Mann, who was revealed to have hidden the truth about several aspects of his research like for instance, covering up that he couldn't add things up without totally ignoring important parts of the source research material.
Read all about his and other's hacked E-mail here:
@ollywatkins Volcanos cause cooling, especially those of VEI 6 or above. They didn't coin the phrase volcanic winter for nothing. Read about the year without a summer (1816) after the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815. It's a fascinating read. Volcanic eruptions of that magnitude have world wide repercussions caused by ash in the Statosphere blocking out the heat of the sun.
@GWfarce69 In addition, we know that the little ice age was extremely cold and during that natural cold spell, a volcano erupted which pushed our planet even colder
it was called the year without a summer - please google it
The volcano was called Tambora, look it up
Volcanoes can have a huge impact on the environment, both cooling and heating the planet
Yet, what % of the atmosphere is CO2, do you even know?
@ollywatkins " the middle age warming period was not as warm as it has been in the last two decades."
All ice core data shows more warming than we've seen in the last two decades. Where do you get your info from..Cause it's all wrong. Again, ALL ICE CORE DATA SAYS THIS.
AGW-deniers are so stupid. They love cherrypicking data, or making it up if they haven't got any.
If AGW Law were wrong, why haven't any AGW-deniers published peer-reviewed papers and crunched the numbers on supercomputers proving a difference cause for the last centuries 1 deg C temperature rise?
You have no response for the picture so you attack the messenger. This is a typical leftist ploy to derail truth. It won't work on me. The picture says it all. It is a historical and scientific fact that the Earth was warmer in past periods than it is now. We're not even talking 100,000,000 years ago, as the Earth was warmer at the end of the middle ages than it is now. Try actually saying something relevant. If you trust the "climatgate" climatologists your the one one with the tin foil hat.
My physical anthropology professor put a similar timeline on the overhead when I was in college 15 years ago, and told us global warming was utter nonsense. She then passed around aligator fossils that were found in England, from about the 1100 BC era when when England's climate was almost tropical. It's funny how they call those of us who were educated prior to Al Gore's nonsense, "ignorant", for not believing in their indoctrination that can be proven wrong through both science and history.
@EricShermansChannel Climatologists say that your teacher's a clueless idiot. The data clearly shows warming, and it's getting worse. When Arctic ice is completely gone in summer melts, you'll do more mental gymnastics and convince yourself that it's normal and not due to burning of fossil fuels.
You sound like the religiously retarded who claim that the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution doesn't exist.
@ndrthrdr1 Take a look at the picture again genius. I know the truth hurts. Real history and science disprove your theories. That "teacher" as you refer to her, was an accomplished anthropologist, at a top tier university, you,re a coward hurling insults from behind a troll account, at people infinitely more intelligent than you. Typical. Grow up and get a life.
@ndrthrdr1 According to your climatologists, where I live is supposed to be under water right now. Every prediction they made has been wrong, because they're deliberately manipulating the data.
@EricShermansChannel How convenient for you that you don't state specifically where this is that has been predicted to be under water.
Predicyions of polar ice melt and temperature rise are continually exceeded. Climatologists haven't predicted even one foot of sea level rise to have already taken place, so unless you're living at less than one foot above sea level, you're lying.
In fact, you're lying. Who do you think you're persuading? Your fellow retards are already deluded.
Look children there is 1 FACT you need to know about SCIENCE. FOR IT TO BE SCIENCE IT MUST BE PEER REVIEWED. It must be submitted to a journal to TRY to tear it to pieces - if it hasn't it isn't. SCUM like the poster of this video wants you to be confused so they can delight in killing BILLIONS - follow them and you and your children's future will be ruined...
@StunnedByStupidity Look children these warming people are insane enough to think that a harmless trace gas, heavier than air, can actually influence and even run the Planet's climate. Do not listen to their lies and faked data. The truth will come out that the planet is acually cooling due to natural causes like the Sun's variability. Do not be scared by these Eco Loons.
The planet will do as its environment dictates. Namely the sun, the galaxy we are in, the universe we move through. CO2 is not the driver, nor is it an immediate threat. A doubling of it will cause a +/- 4* rise by the IPCC's calculation. We have increased it by less than 4% in 150 years, at this rate a doubling would take a very long time, and still, may be benificial. Still waiting for that study showing a threat from CO2. See below for studies of what is driving our climate.
Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (Space Science Reviews, vol. 125, issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, 22 December 2006) - J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler
Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, 1998) - E. W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman
Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability (International Journal of Climatology, vol. 22, issue 8, pp. 901-915, 27 May 2002) - Ronald E. Thresher
Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994) (Planetary and Space Science, vol. 55, issue 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007) - Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa, Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann, Heitor Evangelista da Silva, Mariza Pereira de Souza Echer, Ezequiel Echer
The planet will do as its environment dictates. Namely the sun, the galaxy we are in the universe we move through. CO2 is not the driver, nor is it an immediate threat. A doubling of it will cause a =/- 4* rise by the IPCC's calculation. We have increased it by less than 4% in 150 years, at this rate a doubling would take a long time. Still waiting for that study showing a threat from CO2.
Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is slowly being corrected, by honest players, but it is to be expected when you let politicians mandate what science studies, or ignores. The IPCC was flawed from the beginning, as the mandate they were given was to explore only manmade, and not natural climate changes. One must look at the whole picture to understand anything
Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is slowly being corrected, by honest players, but it is to be expected when you let politicians mandate what science studies, or ignores. The IPCC was flawed from the beginning, as the mandate they were given was to explore only manmade, and not natural climate changes. One must look at the whole picture to understand anything.
much of that"scientific literure" you speak of proves that the earth as had much bigger changes in its climate before ppl were even around....did you fail to read that part?
@Pat9201 Again, no one is claiming that climate has not changed before. We know what drives climate change in the past. We know how the planet moderates climate through a very slow rock weathering process. That's how we account for liquid water on the planet a billion years ago when the solar output was much less than today. Atmospheric CO2 levels.
