CO2 has magical, mystical, and omnipotent powers and unless we pay our carbon tax tithes to the Carbon Cult on Wall St, we will continue to have hurricanes, floods, droughts, extreme cold & heat, growing & melting glaciers, etc
Let's all pay our carbon tithes to the Carbon Cult Church and go back to enjoying our earth as than all of that will stop and everything will be beautiful.
Also, if we mitigate and go green it will be far cheaper than adaptation later. Adaptation globally will cost anywhere from 800 trillion to 1200 trillion over next century. This is unacceptable. Adaptation to a very hot world which will be 7-8 degrees Celsius hotter on avg. in 80-90 years will kill midwest ag. 30% of calories come from midwest ag. Food security will be a national security issue. Food riots and social unrest w/ restriction of freedoms and martial law will be reality.Stop big oil!
Currently we are just going into solar cycle 25 which like 24 will probably be a dud. 24 had a minima of approx. 8 years. Solar irradiance went down this last decade. Climate is more sensitive than predicted by IPCC in 2007. Threat to life? Don't exagerate. Solar can provide all our needs. At surface avg irradiance in W is 1000W/m^2. 8hr * 1000=8KwHr, 100 sq m * 8KwHr = 800 KwHr. Now go look at your power bill. Get the message. They want to keep you addicted to oil. Dustbowlification is coming.
@MrAluminous "Dustbowlification is coming." The 30s dust-bowl was a minor event. Everyone just went to Californiay to pick oranges. We can't stop big oil. They'll be big windmills next. Otherwise I'm thumbing-up your comments.
The hydrocarbons formed in the anaerobic deep from the hydrocarbons of life that died with the dinosaurs. Before the fossil fuels formed there were natural ice ages! In the Jurassic age.
I was taught on an injuring degree that carbon fuels carbon date to 65,000,000 years ago air. When 85% of life on earth died. There carbohydrates formed the hydrocarbons in the anaerobic deep. There were natural ice ages before then!
@JonThm "I was taught on an injuring degree that carbon fuels carbon date to 65,000,000". As nospacesallowed has correctly noted, your injuring degree should have taught you the time limitations of carbon dating. Hovind has also used similar false claim, as clearly noted on potholer54, who gives a very clear explanation on why such old rocks can't be carbon dated. ("Hoy! Hovind!", etc)
@JonThm On the other hand, science can always advance, and at least carbon IS present. So I'll check out this "anaerobic deep", tho to be honest, I suspect there's many having a good laugh while I chase my tail checking these baseless assertions.
I was taught fossil fuels carbon dated to 65 million years ear or first year of my engineering degree. 85% of life on earth died with the dinosaurs and formed the fossil fuels! There were natural ice ages in the Jurassic.
@JonThm "85% of life on earth died with the dinosaurs and formed the fossil fuels". An 85% extinction sounds more like the Permian, a global environmental catastrophe. The K-T was a measly meteroite as Earth was furiously burying CO2 into limestone by the K-T. You know, the eroding Dover cliffs? The cement factories?
@bobinhk1 "An 85% extinction sounds more like the Permian...The K-T was a measly meteroite as Earth was furiously burying CO2 into limestone by the K-T"
Just curious. How are you so DAMN SURE about these MILLIONS of YEARS AGO FAIRY TALES as if they were FACTS?! When we DO NOT even have a PROPER GLOBAL CLIMATE DATA of the last 50 years in an era of SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, how are you so sure about even 1000s or MILLIONS of YEARS ago CLIMATE ACTIVITIES?! Do you have a TIME MACHINE by any chance?!
@rationalindian10 "Do you have a TIME MACHINE by any chance?!". Glad I don't, I'd have to collect twice as much data. The millions of years come from other dating methods (strontium-rubidium, uranium-lead, etc etc etc), and are reasonably supported by the original stratographic relationships. BTW, all your comments are automatically marked as spam, tough to find them!
RE: 'I was taught fossil fuels carbon dated to 65 million years ear or first year of my engineering degree.'
Fossil fuels are fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.
If you pay attention the key word here is [may exceed 650 mya].
@JonThm "I was taught fossil fuels carbon dated to 65 million years ear or first year of my engineering degree. 85% of life on earth died with the dinosaurs and formed the fossil fuels! "
Utterly tired of hearing your ridiculous spew! Get it right, fossil fuels, as the name suggests, are very old. The North Sea oil deposits are around 150 million years old, whilst much of Britain’s coal began to form over 300 million years ago.
U have engineering degree? R u sure? I call .. BS!
1'30. The atmosphere is not only getting warmer, it's getting dirtier. The people who can't seem to wake up are the ones who can't recognise a closed system. Apart from greeting about bad science and bad policy, there's not much constructive from them, only obstructive. Fossil fuels have not made life better... they've made it POSSIBLE for most of us. And now it's running out...
@JonThm "carbon fuels formed 65,000,000 years ago". When I google 'fossil fuels age', first link says 'There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs'. How will you persuade me?
@JonThm You cannot carbon date anything to 65,000,000. Carbon dating works only up to about 10,000 years. They have other radioactive dating methods that can date to millions, but not carbon.
Truly a remarkable video; I could not have said (or illustrated) it better myself. Its content seems to be the genuine “inconvenient truth”. I surely will have all of my students watch this as part of tomorrow’s homework assignment.
What a load of shit. Having studied the environment now for 30 years I can only say that not only have all the predictions of global warming occurred a predicted, they have done so far quicker than expected. This is just a sponsored hack piece to confuse the facts. There isn't a single published peer reviewed paper that explains the warming as anything but human induced. The last 10 years have been the warmest on record, that's just a documented fact, not conjecture.
@PrairleDogged Yeah, I'll read a paper of his on climate when he actually produces one. In the meantime he's simply full of shit and more suited to talk about Sports Medicine than climate.
Yeah full of shit ~ that is why the House of Commons asked you to submit to the inquiry seeing as your vast knowledge is superior to Dr Keiller ~ I don't suppose you have been in close proximity to broken fluorescent lightbulbs have you ?
@PrairleDogged The question should be why should I listen to a guy spew complete rubbish about the climate when he's more suited to discuss steroid use in sports? If you know something, then you produce a paper about it. But that would require peer review from other scientist who, like good scientist, would point out the numerous mistakes he would make based on what I see in the video.
@WideOfVision I couldn't agree more with your comments there. What he is asking us to read is utter tripe, nothing more than crap leftover from the whole University of East Anglia rubbish & so called, "Climate-gate". The whole thing was nothing more than a manufactured controversy designed to undercut the scientific consensus on climate change & downplay global warming's projected effects.
@PacalB Unfortunately it is all pretty pointless. There are two tents in the denial camp: Those who don't know anything but like to disagree with anything that seems like it's coming from the tree hugging ecoterrorists, and those who couldn't possibly be that stupid so are obvious hacks for the coal, gas, oil, and mining interests. Here are two good sites to check out: realclimate daut org and desmogblog daut com
“The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms.”
Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada, June 5, 2008)
“So who is James Hoggan? He’s a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan Associates, positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the “right” public and private sectors. He sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation."
@PrairleDogged Yes well, I think the comments and discussions from science teachers and such on that site are a far better direction than any of the crap drivel you've been spewing.
Lets see now ...
DeSmogBlog was also listed by Time Magazine as one of the "best blogs of 2011" in June, 2011
You seem to have missed that part, oh what a surprise eh?