Do any one remember the can full of water and ice that was heated up?yes the one from high school physic class experiment.Any one?The temperature will raise no more than 4C until all the ice melts, so what will happen to us and Earth when the ice is gone?The temperature will jump sky high.There is no return,we are way pass the red line,there is nothing we can do.So lets enjoy it until it ends.OK
We don't have to destroy the economy in order to save our atmosphere from the highest levels of CO2 which is even much higher than in midevil warm period.
It is not only temps I worry about, it is ocean acidification (and other things that can go wrong when a species doubles the CO2 content!
C'mon deniers, get real! CO2 is a proven infrared absorber. If you don't understand, then debate something else, like where we are going to get our next barrel of oil from...
@fireofenergy are you F@cking retarded Volcanic activity has quadruped CO2 in the past you sound like an Idiot ! no CO2 no plant life FOOL ! CO2 Is Heaver Than Air Fool that is why they would take a Canary in a coal mine low pockets of CO2 would kill the bird FOOL !
This graph is a joke, and downright goofy ("Nomanic times"?). It was debunked the moment it come out, years ago, yet here it is; proof that crap can live forever online.
You got to give it to the politicians.. They have totally politicized an issue that everyone on the planet isn't even sure about. It's all about delivery.. Coming from Al Gore and the UN.... And people believe it.. A scientist of 40 years throws a graph of all his work for his lifetime... And people still find Gore more truthful... It's all because Gore has enough money to make a movie and the scientist spends all HIS money on research... You can't argue who's right or wrong but WHO to believe.
Cliff Harris falsely advertises himself as being considered to be the top 10 climatologists in the world when has no professional training in science. Cliff Harris doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate. He cherry-picks his evidence for global cooling and ignoring the global picture. By the way his faked global temperature graph doesn't even have a y-axis, showing that this isn't real science. If he submitted this to a peer-reviewed journal it would be easily rejected
"(global warming is) some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects."
Russian President Medvedev after July 31, 2010
"practically everything is burning. The weather is anomalously hot. What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, ...in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate."
@Pat9201 You obviously know very little about this issue. Gore used the Vostok ice core record. The chart this video refers to is completely made up. It's based on no data at all.
@Pat9201 Why are you stuck on Al Gore? And besides, if you ever look at his "beachfront property" it's not at sea level. Do you ever bother to check up on the things you read on the internet? Guess not.
@Pat9201 If you look at IPCC sea level projections, sea level is anticipated to rise 1-2 meters by 2100. I don't think Gore is anticipating being around in 100 years. But over the next several hundred years humans are very likely to need to contend with sea level rise on the scale of 10-20 meters. Last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today the sea level was, indeed, 25 meters higher than today.
@robhoneycutt ya,the earths climate has never changed that much over its history (on its own)LOL.climate change is natural and ppl are cashing in off of it
@Pat9201 Straw man argument. No one claims the climate has never changed before. In fact, it's based on prior climate change that we understand what drives current changes in climate and what the consequences may be.
@Pat9201 Over the past 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels have only changed between 190-280ppm. We have added an additional 35% over preindustrial levels. That is driving an enhanced greenhouse effect that is warming the pl
Fact is simply that more GHG into the atmosphere WILL inevitably raise the radiative forcing of it, in other terms, it will "hold in" more heat. That is also a fact that the GHG concentration of the atmosphere is rising because the earth's natural GHG sinks are no more sufficient enough to maintain stability. So what about the heat source (sun)? Sun isn't more active than it usually is even considering the known cycles and the earth's orbit hasen't changed much in the last century.
JayMark2049 5 days ago
@JayMark2049 research what has been going on with the sun over the past few months! Its activity has been unprecedented. In addition it seems you are ignoring the fact that the entire solar system is warming.
AwakeToPresence 2 days ago
@AwakeToPresence
'the entire solar system is warming' where are the links to this info?
blackadderthe4 1 day ago
@AwakeToPresence Global warming has been going for a long time, not just the past months. Our GHG emissions has added about 2.5 W/m^2 of radiative forcing into the atmosphere so far. The sun's radiative diffrence between peaks and sinks (11 year cycles) is of app 1 W/m^2 but you need to divide by 4 because the earth is a sphere (0.25) and consider the planet absorbs about 70% of it so you get app. 0.2 W/m^2.
JayMark2049 18 hours ago
Soden, B.J. 2000. "The Sensitivity of the Tropical Hydrological Cycle to ENSO." Journal of Climate 13, 538-549.
Soden, B.J., R.T. Wetherald, G.L. Stenchikov, and A. Robock 2002. "Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor." Science 296, 727-730.
Soden, B.J., D.L. Jackson, V. Ramaswamy, M.D. Schwarzkopf, and X. Huang, 2005. "The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening." Science 310, 841–844.
mphello 1 week ago
Sexton, D.M.H. 2001. "The effect of stratospheric ozone depletion on the phase of the Antarctic Oscillation." Geophysical Research Letters 28, 3697–3700.
Sherwood, S.C., J.R. Lanzante and C.L. Meyer 2005. "Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming." Science 309, 1556-1559.
mphello 1 week ago
Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, C. Mears, F.J. Wentz, S.A. Klein, D.J. Seidel,
K.E. Taylor, P.W. Thorne, M.F. Wehner, P.J. Glecker, J.S. Boyle, W.D. Collins,
K.W. Dixon, C. Doutriaux, M. Free, Q. Fu, J.E. Hansen, G.S. Jones, R. Ruedy, T.R. Karl,
J.R. Lanzante, G.A. Meehl, V. Ramaswamy, G. Russell and G.A. Schmidt 2005.
"Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere." Science 309, 1551-1556.
mphello 1 week ago
Santer, B.D., M.F. Wehner, T.M.L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G.A. Meehl, K.E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W.M. Washington, J.S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann 2003.
"Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes." Science 301, 480-483.
mphello 1 week ago
Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, G.A. Meehl, M.F. Wehner, C. Mears, M. Schabel, F.J. Wentz, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, T. Bettge, W.M. Washington, K.E. Taylor, J.S. Boyle, W. Brüggemann and C. Doutriaux 2003. "Influence of Satellite Data Uncertainties on the Detection of Externally Forced Climate Change." Science 300, 1280-1284.
mphello 1 week ago
Rind, D., and D. Peteet, 1985. "Terrestrial conditions at the last glacial maximum and CLIMAP sea-surface temperature estimates: Are they consistent?" Quaternary Research 24, 1-22.
Rind, D., R. Goldberg, and R. Ruedy. 1989. "Change in climate variability in the 21st century." Climatic Change 14, 5-37.
mphello 1 week ago
Ramaswamy, V., M.D. Schwarzkopf and W.J. Randel 1996. "Fingerprint of ozone depletion in the spatial and temporal pattern of recent lower-stratospheric cooling." Letter. Nature 382, 616-618.
Ramaswamy, V., M.D. Schwarzkopf, W.J. Randel, B.D. Santer, B.J. Soden, G.L. Stenchikov 2006. "Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling." Science 311, 1138-1141.
mphello 1 week ago
Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt, R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. Walsh,
and A.V. Yulin 2001. "Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming." Geophysical Research Letters 29, 1878.
Quan, X., H.F. Diaz, and M.P. Hoerling 2002. Changes of The Hadley Circulation Since 1950.
The conference on the Hadley circulation: Present, Past and Future, 12–15 November, 2002, Honolulu, HI.
mphello 1 week ago
Plass, G.N. 1956. "Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate." American Journal of Physics 24, 376-387.
mphello 1 week ago
Philipona, R., B. Dürr, C. Marty, A. Ohmura, and M. Wild 2004.
"Radiative Forcing--Measured at Earth's Surface--Corroborate the Increasing Greenhouse Effect." Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03202
mphello 1 week ago
Mears, Carl A. and Wentz, Frank J. 2005. "The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature." Science 309, 1548-1551.
Minschwaner, K., and A.E. Dessler, 2004. "Water vapor feedback in the tropical upper troposphere: Model results and observations." Journal of Climate 17, 1272–1282.
mphello 1 week ago
McGregor, H.V., M. Dima, H.W. Fischer, and S. Mulitza 2007. "Rapid 20th-Century Increase in Coastal Upwelling off Northwest Africa." Science 315, 637-639.
Melanda, M.Y., Jansen, E., and H. Elderfield 2005. "Constraints on SST estimates for the northern North Atlantic/Nordic Seas during the LGM."
Quaternary Science Reviews 24, Pages 835-852.
mphello 1 week ago
Mann, M.E., Z. Zhang, M.K. Hughes, R.S. Bradley, S.K. Miller, S. Rutherford, and F. Ni 2008. "Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia." Proceedings of the National Academies of Science 105, 13252-13257.
mphello 1 week ago
Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer. 1980. "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 5529–5554.
mphello 1 week ago
Lubin, D. 1994. "The Role of the Tropical Super Greenhouse Effect in Heating the Ocean Surface." Science 265, 224-227.
Manabe, S. and R.T. Wetherald 1967. "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-259.
mphello 1 week ago
Lau, K.-M., C.-H. Ho, and M.-D. Chou 1996. "Water vapor and cloud feedback over the tropical oceans: Can we use ENSO as a surrogate for climate change?" Geophysical Research Letters 23, 2971–2974.
Lean, J.L. and D.H. Rind 2008. "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006." Geophysical Research Letters 35, L18701.
mphello 1 week ago
Kushner, P.J., I.M. Held, and T.L. Delworth 2001. "Southern Hemisphere Atmospheric Circulation Response to Global Warming." Journal of Climate 14, 2238–2249.
Langematz, U., M. Kunze, K. Krüger, K. Labitzke, and G.L. Roff 2003. "Thermal and dynamical changes of the stratosphere since 1979 and their link to ozone and CO2 changes."
Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 4027.
mphello 1 week ago
In The Mount Pinatubo Eruption: Effects on the Atmosphere and Climate, NATO ASI Series Vol. I 42. G. Fiocco, D. Fua, and G. Visconti, Eds. Springer-Verlag, pp. 233-272.
mphello 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, A. Lacis, K. Asamoah, S. Borenstein, E. Brown, B. Cairns, G. Caliri, M. Campbell, B. Curran, S. de Castro, L. Druyan, M. Fox, C. Johnson, J. Lerner, M.P. McCormick, R.L. Miller, P. Minnis, A. Morrison, L. Pandolfo, I. Ramberran, F. Zaucker, M. Robinson, P. Russell, K. Shah, P. Stone, I. Tegen, L. Thomason, J. Wilder, and H. Wilson 1996. "A Pinatubo climate modeling investigation."
mphello 1 week ago
Hansen, J. A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, and M. Sato 1992. "Potential Climate Impact of Mount Pinatubo Eruption." Geophysical Research Letters 19, 215-218.
mphello 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gettelman, A. and Q. Fu 2008. "Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback." Journal of Climate 21, 3282-3289.
Goes, J.I., P.G. Thoppil, B. do R. Gomes, and J.T. Fasullo 2005. "Warming of the Eurasian Landmass Is Making the Arabian Sea More Productive." Science 308, 545-547.
mphello 1 week ago
Fyfe, J.C., G.J. Boer, and G.M. Flato 1999. "The Arctic and Antarctic oscillations and their projected changes under global warming." Geophysical Research Letters 26, 1601–1604.
mphello 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren and D.J. Seidel 2004. "Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends." Letter. Nature 429, 55-58.
Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, J.M. Wallace, and T. Reichler 2006. "Enhanced Mid-Latitude Tropospheric Warming in Satellite Measurements." Science 312, 1179.
mphello 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Farrera1, I., S.P. Harrison, I.C. Prentice, G. Ramstein, J. Guiot, P.J. Bartlein, R. Bonnefille, M. Bush, W. Cramer, U. von Grafenstein, K. Holmgren, H. Hooghiemstra, G. Hope,
D. Jolly, S.-E. Lauritzen, Y. Ono, S. Pinot, M. Stute and G. Yu 1999. "Tropical climates at the Last Glacial Maximum: a new synthesis of terrestrial palaeoclimate data. I.