BTW Tnuc the "crap and drivel" you accuse me of spewing much of which is from peer reviewed literature offends you because it flies in the face of your brainwashing ?
Trouble with your sort you are incapable of questioning anything your taught ~ look up Penn and Teller getting hippies to ban water ~ this is you ! too blinkered to filter shite from sugar.
" Funding of RealClimate. ORG Just search for the registration information you will find out that RealClimate. ORG is run by Environmental Media Services and by Betsy Ensley.
EMS is primarily an organization to pay for junk science about food and beverages, often hired by food companies to damage their competitors; click the link in the previous sentence to learn more [and it's worth reading that bit too!]."
@WideOfVision Your comment: "The last 10 years have been the warmest on record, that's just a documented fact, not conjecture"!!!
TSSK, dont mind my spoiling your "GLOBAL WARMING" PARTY!!! 2009, 2010 and especially 2011 have been among the COLDEST compared to previous years in the PLACE I stay!!! Just in case you didn't know...
@rationalindian10 "2009, 2010 and especially 2011 have been among the COLDEST compared to previous years in the PLACE I stay". We shouldn't compare local trends with global averages, which are quite a good index, and remove the effects of temporary local effects.
@bobinhk1 Your comment: "We shouldn't compare local trends with global averages, which are quite a good index, and remove the effects of temporary local effects."!!!
Could you please elaborate on "HOW GLOBAL" is this "GLOBAL" trend?!! I mean:
What are the PLACES, LOCATIONS and AREAS whose temperatures are periodically checked? Is it each and every NOOK and CORNER of the WHOLE GLOBE or just a few "SELECTIVE" places and regions?!
@rationalindian10 Please refer to 'Global temperature evolution 1979–2010', Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, free PDF published 2011, easy to google, just scroll down to Figure 8. Detailed forums on this paper can be found on Scepticalscience (FOR) and WattsUpWithThat (AGAINST). Surface temps are most relevant, but clearly complicated by stratos temp trends. etc
@bobinhk1 Your comment: "Please refer to 'Global temperature evolution 1979–2010', Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, free PDF published 2011, easy to google, just scroll down to Figure 8."!!!
I will look at it. But just curious, am i allowed to SIMPLY QUESTION IT if i find something WRONG or should I simply gulp it down without even a drop of water because I might NOT HAVE a COUNTER-HYPOTHESIS/THEORY to substantiate it through "PEER-REVIEW"?!!
@rationalindian10 I don't believe the paper is thoroughly peer-reviewed or it wouldn't be free. I think the paper is clearly showing disturbing temp trend. I think the statistical treatment is sound. The main arguments against by sceptics are that the statistical treatment is inadequate. This is hotly contested by others, who say the procedures are sound. My position is this: if the alarm bell sounds, you don't just switch it off because the noise is annoying you.
@rationalindian10 "Could you please elaborate on "HOW GLOBAL" is this "GLOBAL" trend". Anyway, back to the fray! The scary bit is, the fastest temperature increases are in Greenland and East Antarctica, which is little bit inconvenient for coastal dwellers. Ice caps do NOT melt gradually, but fracture and collapse. The collapse of Larsen A and B shelves didn't help, but they were floating already. Dry areas get drier, wet areas get wetter. Then there's the Black Swan!!
Apparently this is not real because it is not in a peer reviewed paper *O)
"11 Jul 2011 - Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands. Sea-floor mapping technology reveals volcanoes beneath the sea surface
Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface."
@PrairleDogged There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change whether you choose to believe it or not, it is a simple fact. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. Take the US; the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
' Memorandum submitted by Dr D R Keiller (CRU 23) ' ~ Google it read it and come back here and preach the merits of scientific consensus ~ corrupted data fed to trusting people with a predictable outcome GIGO science may have your support but real world observations should have you questioning the line you are being fed.
.
Are you really implying that we can turn the Earths climate up and down by manipulating .0126% of CO2? ~ are you conversant with the tale of King Canute ?
@PrairleDogged "British Antarctic Survey have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters" And? this does not strengthen your argument, and neither does placing "CO2 emitters?" at the end. Throw links to the data on their venting, lets see the survey statistics etc etc, until then your comment is moot!
That was just one discovery made since the papers you presented were written ~ look at the iceagenow site 'underwater volcanoes' section see how many huge vents, fissures, volcanoes have recently been found ~ previously unknown to man and the implications of them ~ read !!
You offhand dismissal of recent evidence is rather telling of your mindset and agenda rather than spending a little time you throw out the baby with the bathwater ~ poor form old chap poor form.
@PrairleDogged If you are going to reference sites in an attempt to back your argument, how about you use credible sites with focused peer reviewed data rather than data clippings pulled from all over the place. More still, how about sending people to sites that are not trying to sell books & dvds playing on peoples ignorance to actual real peer reviewed data.
Peer reviewed data now there is a can of worms ~ the behind the scenes bullying and coercion that went on in the climategate emails ought to ring alarm bells in your head as to the credibility of peer review ~ your wish to filter information might pass in your mind as acceptable but unless people access facts from every source how can they form a balanced informed opinion ~ if the 'iceagenow' site contains misinformation please feel free to highlight their errors.
Go to this site and look at the 'underwatervolcano' section see how new underwater volcanoes are being discovered frequently and how many have been found in the last 10 years ~ way after the aged studies PascalB cited and therefore not accounted for ~ but hey ho whats a few thousand CO2 spewing vents between cherry pickers.
The unusual speed of the current climate change implies that it's not just yet another (purely) natural phenomenon.
But the main problem is NOT whether or not global warming is caused by us. The main problem is that fossil fuel is finite!
So in any case it is reasonable to increase energy efficiency and to promote renewable energy. This is what CO2 reduction means and this is why the "global warming agenda" is necessary, since we cannot rely on the "power of the free market", unfortunately.
"Qualitative evaluations indicate frequent, sudden, and dramatic climate changes. Changes can be rapid, swinging from warmer than today to full glacial conditions within 100 years. The converse can be true. All available data indicate that current climate change is no greater in rate or magnitude, and probably less in both, than many changes that have occurred in the past."
"and probably less in both" escaped your Eagle eye then?
.
You are making a very poor judgement because of the high resolution of modern instrumental recording is pitted against empirical/proxy low resolution evidence ~ that might in your book be good science but you're not comparing like for like.
RE: '... You are making a very poor judgement ...'
Somebody of us is making a very poor judgement by drawing inferences over another world and sticking them as a patch to our world ... and unfortunately it is not me.
Your inference is not valid for a world with 7 BLN humans, TPPs & Vehicles ... and the rule of Modern Money Mechanics.
So your solution to 7BLN people is to tax them so heavily that their health suffers and they wither away?
Hardly a noble solution to a growing population stressing the planets resources is it?
Why don't you go for the old communist solution with a 9mm hollow point behind the ear for anyone who creates more CO2 than is deemed the correct amount a party member is allowed.
I am very glad that you have 'Mind-Reading' Abilities & 'know what my proposal is'.
You may continue exercising your telepathic abilities, but my proposal to the 7BLN is to get rid of the financial system ASAP & to attach their money to some value (instead to debts), and also maybe to stop relying on the energy monopolies and easy makers and to start developing their personal energy sources (solar, syngas, water-fuel emulsions). And maybe for China to put some price on the energy.
And what money is that then? what facilities have the majority of those 7BLN people have?and what is going to drive this great army of disinterested people to carry out your vision?
This vision is not mine & it is the only way to get out of the financial mess relatively safe.
RE: 'the disinterested people'
If some people are pleased with having debts that are growing out of control and that could hardly be re-paid under the existing circumstances & if this could not get them interested, I am hardly the person to get them interested in getting interest.
BTW the people with money also don't possess any value -they possess other people's debts.
Any amateur volcanologist can tell you that volcanos produce more CO2 than the entirety of the human race. There’s been global climate change in places like the Egypt, India, China and Africa long before we started burning fossil fuels. Any scientist that says they know FOR SURE we (humans) caused the recent warming events is practicing bad science.
@kuhioffxi "any amateur vulcanologist can tell you " ? Again, another utterly ignorant comment! Published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year.
@kuhioffxi . The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates.
@FreeToChooseTsar A phenomenally brilliant video eh? Happy to see most viewers feel the same eh? I guess comments like those are to be expected taking into account your countries abysmal results in science education for 2012. It seems like you are truly a standard reflection of the science illiteracy that is spreading across the US.
@FreeToChooseTsar "I am happy to see..." You're happy to see that a Youtube 'sceptic' consensus AGAINST is 75%, while the scientific consensus FOR is 97%. What exactly is the skeptik definition of 'happiness'? You are certainly dooming yourself to achieve it.
The only people with an active nuclear programme today is France: americium is cooling no new plants. The insurance costs are nuclear power is four times the cost of generating power. And decimated Insurance Indemnity of $60 billion power plant. Chernobyl and Fukushima shows the inevitable result of nuclear fusion.
@JonThm "Chernobyl and Fukushima shows the inevitable result of nuclear fusion". Repair-able. Our current atmospheric composition and weather show the inevitable result of fossil-fuel burning.
@JonThm "any new nuclear plant will require insurance $60 billion dollars". Not as much as a carbon licence will cost in 50 years time. Maybe insurance companies are already weighing up nuclear pay-outs will always be less than hurricane pay-outs?
Evolution and natural selection. Let's assume you are right - based on emotion and not science - all animal life in the ocean will eventually die off due to acidification (no evolution takes place). The food sources for the world collapse resulting in a dramatic drop in the number of humans (7b down to say 300K). CO2 production ceases. O2 consumption ceases (no animal life -very limited amounts). Problem solved. Might take place in say the next 2-3 million years.
Evolution takes place when there is TIME. When the changes are happening 'at the speed of light in vacuum' things seem a little bit different. How much different - very much: red algae flourishing along the Canadian coast, the tuna fish (gen. Thunnus) on the Marshal Islands is withdrawing from the shore (going deep into the ocean), the wild sturgeon (hunted pell-mell for the black caviar) will remain only as picture in the ABC books ... in that direction.
The amount of energy hitting the earth (daily) from the sun is 8000 times more that all the energy produced daily (coal, oil, nuclear, wind, water, etc.). 1/8000 of the energy (it all eventually becomes heat) is NOT the problem. CO2 is consumed by plant growth (trees, grass, plankton, etc.). More CO2 = accelerated plant growth. Self regulating to a certain extent. CO2 is soluble in the oceans. The warmer it gets the greater the solubility.
@U1T001 Evolution and natural selection. Let's assume you are right - based on emotion and not science - all animal life in the ocean will eventually die off due to acidification (no evolution takes place). The food sources for the world collapse resulting in a dramatic drop in the number of humans (7b down to say 300K). CO2 production ceases. O2 consumption ceases (no animal life -very limited amounts). Problem solved. Might take place in say the next 2-3 million years.
All life on this earth is supported by plants metabolising carbon dioxide. The levels of this gas in the air are fixed by photosynthesis. Man is additional carbon dioxide has increased life on earth by 20%. But had no affect on the weather
@MelkorHimself "Of all the CO2 on Earth, 7% derives from human causes." Wow, where does the other 93% come from? And what do you mean "on Earth"?: do you mean the atmosphere?
@bobinhk1 I'm referring to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The other 93% derives from natural sources. Out-gassing is a common occurrence everywhere on the planet.
@MelkorHimself "CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The other 93% derives from natural sources". But maybe our few % annual emission is over-and-above the capacity of natural recycling systems, leading to a net accumulation.
@bobinhk1 Then try this on for size: Water vapor accounts for thrice the levels of CO2, and its heat capacity is 2.5 times that of CO2. Thus, its effect is 7x that of CO2, and we don't worry about it.
@MelkorHimself "Water vapor accounts for thrice the levels of CO2". Hmm, yes, tho you could argue that H2O (the dominant GHG) is controlled by physical processes relating to saturation and air temperature, and the "sink" is well-defined as surface lakes (and ice). Therefore H2O can NOT accumulate. I think some people are worried that CO2 sinks are less immediate, operating on geological timescales, not human ones.
No problems. We will start worrying about the H2O when we start burning hydrogen at the scale we are burning fossil fuels at present. So and so we decentered the CO2 cycles (and through them the water cycles), what is the problem to decenter the water cycles directly ... until some 150 m wave wipes us out of the map.
@JonThm Nuclear power is death? A bit of a science selective illiterate eh? Ever look up in the sky in the day? Notice that bright thing moving across the sky? U know, the Sun! Atoms of hydrogen coming together in "nuclear fusion reactions" to produce energy that pushes the life along on the surface of this planet? Nuclear power is hardly "death" when used right.
@JonThm As 4 carbon, yes it is a foundation block for life on this planet but billions of tons of it locked away over hundreds of millions of years' then in the last 150 years much of it thrown back into the atmosphere by us? This is not an issue? This is having no effect? You state u have a master's degree in engineering on your profile & that you are working towards a PhD? I suggest u give it back & drop the PhD effort. For you ... it's done nothing for your critical thinking skills!
@PacalB What is your educational background - to comment on anothers? Answer me this: Why has the temperature on Mars and Venus also increased?
A more relevent theory would be the result of deforestation, farming, roads, rooftops, etc. Everyting manmade that allows for the absorption of heat vs the relfelction of energy back thru the atmosphere - and thus into space. But alas- the entire planet is mostly covered by water - so the abosrption area is relatively small.
@gnacdak I can call him on it all I want, he was the one touting the masters degree & study for the PhD as if it gave him some kind of extra weight to his profile/"science videos".
By referencing Mars & Venus, I'm guessing you are one of those who states it's all due to the Sun & has nothing to do with human input, yes? As for Mars and Venus warming, show us links to scientific studies confirming that it is the Sun which is the reason for these planets warming.
@gnacdak Also, as for the Earth increasing in temperature due to the changes in solar radiation? Well, according to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
@JonThm How ignorant. 20% of US power is nuclear. 80% of French power is nuclear. The list goes on. More people die from complications of auto accidents than emmissions from power plants (nuclear, coal, oil, etc.) combined.
Suppose it's really the Sun. If you take a look at the CO2 (ppmv) map by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder following your suggestion the greatest amounts of CO2 should be over the Atlantic and the Pacific, but by some coincidence the CO2 mapping is dark red over the southern parts of North and South America, over India, China, Morocco, South Africa, Japan & Australia. What does all this have to do with the ocean (which BTW is another story).