Vegetation, lake-levels and geochemistry." Climate Dynamics 15, 823-856.
mphello 1 week ago
Evans, W.F.J., and E. Puckrin 2006. "Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate." 18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change, P1.7
de F. Forster, P.M., and K.P. Shine 1999. "Stratospheric water vapour changes as a possible contributor to observed stratospheric cooling." Geophysical Research Letters 26, 3309–3312.
mphello 1 week ago
Doran, P.T., J.C. Priscut, W.B. Lyons, J.E. Walsh, A.G. Fountain, D.M. McKnight, D.L. Moorhead, R.A. Virginia, D.H. Wall, G.D. Clow, C.S. Fritsen, C.P. McKay, and A.P. Parsons 2002.
"Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response." Letter. Nature 415, 517-520.
mphello 1 week ago
Dai, A., K.E. Trenberth, and T.R. Karl 1999. "Effects of Clouds, Soil Moisture, Precipitation, and Water Vapor on Diurnal Temperature Range." Journal of Climate 12, 2451-2473.
Dessler, A.E. and S. Wong 2009. "Estimates of the Water Vapor Climate Feedback during El Niño–Southern Oscillation." Journal of Climate 22, 6404-6412.
mphello 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof of AGW
Comiso, J.C. 2003. "Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations." Journal of Climate 16, 3498-3510.
Crowley, T.J. 2000. "Causes of Climate Change over the Past 1000 Years." Science 289, 270-277.
Crozier, L. 2003. "Winter warming facilitates range expansion: cold tolerance of the butterfly Atalopedes campestris." Oecologia 125, 648-656.
mphello 1 week ago
Proof of the Law of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Callendar, G.S. 1938. "The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Climate." Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 64, 223-240.
mphello 1 week ago
Proof of AGW
Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276.
Bakun, A. 1990. "Coastal Ocean Upwelling." Science 247, 198-201.
Balling, R.C. et al. 1998. "Analysis of winter and summer warming rates in gridded temperature time series." Climate Research 9, 175-181.
Broecker, W.S. 1975. "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" Science 189, 460-463.
mphello 1 week ago
Okay, I would not wanna live in 1100 BC. That would be soooo friiigggiinnnnn hoooootttt
CrAz1m0nk3ii117 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, the temperature has changed in the past. However, the kind of change that has taken millions of years before has happened in only about 10,000 years due to the presence of humans.
mahaLoLolo1 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mahaLoLolo1 2 weeks ago
Remember, The Earth is an iron core object (electro-magnet), trapped by the gravity of the sun, trapped by the gravity of the matter at the center of the galaxy... matter, when crushed, turns into energy. Current through an iron core object heats and magnetizes it. A correct climate measurement must be done over millions of years, also taking the above into account. - R Gallaher PhD Astrophysics
TheTimeTraveler2025 2 weeks ago
This chart is far too short of a time duration to draw any conclusion...
TheTimeTraveler2025 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Three people are asked to describe an elephant. Each are only permitted to touch one part of the elephant to describe it... one the tail... one the body... and one the trunk... each will have a different description of the elephant. You must take all parts of the elephant into consideration. CO2 has very little if any long term effect on climate. Even the sun has short term radiant effect, the cycle doesn't coincide with the suns cycle... Effects are galactic and on a galactic cycle.
TheTimeTraveler2025 2 weeks ago
The solar system is traveling in a sine wave through the galactic plane. Matter is attracted to the center of our galaxy and crushed into energy. This energy is ejected 90 degrees from the matter plane. Some of the energy returns in the matter plane of the galaxy. This creates 2 galactic current fields. When the earth passes the galactic matter plane earth in at max current and inductive global warming. Crossing the plane flips the magnetic poles when the galactic current changes (Amperes Law).
TheTimeTraveler2025 2 weeks ago
FYI The term Climate Change was created by the GOP during GWB to persuade idiots like you that what humans have done to the planet is not disgusting and that we should continue to pollute at an even greater rate in the name of jobs and the economy. Tells your kids they will have jobs, but no planet to live on!
SimXLive 2 weeks ago
@SimXLive BRAVO! AGW-deniers should have all their property, clean water, and clean air taken away from them and given to the liberals and Greens who deserve them and have earned them.
mphello 1 week ago
@mphello
AGW = Arctic Winter Games? The liberals don't deserve anything because they are the ignorant and stupid ones. They want to save the planet but yet they don't know how to reduce their environmental footprints. Some green conservatives (like me) KNOW what to do to reduce their environmental impact and are doing it with no help from the government.
albertabeefcowboy84 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@albertabeefcowboy84 Conservatives don't deserve to live because they are the ones who oppose animal rights, who eat meat, breed, and defend rightwing religions like xtianity, islamofascism, and scientology that destroy children's minds with fairytales and destructive beliefs that "prayer" will save us.
Conservatives are the ones who hate freedom. Why else don't they support freeing all prisoners?
mphello 3 days ago
@albertabeefcowboy84 What do you mean they don't know how? Could you explain that? Not a single politician IMO will say the truth about what we REALLY need to do in order to save the planet because it implies so much change that most people (to this day) will sadly refuse to go through and I understand why. I'm doing research in environment to and am getting into new technologies to make clean energy. Peace buddy.
JayMark2049 18 hours ago
The graph above has no " y"scale, its is therefore scientifically as useful as a chocolate teapot. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions disproves the graph above thoroughly.
checkyoursources 2 weeks ago
@checkyoursources I almost didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing out that this graph is an obvious fabrication.
SimXLive 2 weeks ago
While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.See the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions for confirmation. The graph above is not from a peer reviewed source, nor does it have scales?!
It is scientifically useless.
checkyoursources 2 weeks ago
The global temperature has gone down since 1999. CO2 has nothing to do with us recovering from the ice age. Please dont insult our intelligence.
evertonman1000 3 weeks ago
@checkyoursources Just to illustrate an attribution technique. X1 = n% After an observed period of time X2 = (n+1)%. During that time Y1=m% and Y2=(m+6)%. Attribution simply implies that variable X was influenced by variable Y. Than again strong correlation can still imply independent variables. If you boil water with wood you will increase CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.That variable would still be independent (decreasing CO2 will not aid you to decrease H2O).