Green plants have been easily converted mankind's additional carbon dioxide into extra life on earth. Harvard University has noted that crop yields have increased by an average global carbon dioxide levels in the air hasn't changed since they fell at the end of the little ice age. Natural carbon dioxide rises in an ice ages. Explain.
Green plants have greedily taken in all the extra carbon dioxide man has released, to grant! No increase of carbon dioxide in the air is possible outside of an ice age.
Biologie converts all available extra carbon dioxide into new life on earth. There can be no accumulation of this gas in the global air. All people andem and this impression that there can be an accumulation need to reset high school biology desperately
Man kind of accounts for only 0.0000175% extra carbon dioxide every day for last 200 years. This has increased the amount of photosynthesis going on around the earth, but not affected the trace of carbon dioxide left in the air by world photosynthesis
It is biologically impossible for carbon dioxide levels to rise and the countryside. City levels have no importance on the world weather systems as there are too small an area. Go reset high school biology if you have trouble with this idea!
1. If the CO2 is accumulated in the air (& in the ocean) it is OBVIOUS that it is NOT entirely processed by the photosynthesis
2. What is this mantra 'CO2 increases life on Earth' that you cannot stop repeating like a broken record. An agricultural survey in California shows that the growth of plants does not follow any more the increase of CO2 (diverges from it),
So you may rename this to 'CO2 & the Fall of the Third Shadow' & nominate it for Multi-Platinum Grammy
@U1T001 "An agricultural survey in California shows that the growth of plants does not follow any more the increase of CO2 ". Hey, hang about..The FACE studies show that increased CO2 leads to, er, increased crop yields,,,er,,,or something...probably. And anyway, Al Gore is laughing all the way to his billion-dollar mansion. Er, isn't he? Love and kisses, the skeptix.
BTW this claim here about what the climate change believers are believing in, is a glaring example of logical fallacy of class 'Straw Man' (when some people create a false claim based on false scenario and/or skillful misrepresentation & then attack it at full power and destroy it with 'reinforced concrete evidences').
Painting your opponent in a discussion with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument and turns the whole discussion into a top design cartoon.
@U1T001 Imnot painting anyone, Im just commenting on how climate change believers act like creationists in how they attack anyone who doesnt agree with them. Personally, I an not a believer or a denier, I think both camps have failed to make their case. I didnt say anything about a tilted sun, I said the solar max cycle has changed in the last 40 years, dont believe me? go look at the NASA website for an article called 'the resurgent sun'
I don't see any correlation/analogy of type [like].
RE: 'the tilted Sun'
This comprises: Milankovich theory, the solar flare, the solar cycles, deviations in the solar radiation and it is not the Sun that is tilted, but the Earth (the precession of the Earth). If you know the theories you will have no problems with the hint.
RE: 'I think both camps have failed to make their case'
O.K., let's start form the very beginning. Write in Google [wildfire] -Images & try to explain case by case.
How will you explain the wildfires with the Milankovich theory & the Solar cycles.
Then got to floods & try to explain flood-by-flood with Milankovich & the Solar cycles.
Then go to huge waves, and so on.
Suppose your solar theory is true. If the cycle is 40 years, 40 years ago the very same natural disasters should have been observed ... at biblical scale as you see them now. Can you find any evidences?
RE: 'I am not believer'
You think think it is funny. What about the stake?
@U1T001 I have no idea what your on, I havent mentioned tilted sun. The cycle I mentioned was the solar max cycle, that is 11 years, not 40. Your responses are becomming bizzare.
The shocking thing about climate change believers is they actually think Co2 has more effect on our earths warming than the SUN, they never mention it, never talk about the fact the solar max cycle has changed in the last 40 years and developed a second 'hump' that extends the cycle. They never talk about anything that may present an alternative to their arguments, in short, they are like creationists.
RE:'The shocking thing about climate change believers is they actually think CO2 has more effect on our earths warming than the SUN'
What climate change believers actually believe is a little bit different:
'It is really shocking that the uneven distribution of CO2 emissions can have stronger effect on the extreme weather than the Mumbo-Jumbo theories of the tilted SUN'.
This is because any change in the solar radiation is SLOW (much slower than the operation of the TPPs & the Vehicles)
Carbon dioxide has been a static trace gas at 0.0002% for last 200 years. Mankind's additional carbon dioxide has resulted in extra life on earth not extra carbon dioxide in the air. That is all lie from nuclear power and the stupid. Or page.
RE: 'Carbon dioxide has been a static trace gas at 0.0002% for last 200 years.'
1. Onto the present moment CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0392% by volume.
2. Nothing connected with CO2 is 'static' - neither its increase into the air, nor the acidification of the ocean as a result of the bacchanalia with the fossil fuels, nor the decentering of the energy and the water cycles in the climate system.
3. The very fact that it is a trace gas does not necessarily mean that it cannot cause trouble.
Man kind minuscule carbon emissions have boosted life on earth, but not increased the global average carbon dioxide level in the air. Will somebody please answer this! Man made climate change is biologically impossible fiction from nuclear power. Also answer about. Mankind can not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the air by burning fossilised life from the Jurassic! Are you guy stupid?
@JonThm "Man kind minuscule carbon emissions ". Oh really, Jon! How is 8 billion tonnes per year miniscule? Every year. And I thought coal was Carboniferous, not Jurassic?
The carbon cycle was developed by biology into 1880: teaching that photosynthesis transforms lobal available carbon dioxide into new life on earth. No increase the level of this gas in the air is biologically possible. All academics talking about man made climate change are stupid I have no place in education
One thing that the scientists have overlooked is that CO2 cannot cause global warming. The historical data shows that warming causes increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere (look at the graph published by Al Gore but put the right labels on). If CO2 then also increased temperatures then we would have a system of thermal runaway. The earth could not have been through warming and cooling periods, just ever spiraling warming. This we know is not the case. Ergo CO2 is not a greenhouse gas!
The problem is the industrial age, obviously omitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has never happened in history, so there is no mean to compare it to.
Does the Cos we emit disappear? No. Spikes in Cos in the air and warming can only be connected when we find no other plausible answer. No historic data addresses an industrial age.
Take two jars with glass cover (potassium glass or s.th.). Put the two jars at equal distance from a 250 W lamp (or another light & heat source simulating the Sun). Now put several sticks of dry ice into one of the jars (urban atmosphere with CO2 emissions) and nothing into the other (walk in the woods) and record the temperatures in 5 min—15 min—30 min—50 min—1.5 h—3 h—
Connect them in graphic and match the functions of approximation. What do you see?
You have over simplified things and ignored much stronger influences. This experiment is utterly pointless also as, in case you were unaware, dry ice is CO2. It has been shown that changes in CO2 levels RESULT from temperature changes. In the periods of change of trend (ie from cooling to warming or warming to cooling) then if CO2 influenced temperature change then it would reverse these temperature trends. This has been disproved with every change in the last 450,000 odd years.
You seem to have completely missed the point. Show me where in the last 450,000 years where the temperature trend has changed due to CO2, evidence shows the opposite.
CO2 is a GHG as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the IR & near-IR, before slowly re-emitting the IR.
Forget about the mya diagram of the paleoclimatologists and try to follow this inference: CO2 slowly re-emits the IR thus heating up locally the area of its emission → moisture is reduced (by accelerated evaporation) → the conductivity of the air↓ → static charges occur → CO2 decomposes into CO → self-ignition hazard → forest fire
Green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide they can get. Man made climate change and global warming or lies from nuclear power. Which part of this country understand?