Researchrules 4 weeks ago
@checkyoursources Attribuation does not equal causation. Check your dictionary. Attribuation is an arbitrary process.Dictionary:the act of attributing; ascription. Pure H2O molecules can not be fingerprinted. That pure H2O molecules are conserving heat, as they lack the reflectiveness.Water in the gas, using fuel to heat water both generate water droplets with CO2 traces.
Researchrules 4 weeks ago
@Researchrules Please feel free to read the study before you jump to pedantic conclusions: "Identification of human-induced changes
in atmospheric moisture content" 15248–15253 PNAS September 25, 2007 vol. 104 no. 39
checkyoursources 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
moron, did you see the record heat in texas and the rest of the country the last two years, look up texas drought, new mexico wilfires, geogia drought with 2010 2011 in the search terms, fools!
livingproofof 1 month ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 1 month ago
well the y-axis doesnt even have a scale so you could draw whatever shape you wanted on here and it still wouldnt mean anything. bad science!
MrIsaacE 1 month ago
I have just removed the crucifix from my mantle and replaced it with this highly enlightening chart. You had me at "very warm".
mephistofleas 1 month ago
Do you remember dinosaurs? What about mammoths? I'll bet you a million dollars that in a few thousand years, the temperature outside is going to be just a little bit different than it is today. I'll bet you a million more dollars that the humans aren't going to be the right people to blame for this. I might be wrong. Maybe "ice ages" are fake...
Robbie12992 1 month ago
While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
(National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions)
checkyoursources 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources"While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions." That statement is provably false. Ice core records, peatbog, stalagmites, etc, from all over the world prove that to be false.
Both the northern and southern hemisphere ice cores all show warming of the MWP and Holocene period, and during this time temperatures did not go down around the equator. Therefore global temps were higher.
MrOTLChamp 1 week ago
"The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made." is like saying:
'The Black Death in the middle ages is estimated to have killed more of Europe's population than World War 2. This means that deaths during World War 2 were not unusual, and hence must be due to natural causes, not man-made' ?!
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Trailling along the Black Death was an example of biological warfare. As we are all familiar, the Mongols threw diseased bodies into the city of Caffa to drive the defenders out. Despite the vehicles of destruction ware different (biological warfare vs. physical warfare), the causes was the same (WAR).
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules The black death was not man made, bullets are, both kill. You made the error of assuming that if an observation had a natural cause in the past, it automatically has the same cause in the future. e.g. Its the same as saying: "A dinosaur breaks a leaf off a plant therefore any leaves on the ground must have been knocked off by dinosaurs?!" Which is the same as an AGW skeptic saying that past changes were natural therefore every change is natural and not influenced by humans.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Yestimia Pestis might have been a local event in the Asian Steppes. Without human policies (killing dogs and cats, spreading the disease through primitive biological warfare, we might still have a densely populated Europe). Black death was the conscious appliance of a natural phenomenon to kill people, so the event was anthropic (at least for the European development). Black death ceased to be a natural event when it was deliberately applied to warfare.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules So you do agree that both natural AND/OR just human influenced causes can lead to changes in the environment which was my original point.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Climate is a function of landscape, atmospheric compounds, solar activity, weakness in Earth's magnetic field, supernovae. The active parts of the system are those which release energy into the system. The catalysts are elements of the system which amplify the effects of that release. CO2 is a catalyst, not a cause for the system.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules CO2 causes warming (current) AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise (past).
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources That is called disjunction. You can't simply invert cause and effect in a theory arbitrarily. The scientific method calls for consistency. It is like saying (Big Bang created the Universe) but now the Universe is preparing another Big Bang.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Since the Medieval Period Holland has increased in size through damming and water management.Dam construction projects for hydroelectric plants can alter wind patterns in mountain regions.Land use policies can turn prairie into deserts (Dust Bowl). The question remains: Are those risks probable enough to determine policy changes?
Researchrules 1 month ago
@checkyoursources You might imply the butterfly effect theory. From that point of view AGW might sound reasonable and valid (from common sense and science). But the point comes to causality, feedback and statistical significance of the phenomenon.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules CO2 is a GHG, we have increased it, no?
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Currently the sample range isn't enough for any opinions (both for and against) to be expressed on the matter. As I've said earlier in the CGW video, modelers would still need at least 100 years of instrumental data.That would eliminate proxy uncertainties and allow a valid equation to be constructed.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules The longest-running quasi-global record starts in 1850. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Making a model to fit the theory and data sets I call this. That is why they need supercomputers. It is like adding dimensions to an observation so you can keep your theory without negating the data.
If I said speed = kilometers/time^2 and the speedometer detected a speed which corresponds to kilometers/time, I could add a "correction" equation to it like speed = time' *(kilometers/time). Make time' = time *99% and you have slipped your model.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules Several models including those of purely natural causes have been made to try and explain the recent warming trend but the model that fits bests is the one that includes AGW.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Just as I told you. You can keep a constant in a system and distort the impact of other variables through weighting. Without the feedback system AGW would be an insignificant variable, and that system can be challenged. A trend-line is arbitrarily drawn. A geometric, harmonic or arithmetic average with weights attached yield different results. Using a harmonic average provides lower averages than arithmetic averages.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules "Without the feedback system AGW would be an insignificant variable" I disagree, even without any feedbacks taken into account, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006).
checkyoursources 4 weeks ago
@checkyoursources And volcanic eruptions increase it, and vegetation decay increase it, and a lot of other factors increase it. In a risk based audit Risk = probability * impact. So far the samples required to obtain a reasonable insurance that the probability has been properly evaluated are insufficient for a 95% probability and 5% error. And results over the impacts are ambivalent.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules It would appear that many scientists with more experience disagree with you on the probability and data set.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Argument from numbers and argument from authority do not change the facts. Scientific arguments are not like politics. If overwhelming numbers agree on something it does not imply that their arguments are valid.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules So you are saying that if there was a scientific concensus on a particular treatment for cancer that you would ignore it?