RE: 'Green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide they can get'
This is logical fallacy of class 'argumentum ad ignirantiam' (misleading argument used in reliance with people's ignorance). Most of the people are perplexed to understand what does 'they can get' mean & remain with the impression that 'Green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide' which is also not entirely clear but suggests that everything that the TPPs and the vehicles produce is processed back by the plants -FALSE
@JonThm "Man made climate change and global warming or lies from nuclear power." I am strongly in favour of nuclear power. My faith in photosynthesis is limited by the rising temperature anomaly trend which will increasingly affect photosynthetic capacity. Anyway, do we really want global photosynthetic capacity to be controlled only by (our) atmospheric CO2?
RE: 'what does what you're stating have to do with AGW?'
It has everything to do.
The average temperatures do not represent too much of the actual situation, especially 1 MLN (years) average. Suppose we have average value 12°C of two temps. It is not all the same whether these 2 averaged values are obtained as based on 11° & 13° or 0° & 24° or -30° & 54°. The cases are very different.
The paleontologists should either explain that diagram or pronounce it as the cartoon of any age.
@U1T001 I have an odd feeling you do not understand. The 'average temperature' of the globe caused by 'increased heat retention' from 'additional greenhouse gases'. It is a physical impossibility that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at current concentrations will not have any effect on temperatures. By average I am referring to not regional not over a specified amount of time. Paleontology deals with dinosaurs not climate... Perhaps you are referring to 'paleoclimatologists'.
RE: The 'average temperature' of the globe caused by 'increased heat retention' from 'additional greenhouse gases'.
Unfortunately I am not the only one not understanding this and that.
1. As far as 'heat retention' is concerned the heat never stays on one place. There are some processes like convection, emission, reflection, heat exchange (with water molecules).
2. The presence of CO2 in the air is heat at first, but then turns into potential and kinetic energy of the air masses.
@U1T001 I well aware that heat does not stay in one place. Global warming does not refer to regional warming, as that is what you are trying to get across. The word 'global' should give you a hint. Global warming refers to the energy balance of the planet. Heat can be redistributed all it wants when it's within the system. The energy balance of the planet will still be the same. Regional warming != Global warming. Heat redistribution != Energy imbalance.
I have never said it is 'regional warming'. I have a reasonable ground to believe that we actually don't know what the regional increase of CO2 here & there may cause to the climate (water cycles, energy cycles, air components, etc.).
RE: 'Heat can be redistributed .. when it's within the system'
The system is open (it constantly receives energy from the Sun & a small amount of other rays from outside, and emits). It is not that simple for the heat to be redistributed ... as heat.
@U1T001 CO2, for the most part, is relatively the same throughout the planet unless you are near a source. We have been measuring CO2 concentration in free air for over 50 years from various sources (See Scripps CO2). The system is not an open system. Heat/energy is redistributed during such things as ENSO cycles and other oscillatory cycles. again, global warming deals with the energy imbalance and the total energy within the system. Yes, you're talking regionally regarding warming.
The atmosphere of the Earth is an OPEN system, interacting with (1) Matter (meteorites, cosmic dust — from outer space; volcano eruptions, earthquakes, variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, & precession — from the planet itself) and (2) Energy (solar radiation, solar flare, cosmic UV flux — from outer space), and (earthquakes, variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, & precession — from the planet). CO2 changes the thermodynamic equilibrium
CO2 has magical, mystical, and omnipotent powers and unless we pay our carbon tax tithes to the Carbon Cult on Wall St, we will continue to have hurricanes, floods, droughts, extreme cold & heat, growing & melting glaciers, etc
Let's all pay our carbon tithes to the Carbon Cult Church and go back to enjoying our earth as than all of that will stop and everything will be beautiful.
MarkNabes 1 day ago
@MarkNabes Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
rationalindian10 1 day ago
Also, if we mitigate and go green it will be far cheaper than adaptation later. Adaptation globally will cost anywhere from 800 trillion to 1200 trillion over next century. This is unacceptable. Adaptation to a very hot world which will be 7-8 degrees Celsius hotter on avg. in 80-90 years will kill midwest ag. 30% of calories come from midwest ag. Food security will be a national security issue. Food riots and social unrest w/ restriction of freedoms and martial law will be reality.Stop big oil!
MrAluminous 1 day ago
Currently we are just going into solar cycle 25 which like 24 will probably be a dud. 24 had a minima of approx. 8 years. Solar irradiance went down this last decade. Climate is more sensitive than predicted by IPCC in 2007. Threat to life? Don't exagerate. Solar can provide all our needs. At surface avg irradiance in W is 1000W/m^2. 8hr * 1000=8KwHr, 100 sq m * 8KwHr = 800 KwHr. Now go look at your power bill. Get the message. They want to keep you addicted to oil. Dustbowlification is coming.
MrAluminous 1 day ago
@MrAluminous "Dustbowlification is coming." The 30s dust-bowl was a minor event. Everyone just went to Californiay to pick oranges. We can't stop big oil. They'll be big windmills next. Otherwise I'm thumbing-up your comments.
bobinhk1 19 hours ago
The hydrocarbons formed in the anaerobic deep from the hydrocarbons of life that died with the dinosaurs. Before the fossil fuels formed there were natural ice ages! In the Jurassic age.
JonThm 1 day ago
I was taught on an injuring degree that carbon fuels carbon date to 65,000,000 years ago air. When 85% of life on earth died. There carbohydrates formed the hydrocarbons in the anaerobic deep. There were natural ice ages before then!
JonThm 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm "I was taught on an injuring degree that carbon fuels carbon date to 65,000,000". As nospacesallowed has correctly noted, your injuring degree should have taught you the time limitations of carbon dating. Hovind has also used similar false claim, as clearly noted on potholer54, who gives a very clear explanation on why such old rocks can't be carbon dated. ("Hoy! Hovind!", etc)
bobinhk1 2 days ago
@JonThm On the other hand, science can always advance, and at least carbon IS present. So I'll check out this "anaerobic deep", tho to be honest, I suspect there's many having a good laugh while I chase my tail checking these baseless assertions.
bobinhk1 1 day ago
The Jurassic age had natural ice ages. At a time on the fossil fuels had not yet formed! They carbon date to 65,000,000 years ago.
JonThm 2 days ago
@1:39 'In the case of climate change hysteria the argument goes something like this'
... New Genus of Clouds appeared on the Event Horizon.
BION, write in Google [UFO clouds] → [Images] → [More Results]
U1T001 2 days ago
Wideofvision: you are comparing 10 years to 100s of millions? Do you know much about statistics? 10 years is barely a blip.
nick73311982 3 days ago
I was taught fossil fuels carbon dated to 65 million years ear or first year of my engineering degree. 85% of life on earth died with the dinosaurs and formed the fossil fuels! There were natural ice ages in the Jurassic.
JonThm 3 days ago
@JonThm "85% of life on earth died with the dinosaurs and formed the fossil fuels". An 85% extinction sounds more like the Permian, a global environmental catastrophe. The K-T was a measly meteroite as Earth was furiously burying CO2 into limestone by the K-T. You know, the eroding Dover cliffs? The cement factories?
bobinhk1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobinhk1 "An 85% extinction sounds more like the Permian...The K-T was a measly meteroite as Earth was furiously burying CO2 into limestone by the K-T"
Just curious. How are you so DAMN SURE about these MILLIONS of YEARS AGO FAIRY TALES as if they were FACTS?! When we DO NOT even have a PROPER GLOBAL CLIMATE DATA of the last 50 years in an era of SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, how are you so sure about even 1000s or MILLIONS of YEARS ago CLIMATE ACTIVITIES?! Do you have a TIME MACHINE by any chance?!
rationalindian10 2 days ago
@rationalindian10 "Do you have a TIME MACHINE by any chance?!". Glad I don't, I'd have to collect twice as much data. The millions of years come from other dating methods (strontium-rubidium, uranium-lead, etc etc etc), and are reasonably supported by the original stratographic relationships. BTW, all your comments are automatically marked as spam, tough to find them!
bobinhk1 1 day ago
@bobinhk1 Your comment: "BTW, all your comments are automatically marked as spam, tough to find them!"!!
I am not aware of that and not sure why!!
rationalindian10 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
RE: 'I was taught fossil fuels carbon dated to 65 million years ear or first year of my engineering degree.'
Fossil fuels are fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.
If you pay attention the key word here is [may exceed 650 mya].
U1T001 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm "I was taught fossil fuels carbon dated to 65 million years ear or first year of my engineering degree. 85% of life on earth died with the dinosaurs and formed the fossil fuels! "
Utterly tired of hearing your ridiculous spew! Get it right, fossil fuels, as the name suggests, are very old. The North Sea oil deposits are around 150 million years old, whilst much of Britain’s coal began to form over 300 million years ago.
U have engineering degree? R u sure? I call .. BS!
PacalB 1 day ago
1'30. The atmosphere is not only getting warmer, it's getting dirtier. The people who can't seem to wake up are the ones who can't recognise a closed system. Apart from greeting about bad science and bad policy, there's not much constructive from them, only obstructive. Fossil fuels have not made life better... they've made it POSSIBLE for most of us. And now it's running out...
bobinhk1 3 days ago
bearpigman
4everfatjoe 3 days ago
The carbon fuels formed 65,000,000 years ago air-they carbon date to the end of the Jurassic
JonThm 3 days ago
@JonThm "carbon fuels formed 65,000,000 years ago". When I google 'fossil fuels age', first link says 'There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs'. How will you persuade me?
bobinhk1 3 days ago
@JonThm You cannot carbon date anything to 65,000,000. Carbon dating works only up to about 10,000 years. They have other radioactive dating methods that can date to millions, but not carbon.
nospacesallowed 2 days ago
Truly a remarkable video; I could not have said (or illustrated) it better myself. Its content seems to be the genuine “inconvenient truth”. I surely will have all of my students watch this as part of tomorrow’s homework assignment.
MrSlappySwanson 5 days ago
What a load of shit. Having studied the environment now for 30 years I can only say that not only have all the predictions of global warming occurred a predicted, they have done so far quicker than expected. This is just a sponsored hack piece to confuse the facts. There isn't a single published peer reviewed paper that explains the warming as anything but human induced. The last 10 years have been the warmest on record, that's just a documented fact, not conjecture.
WideOfVision 5 days ago
@WideOfVision
Memorandum submitted by Dr D R Keiller (CRU 23) ~ look it up !!!
.
Yep this sort of science would decoy you in ~ congratulations you have been caught.
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged Yeah, I'll read a paper of his on climate when he actually produces one. In the meantime he's simply full of shit and more suited to talk about Sports Medicine than climate.
WideOfVision 5 days ago
@WideOfVision
Yeah full of shit ~ that is why the House of Commons asked you to submit to the inquiry seeing as your vast knowledge is superior to Dr Keiller ~ I don't suppose you have been in close proximity to broken fluorescent lightbulbs have you ?
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged The question should be why should I listen to a guy spew complete rubbish about the climate when he's more suited to discuss steroid use in sports? If you know something, then you produce a paper about it. But that would require peer review from other scientist who, like good scientist, would point out the numerous mistakes he would make based on what I see in the video.
WideOfVision 4 days ago
@WideOfVision
Produce a paper about it? what like your goodself you mean? Pfffttt!!!
PrairleDogged 4 days ago
@WideOfVision I couldn't agree more with your comments there. What he is asking us to read is utter tripe, nothing more than crap leftover from the whole University of East Anglia rubbish & so called, "Climate-gate". The whole thing was nothing more than a manufactured controversy designed to undercut the scientific consensus on climate change & downplay global warming's projected effects.
PacalB 4 days ago
@PacalB Unfortunately it is all pretty pointless. There are two tents in the denial camp: Those who don't know anything but like to disagree with anything that seems like it's coming from the tree hugging ecoterrorists, and those who couldn't possibly be that stupid so are obvious hacks for the coal, gas, oil, and mining interests. Here are two good sites to check out: realclimate daut org and desmogblog daut com
WideOfVision 4 days ago
@WideOfVision
About Us (DeSmogBlog)
“The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada’s leading public relations firms.”
Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada, June 5, 2008)
“So who is James Hoggan? He’s a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan Associates, positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the “right” public and private sectors. He sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation."
PrairleDogged 4 days ago
@PrairleDogged Yes well, I think the comments and discussions from science teachers and such on that site are a far better direction than any of the crap drivel you've been spewing.
Lets see now ...
DeSmogBlog was also listed by Time Magazine as one of the "best blogs of 2011" in June, 2011
You seem to have missed that part, oh what a surprise eh?
PacalB 3 days ago
@PacalB
Have you not seen or heard of the crap the DeSmogBlog crook is in?
Google it ~ nice choice of information/propaganda site ~ Next !!!
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
@PacalB
BTW Tnuc the "crap and drivel" you accuse me of spewing much of which is from peer reviewed literature offends you because it flies in the face of your brainwashing ?
Trouble with your sort you are incapable of questioning anything your taught ~ look up Penn and Teller getting hippies to ban water ~ this is you ! too blinkered to filter shite from sugar.
PrairleDogged 3 days ago
@WideOfVision
Nice one hippie~
" Funding of RealClimate. ORG Just search for the registration information you will find out that RealClimate. ORG is run by Environmental Media Services and by Betsy Ensley.
EMS is primarily an organization to pay for junk science about food and beverages, often hired by food companies to damage their competitors; click the link in the previous sentence to learn more [and it's worth reading that bit too!]."
PrairleDogged 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WideOfVision Your comment: "The last 10 years have been the warmest on record, that's just a documented fact, not conjecture"!!!
TSSK, dont mind my spoiling your "GLOBAL WARMING" PARTY!!! 2009, 2010 and especially 2011 have been among the COLDEST compared to previous years in the PLACE I stay!!! Just in case you didn't know...
rationalindian10 2 days ago
@rationalindian10 "2009, 2010 and especially 2011 have been among the COLDEST compared to previous years in the PLACE I stay". We shouldn't compare local trends with global averages, which are quite a good index, and remove the effects of temporary local effects.
bobinhk1 1 day ago
@bobinhk1 Your comment: "We shouldn't compare local trends with global averages, which are quite a good index, and remove the effects of temporary local effects."!!!