You've supplied many reasons why you think AGW is invalid but no alternatives to AGW that fit the data better?
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Non sequitur. Treatment for that particular type of cancer would have empirical confirmations from all parties and would be experimental. The patients' bodies would provide direct feedback for the treatment, observable in a controlled environment. Climate however is a different story, and consensus on a topic where direct and observable feedback can not be obtained is ignorable.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules "Climate however is a different story." Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
checkyoursources 4 weeks ago
@checkyoursources Magnetic interference can distort the infrared spectrum recorded by instruments. Just to give you an example. Place an electric magnet near a CRT monitor. Use a camera to record the images from the screen. Increase the power of the magnet gradually. That magnetic interference distorts the light spectrum as it is captured by sensors.
Researchrules 3 weeks ago
@Researchrules Never heard of "shielding" or adjutment for the magnetic field?
checkyoursources 3 weeks ago
@checkyoursources No conclusion can be yet drawn (both for and against) as the evidence is insufficient for relevant conclusions. And in a court of law, if the prosecution fails to deliver relevant and reliable evidence the case is closed. The defense is not required to put the same amount of evidence as the prosecution to obtain an acquittal. The judge has a responsibility to weight the evidence. The AGW movement is the prosecution in this case, I might add.
Researchrules 1 month ago
@Researchrules A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
When inaction is likely to be much worse than action , why would you not take the action?
checkyoursources 4 weeks ago
We should be more worried about clean air and clean water than global warming. Smog is actually dangerous to breathe, which people in Los Angeles would understand perfectly.... But no... instead we're worried about a half a degree in temperature variation. Silly humans.
And yes, global climate shifts dramatically over time. There's nothing you can do about it, except to ADAPT. And putting a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to prevent a volcanic winter either, so dont get any ideas.
vendurra 1 month ago
@vendurra absolutely, just because someone argues against global warming, and the carbon taxes promoted by left wing radicals, doesn't mean you support pollution
because you see AGW as shit theory, doesn't mean you want dirty air
yet leftists immediately attack you as such
GWfarce69 1 month ago
Oh by the the way, Cliff Harris, who created this chart is a known fraud.
ollywatkins 1 month ago
I think I will unpack my crayons today and draw some squigly lines. Lets see, i heard something about a middle age warm period. Lets put a big bump there, and maybe scatter some volcanos around. squiggle squiggle squiggle
ollywatkins 1 month ago
@ollywatkins Volcanic eruptions are a matter of historical record... And they do cause significant cooldowns... The recent Mount Pinatubo eruption had a VEI of 6, which is no joke.
Oh, and lastly - I dislike all things right-wing... But I also believe the global warming issue is weak. Stick to clean air, clean water, and food safety regulations. We need clean air and clean water to live.
vendurra 1 month ago
@vendurra right on. But still you are talking about volcanic ash... which is interesting in its own right, but has nothing (or barely anything) to do with CO2 levels.
ollywatkins 1 month ago
@ollywatkins Did you remember to erase the tree ring data that conflicted narrative?
cheeseburger12 1 month ago
Did you pull this graph out of your ass? the middle age warming period was not as warm as it has been in the last two decades. And what do volcanos have to do with the current warming? The CO2 they spit out are a miniscule fraction as to the CO2 that humans produce.
ollywatkins 1 month ago
@ollywatkins I have a link to the graph in the description. I "pulled" it from there, not from the other place. Try not to be so rude in your next comment. Thanks.
jbranstetter04 1 month ago 4
@jbranstetter04 google "reconstructed Temperature Comparison" for the actual scientifically created graph. Does it look any different to your pretty graph? The guy who drew that graph of yours is living in fantasy land.
ollywatkins 1 month ago
@ollywatkins CO2 levels from nature is beyond anything we will ever reach, which makes it hard for many of us to believe our CO2 production has any effect on the temperatures around the world.
Please find out the levels coming from THE SEVEN SEAS, VULCANOES, FORESTS, RAINFORESTS and then compare them to human CO2 production and make a new conclusion.
puttefnask 1 month ago
@puttefnask forest and land (including volcanos) 439gt going out, 450gt going in, oceans : 332gt out, 338gt in. Humans contribute 29gt to the atmosphere. Its small, i agree, but it is throwing the balance out of whack. You can see this by noticing how CO2ppm has steadily increased over the last 100 years. The oceans and ofrests cannot work fast enough to eat up all that extra CO2.
ollywatkins 1 month ago
@ollywatkins And there's your problem and Al Gore's. It's based on the research of Michael E Mann, who was revealed to have hidden the truth about several aspects of his research like for instance, covering up that he couldn't add things up without totally ignoring important parts of the source research material.
Read all about his and other's hacked E-mail here:
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354
puttefnask 1 month ago
@puttefnask ok. so what are the gigatons of CO2 going in and out of the oceans and forest? and what are the CO2 that humans are producing?
ollywatkins 1 month ago
@ollywatkins Volcanos cause cooling, especially those of VEI 6 or above. They didn't coin the phrase volcanic winter for nothing. Read about the year without a summer (1816) after the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815. It's a fascinating read. Volcanic eruptions of that magnitude have world wide repercussions caused by ash in the Statosphere blocking out the heat of the sun.
vendurra 1 month ago
@vendurra we're talking about ash now. its a completely different thing.
ollywatkins 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ollywatkins "the middle age warming period was not as warm as it has been in the last two decades"
What? what evidence do you have to support this? ANYTHING?
Because what we do know, is grapes were grown in Britian and the Norse settled Greenland
Both, essentially impossible now.
So how on earth can anyone thing this is the warmest it has ever been?
dig a few inches in FL, you'll see that it was an ancient coral reef. How did it get above sea level?
GWfarce69 1 month ago
@GWfarce69 In addition, we know that the little ice age was extremely cold and during that natural cold spell, a volcano erupted which pushed our planet even colder
it was called the year without a summer - please google it
The volcano was called Tambora, look it up
Volcanoes can have a huge impact on the environment, both cooling and heating the planet
Yet, what % of the atmosphere is CO2, do you even know?