Could you please elaborate on "HOW GLOBAL" is this "GLOBAL" trend?!! I mean:
What are the PLACES, LOCATIONS and AREAS whose temperatures are periodically checked? Is it each and every NOOK and CORNER of the WHOLE GLOBE or just a few "SELECTIVE" places and regions?!
rationalindian10 1 day ago
@rationalindian10 Please refer to 'Global temperature evolution 1979–2010', Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, free PDF published 2011, easy to google, just scroll down to Figure 8. Detailed forums on this paper can be found on Scepticalscience (FOR) and WattsUpWithThat (AGAINST). Surface temps are most relevant, but clearly complicated by stratos temp trends. etc
bobinhk1 1 day ago
@bobinhk1 Your comment: "Please refer to 'Global temperature evolution 1979–2010', Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, free PDF published 2011, easy to google, just scroll down to Figure 8."!!!
I will look at it. But just curious, am i allowed to SIMPLY QUESTION IT if i find something WRONG or should I simply gulp it down without even a drop of water because I might NOT HAVE a COUNTER-HYPOTHESIS/THEORY to substantiate it through "PEER-REVIEW"?!!
rationalindian10 1 day ago
@rationalindian10 I don't believe the paper is thoroughly peer-reviewed or it wouldn't be free. I think the paper is clearly showing disturbing temp trend. I think the statistical treatment is sound. The main arguments against by sceptics are that the statistical treatment is inadequate. This is hotly contested by others, who say the procedures are sound. My position is this: if the alarm bell sounds, you don't just switch it off because the noise is annoying you.
bobinhk1 19 hours ago
@bobinhk1 Ok, I will check that and get back to you :-)
rationalindian10 6 hours ago
@rationalindian10 "Could you please elaborate on "HOW GLOBAL" is this "GLOBAL" trend". Anyway, back to the fray! The scary bit is, the fastest temperature increases are in Greenland and East Antarctica, which is little bit inconvenient for coastal dwellers. Ice caps do NOT melt gradually, but fracture and collapse. The collapse of Larsen A and B shelves didn't help, but they were floating already. Dry areas get drier, wet areas get wetter. Then there's the Black Swan!!
bobinhk1 1 day ago
Apparently this is not real because it is not in a peer reviewed paper *O)
"11 Jul 2011 - Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands. Sea-floor mapping technology reveals volcanoes beneath the sea surface
Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface."
.
CO2 emitters?
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change whether you choose to believe it or not, it is a simple fact. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. Take the US; the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
PacalB 5 days ago
@PacalB
' Memorandum submitted by Dr D R Keiller (CRU 23) ' ~ Google it read it and come back here and preach the merits of scientific consensus ~ corrupted data fed to trusting people with a predictable outcome GIGO science may have your support but real world observations should have you questioning the line you are being fed.
.
Are you really implying that we can turn the Earths climate up and down by manipulating .0126% of CO2? ~ are you conversant with the tale of King Canute ?
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged "British Antarctic Survey have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters" And? this does not strengthen your argument, and neither does placing "CO2 emitters?" at the end. Throw links to the data on their venting, lets see the survey statistics etc etc, until then your comment is moot!
PacalB 5 days ago
@PacalB
That was just one discovery made since the papers you presented were written ~ look at the iceagenow site 'underwater volcanoes' section see how many huge vents, fissures, volcanoes have recently been found ~ previously unknown to man and the implications of them ~ read !!
You offhand dismissal of recent evidence is rather telling of your mindset and agenda rather than spending a little time you throw out the baby with the bathwater ~ poor form old chap poor form.
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged If you are going to reference sites in an attempt to back your argument, how about you use credible sites with focused peer reviewed data rather than data clippings pulled from all over the place. More still, how about sending people to sites that are not trying to sell books & dvds playing on peoples ignorance to actual real peer reviewed data.
PacalB 5 days ago
@PacalB
Peer reviewed data now there is a can of worms ~ the behind the scenes bullying and coercion that went on in the climategate emails ought to ring alarm bells in your head as to the credibility of peer review ~ your wish to filter information might pass in your mind as acceptable but unless people access facts from every source how can they form a balanced informed opinion ~ if the 'iceagenow' site contains misinformation please feel free to highlight their errors.
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
ww w. iceagenow. com/
Go to this site and look at the 'underwatervolcano' section see how new underwater volcanoes are being discovered frequently and how many have been found in the last 10 years ~ way after the aged studies PascalB cited and therefore not accounted for ~ but hey ho whats a few thousand CO2 spewing vents between cherry pickers.
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
The unusual speed of the current climate change implies that it's not just yet another (purely) natural phenomenon.
But the main problem is NOT whether or not global warming is caused by us. The main problem is that fossil fuel is finite!
So in any case it is reasonable to increase energy efficiency and to promote renewable energy. This is what CO2 reduction means and this is why the "global warming agenda" is necessary, since we cannot rely on the "power of the free market", unfortunately.
thofou76 5 days ago
@thofou76
EVIDENCE DELIMITING PAST GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES
John P. Bluemle et al
From the abstract ~
"Qualitative evaluations indicate frequent, sudden, and dramatic climate changes. Changes can be rapid, swinging from warmer than today to full glacial conditions within 100 years. The converse can be true. All available data indicate that current climate change is no greater in rate or magnitude, and probably less in both, than many changes that have occurred in the past."
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged
RE: 'the current climate change ..is no greater in rate or magnitude, & probably less in both than many changes that have occurred in the past.'
There are also other 'many changes that have occurred in the past' like for example 99.5% of the species extinct.
What do you (or sooner your Reference there) mean by 'no greater' ..it is faster than anything known in the past.
BTW it is different for it is a different world (with 7 BLN humans, 29 Gt of CO2 per year from TPPs & Vehicles).
U1T001 5 days ago
@U1T001
"and probably less in both" escaped your Eagle eye then?
.
You are making a very poor judgement because of the high resolution of modern instrumental recording is pitted against empirical/proxy low resolution evidence ~ that might in your book be good science but you're not comparing like for like.
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged
RE: '... You are making a very poor judgement ...'
Somebody of us is making a very poor judgement by drawing inferences over another world and sticking them as a patch to our world ... and unfortunately it is not me.
Your inference is not valid for a world with 7 BLN humans, TPPs & Vehicles ... and the rule of Modern Money Mechanics.
Validation tests failed — sorry, merci, thank you!
U1T001 5 days ago
@U1T001
So your solution to 7BLN people is to tax them so heavily that their health suffers and they wither away?
Hardly a noble solution to a growing population stressing the planets resources is it?
Why don't you go for the old communist solution with a 9mm hollow point behind the ear for anyone who creates more CO2 than is deemed the correct amount a party member is allowed.
A brave new world ~ I cannot wait.
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged
I am very glad that you have 'Mind-Reading' Abilities & 'know what my proposal is'.
You may continue exercising your telepathic abilities, but my proposal to the 7BLN is to get rid of the financial system ASAP & to attach their money to some value (instead to debts), and also maybe to stop relying on the energy monopolies and easy makers and to start developing their personal energy sources (solar, syngas, water-fuel emulsions). And maybe for China to put some price on the energy.
U1T001 5 days ago
@U1T001
"attach their money? ?
And what money is that then? what facilities have the majority of those 7BLN people have?and what is going to drive this great army of disinterested people to carry out your vision?
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged
RE: 'your vision'
This vision is not mine & it is the only way to get out of the financial mess relatively safe.