What do plants use to make oxygen?
GWfarce69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ollywatkins " the middle age warming period was not as warm as it has been in the last two decades."
All ice core data shows more warming than we've seen in the last two decades. Where do you get your info from..Cause it's all wrong. Again, ALL ICE CORE DATA SAYS THIS.
MrOTLChamp 2 weeks ago
@ollywatkins Bravo. Exactly.
AGW-deniers are so stupid. They love cherrypicking data, or making it up if they haven't got any.
If AGW Law were wrong, why haven't any AGW-deniers published peer-reviewed papers and crunched the numbers on supercomputers proving a difference cause for the last centuries 1 deg C temperature rise?
mphello 1 week ago
Excellent chart thanks for the info.
tugaman1000 2 months ago
You have no response for the picture so you attack the messenger. This is a typical leftist ploy to derail truth. It won't work on me. The picture says it all. It is a historical and scientific fact that the Earth was warmer in past periods than it is now. We're not even talking 100,000,000 years ago, as the Earth was warmer at the end of the middle ages than it is now. Try actually saying something relevant. If you trust the "climatgate" climatologists your the one one with the tin foil hat.
EricShermansChannel 2 months ago
No need to swear . I cannot help it if you are a poor brainwashed little shite.
david222444 2 months ago
My physical anthropology professor put a similar timeline on the overhead when I was in college 15 years ago, and told us global warming was utter nonsense. She then passed around aligator fossils that were found in England, from about the 1100 BC era when when England's climate was almost tropical. It's funny how they call those of us who were educated prior to Al Gore's nonsense, "ignorant", for not believing in their indoctrination that can be proven wrong through both science and history.
EricShermansChannel 2 months ago
@EricShermansChannel Climatologists say that your teacher's a clueless idiot. The data clearly shows warming, and it's getting worse. When Arctic ice is completely gone in summer melts, you'll do more mental gymnastics and convince yourself that it's normal and not due to burning of fossil fuels.
You sound like the religiously retarded who claim that the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution doesn't exist.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Take a look at the picture again genius. I know the truth hurts. Real history and science disprove your theories. That "teacher" as you refer to her, was an accomplished anthropologist, at a top tier university, you,re a coward hurling insults from behind a troll account, at people infinitely more intelligent than you. Typical. Grow up and get a life.
EricShermansChannel 2 months ago
@EricShermansChannel An anthropologist? Why not ask a proctologist?
Check with actual Climatologists, retard. The real data is overwhelming.
Do you think that something's up with those chemtrails? No worries. Your aluminum foil hat will protect you.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 According to your climatologists, where I live is supposed to be under water right now. Every prediction they made has been wrong, because they're deliberately manipulating the data.
EricShermansChannel 2 months ago
@EricShermansChannel How convenient for you that you don't state specifically where this is that has been predicted to be under water.
Predicyions of polar ice melt and temperature rise are continually exceeded. Climatologists haven't predicted even one foot of sea level rise to have already taken place, so unless you're living at less than one foot above sea level, you're lying.
In fact, you're lying. Who do you think you're persuading? Your fellow retards are already deluded.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
Look children there is 1 FACT you need to know about SCIENCE. FOR IT TO BE SCIENCE IT MUST BE PEER REVIEWED. It must be submitted to a journal to TRY to tear it to pieces - if it hasn't it isn't. SCUM like the poster of this video wants you to be confused so they can delight in killing BILLIONS - follow them and you and your children's future will be ruined...
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Thank you for that...
This video literally had me stunned in stupidity...
Anyone who does not believe in global warming should be _______
Fill in the blank
XKUNXEntertainment 2 months ago
@XKUNXEntertainment Anyone who does not believe in global warming should be COMMENDED?
jbranstetter04 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity Look children these warming people are insane enough to think that a harmless trace gas, heavier than air, can actually influence and even run the Planet's climate. Do not listen to their lies and faked data. The truth will come out that the planet is acually cooling due to natural causes like the Sun's variability. Do not be scared by these Eco Loons.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 You sad fuck...
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
climategate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
MrTranscend1 2 months ago
The planet will do as its environment dictates. Namely the sun, the galaxy we are in, the universe we move through. CO2 is not the driver, nor is it an immediate threat. A doubling of it will cause a +/- 4* rise by the IPCC's calculation. We have increased it by less than 4% in 150 years, at this rate a doubling would take a very long time, and still, may be benificial. Still waiting for that study showing a threat from CO2. See below for studies of what is driving our climate.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Looks like a consensus on one thing for sure, SPACE dictates our climate. Not Al Gore, or you, and definitely not CO2, at least not in a harmful way.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia (Space Science Reviews, vol. 125, issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, 22 December 2006) - J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature (Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, issue 7, pp. 1035-1038, 1998) - E. W. Cliver, V. Boriakoff, J. Feynman
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability (International Journal of Climatology, vol. 22, issue 8, pp. 901-915, 27 May 2002) - Ronald E. Thresher
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width from Chile (AD 1587–1994) (Planetary and Space Science, vol. 55, issue 1-2, pp. 158-164, January 2007) - Nivaor Rodolfo Rigozoa, Daniel Jean Roger Nordemann, Heitor Evangelista da Silva, Mariza Pereira de Souza Echer, Ezequiel Echer
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Solar activity variations and global temperature (Energy [Oxford], vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1273-1284, 1993) - Eigil Friis-Christensen
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
The planet will do as its environment dictates. Namely the sun, the galaxy we are in the universe we move through. CO2 is not the driver, nor is it an immediate threat. A doubling of it will cause a =/- 4* rise by the IPCC's calculation. We have increased it by less than 4% in 150 years, at this rate a doubling would take a long time. Still waiting for that study showing a threat from CO2.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is slowly being corrected, by honest players, but it is to be expected when you let politicians mandate what science studies, or ignores. The IPCC was flawed from the beginning, as the mandate they were given was to explore only manmade, and not natural climate changes. One must look at the whole picture to understand anything
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is slowly being corrected, by honest players, but it is to be expected when you let politicians mandate what science studies, or ignores. The IPCC was flawed from the beginning, as the mandate they were given was to explore only manmade, and not natural climate changes. One must look at the whole picture to understand anything.
TheKickerboy99 9 months ago
All gasses have unique properties. CO2 studied since mid 1600's.
Clouds also keep in heat - ever notice that overcast winter nights are less cold.
Co2 keeps in heat, so how could 100s of million of tons CO2 have no effect.
PacificCircle1 10 months ago
there no sense for us to continue this since we are just not gonna agree.
Pat9201 10 months ago
@Pat9201 I agree, since you are clearly wrong and woefully uninformed on this very critical issue.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@robhoneycutt LOL...fished in.
Pat9201 10 months ago
much of that"scientific literure" you speak of proves that the earth as had much bigger changes in its climate before ppl were even around....did you fail to read that part?
Pat9201 10 months ago
@Pat9201 Again, no one is claiming that climate has not changed before. We know what drives climate change in the past. We know how the planet moderates climate through a very slow rock weathering process. That's how we account for liquid water on the planet a billion years ago when the solar output was much less than today. Atmospheric CO2 levels.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
Do any one remember the can full of water and ice that was heated up?yes the one from high school physic class experiment.Any one?The temperature will raise no more than 4C until all the ice melts, so what will happen to us and Earth when the ice is gone?The temperature will jump sky high.There is no return,we are way pass the red line,there is nothing we can do.So lets enjoy it until it ends.OK
CastleRockCO 1 year ago
@CastleRockCO ice is at Record levels Do some research an more Glaciers are Expanding than Shrinking Fool
theylive1984rm 11 months ago
@theylive1984rm That is utterly incorrect. Go to the NSIDC site and look at the data.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@theylive1984rm U are a good patsy for lies - brainded washed rt winger. What to buy the Grand Canyon cheap - it's wrapped in flags!
PacificCircle1 10 months ago
We don't have to destroy the economy in order to save our atmosphere from the highest levels of CO2 which is even much higher than in midevil warm period.
It is not only temps I worry about, it is ocean acidification (and other things that can go wrong when a species doubles the CO2 content!
C'mon deniers, get real! CO2 is a proven infrared absorber. If you don't understand, then debate something else, like where we are going to get our next barrel of oil from...
fireofenergy 1 year ago
@fireofenergy are you F@cking retarded Volcanic activity has quadruped CO2 in the past you sound like an Idiot ! no CO2 no plant life FOOL ! CO2 Is Heaver Than Air Fool that is why they would take a Canary in a coal mine low pockets of CO2 would kill the bird FOOL !
theylive1984rm 11 months ago
@fireofenergy House Painter Turned Internet Atmospheric expert based on Internet Google research LOL
FOOL !
theylive1984rm 11 months ago
The environmental statists will always get the following question wrong: What is the biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?
aznravechild6i9 1 year ago
This graph says it all, a similar picture was in my geology textbook at university before the global warming scam became all the rage.
Dodger481 1 year ago
This graph is a joke, and downright goofy ("Nomanic times"?). It was debunked the moment it come out, years ago, yet here it is; proof that crap can live forever online.
perfectwo1 1 year ago
You got to give it to the politicians.. They have totally politicized an issue that everyone on the planet isn't even sure about. It's all about delivery.. Coming from Al Gore and the UN.... And people believe it.. A scientist of 40 years throws a graph of all his work for his lifetime... And people still find Gore more truthful... It's all because Gore has enough money to make a movie and the scientist spends all HIS money on research... You can't argue who's right or wrong but WHO to believe.
47thedude 1 year ago
Cliff Harris falsely advertises himself as being considered to be the top 10 climatologists in the world when has no professional training in science. Cliff Harris doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate. He cherry-picks his evidence for global cooling and ignoring the global picture. By the way his faked global temperature graph doesn't even have a y-axis, showing that this isn't real science. If he submitted this to a peer-reviewed journal it would be easily rejected
SiberianExpress2007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Russian President Medvedev 2009
"(global warming is) some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects."
Russian President Medvedev after July 31, 2010
"practically everything is burning. The weather is anomalously hot. What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, ...in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate."
egeefay 1 year ago
There is no Y axis on this chart. This chart is completely made up. There is no data to back up any information represented on it.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt maybe al gore should have used this one instead of his own made up chart?
Pat9201 10 months ago
@Pat9201 You obviously know very little about this issue. Gore used the Vostok ice core record. The chart this video refers to is completely made up. It's based on no data at all.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@robhoneycutt must be why he bought beach front property in california,because he believes the ocean lvl will rise 20 feet...;^).
Pat9201 10 months ago
@Pat9201 Why are you stuck on Al Gore? And besides, if you ever look at his "beachfront property" it's not at sea level. Do you ever bother to check up on the things you read on the internet? Guess not.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@robhoneycutt why do ppl continue to buy into this crap?youve been suckered.
Pat9201 10 months ago
@Pat9201 No. I've actually bothered to read the scientific literature. You have not.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@Pat9201 If you look at IPCC sea level projections, sea level is anticipated to rise 1-2 meters by 2100. I don't think Gore is anticipating being around in 100 years. But over the next several hundred years humans are very likely to need to contend with sea level rise on the scale of 10-20 meters. Last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today the sea level was, indeed, 25 meters higher than today.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@robhoneycutt ya,the earths climate has never changed that much over its history (on its own)LOL.climate change is natural and ppl are cashing in off of it
Pat9201 10 months ago
@Pat9201 Straw man argument. No one claims the climate has never changed before. In fact, it's based on prior climate change that we understand what drives current changes in climate and what the consequences may be.
robhoneycutt 10 months ago
@robhoneycutt earth has been changing since its been formed but now its humans fault...got it.(nice logic)
Pat9201 10 months ago
@Pat9201 Over the past 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels have only changed between 190-280ppm. We have added an additional 35% over preindustrial levels. That is driving an enhanced greenhouse effect that is warming the pl