RE: 'the disinterested people'
If some people are pleased with having debts that are growing out of control and that could hardly be re-paid under the existing circumstances & if this could not get them interested, I am hardly the person to get them interested in getting interest.
BTW the people with money also don't possess any value -they possess other people's debts.
U1T001 4 days ago
Google ~
'NASA Global Garden'
.
Let the Earth tell you what it thinks of an elevated level of CO2 ~ thats a lot of cabbages and Beansprouts to feed the burgeoning population.
PrairleDogged 5 days ago
@PrairleDogged Agreed. The lovely Gaia blesses you for the extra beansprouts.
bobinhk1 5 days ago
Any amateur volcanologist can tell you that volcanos produce more CO2 than the entirety of the human race. There’s been global climate change in places like the Egypt, India, China and Africa long before we started burning fossil fuels. Any scientist that says they know FOR SURE we (humans) caused the recent warming events is practicing bad science.
kuhioffxi 6 days ago
@kuhioffxi "any amateur vulcanologist can tell you " ? Again, another utterly ignorant comment! Published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year.
PacalB 5 days ago
@kuhioffxi . The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates.
volcanoes(dot)usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
Get your science right before you comment.
PacalB 5 days ago
Comment removed
bobinhk1 5 days ago
Phenomenally brilliant video… and I am happy to see according to the numbers that most viewers feel the same by nearly a factor of 4 to 1.
FreeToChooseTsar 6 days ago
@FreeToChooseTsar A phenomenally brilliant video eh? Happy to see most viewers feel the same eh? I guess comments like those are to be expected taking into account your countries abysmal results in science education for 2012. It seems like you are truly a standard reflection of the science illiteracy that is spreading across the US.
smartplanet (dot) com/blog/science-scope/majority-of-states-receive-d-or-f-in-science-education/12142
PacalB 5 days ago
@FreeToChooseTsar "I am happy to see..." You're happy to see that a Youtube 'sceptic' consensus AGAINST is 75%, while the scientific consensus FOR is 97%. What exactly is the skeptik definition of 'happiness'? You are certainly dooming yourself to achieve it.
bobinhk1 5 days ago
I've studied the issue thoroughly and I've determined that everything is just fine.
Snoopingkids 6 days ago
our best bet are technological alternatives. there are profitable methods of wind and solar on the table, but thats nothing compared to fusion power.
fusion is clean, safe, and efficient, only it is not yet available, we should further invest in it.
Kalahridudex 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any new nuclear plant will require insurance $60 billion dollars. Burning fossil fuels has no such global death!
JonThm 6 days ago
All mankind's carbon dioxide has resulted in increased life on earth. The local rises of carbon dioxide over cities is insignificant to nature
JonThm 6 days ago
The only people with an active nuclear programme today is France: americium is cooling no new plants. The insurance costs are nuclear power is four times the cost of generating power. And decimated Insurance Indemnity of $60 billion power plant. Chernobyl and Fukushima shows the inevitable result of nuclear fusion.
JonThm 6 days ago
@JonThm "Chernobyl and Fukushima shows the inevitable result of nuclear fusion". Repair-able. Our current atmospheric composition and weather show the inevitable result of fossil-fuel burning.
bobinhk1 6 days ago
@bobinhk1 any new nuclear plant will require insurance $60 billion dollars. Burning fossil fuels has no such global death!
JonThm 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm "any new nuclear plant will require insurance $60 billion dollars". Not as much as a carbon licence will cost in 50 years time. Maybe insurance companies are already weighing up nuclear pay-outs will always be less than hurricane pay-outs?
bobinhk1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bobinhk1 @bobinhk1 any new nuclear plant will require insurance $60 billion dollars. Burning fossil fuels has no such global death
JonThm 6 days ago
This is the really weird part of youtube.
JBnotthescotch 1 week ago
Evolution and natural selection. Let's assume you are right - based on emotion and not science - all animal life in the ocean will eventually die off due to acidification (no evolution takes place). The food sources for the world collapse resulting in a dramatic drop in the number of humans (7b down to say 300K). CO2 production ceases. O2 consumption ceases (no animal life -very limited amounts). Problem solved. Might take place in say the next 2-3 million years.
gnacdak 1 week ago
@gnacdak
Evolution takes place when there is TIME. When the changes are happening 'at the speed of light in vacuum' things seem a little bit different. How much different - very much: red algae flourishing along the Canadian coast, the tuna fish (gen. Thunnus) on the Marshal Islands is withdrawing from the shore (going deep into the ocean), the wild sturgeon (hunted pell-mell for the black caviar) will remain only as picture in the ABC books ... in that direction.
U1T001 6 days ago
The amount of energy hitting the earth (daily) from the sun is 8000 times more that all the energy produced daily (coal, oil, nuclear, wind, water, etc.). 1/8000 of the energy (it all eventually becomes heat) is NOT the problem. CO2 is consumed by plant growth (trees, grass, plankton, etc.). More CO2 = accelerated plant growth. Self regulating to a certain extent. CO2 is soluble in the oceans. The warmer it gets the greater the solubility.
gnacdak 1 week ago
@gnacdak
RE: 'The warmer it gets the greater the solubility.'
How far without causing an eco-catastrophe. The ocean has pH ~8.069 & as it 'goes West' what will happen with the shells of the plankton.
U1T001 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@U1T001 Evolution and natural selection. Let's assume you are right - based on emotion and not science - all animal life in the ocean will eventually die off due to acidification (no evolution takes place). The food sources for the world collapse resulting in a dramatic drop in the number of humans (7b down to say 300K). CO2 production ceases. O2 consumption ceases (no animal life -very limited amounts). Problem solved. Might take place in say the next 2-3 million years.
gnacdak 1 week ago
Organic carbon supports all life on earth. No possible affect on the weather. Oxygen is the greatest pollutant in earth history of
JonThm 1 week ago
All life on this earth is supported by plants metabolising carbon dioxide. The levels of this gas in the air are fixed by photosynthesis. Man is additional carbon dioxide has increased life on earth by 20%. But had no affect on the weather
JonThm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global Warming discussed by supervillians in my channel.
mrdeansden 1 week ago
Of all the CO2 on Earth, 7% derives from human causes. We could eliminate all our CO2 emissions and still not scratch the surface.
MelkorHimself 1 week ago
@MelkorHimself
RE: 'Of all the CO2 on Earth ...'
.. the man-made CO2 emissions are 28.9994 Mt or roughly 29 Gt.
For further details see the Report of IEA about CO2 emissions from fuel combustion in 2011.
Write in Google : [CO2 IEA 2011 .pdf] and click on the first reference there.
U1T001 1 week ago
@MelkorHimself "Of all the CO2 on Earth, 7% derives from human causes." Wow, where does the other 93% come from? And what do you mean "on Earth"?: do you mean the atmosphere?
bobinhk1 1 week ago
@bobinhk1 I'm referring to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The other 93% derives from natural sources. Out-gassing is a common occurrence everywhere on the planet.
MelkorHimself 1 week ago
@MelkorHimself "CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The other 93% derives from natural sources". But maybe our few % annual emission is over-and-above the capacity of natural recycling systems, leading to a net accumulation.
bobinhk1 1 week ago
@bobinhk1 Then try this on for size: Water vapor accounts for thrice the levels of CO2, and its heat capacity is 2.5 times that of CO2. Thus, its effect is 7x that of CO2, and we don't worry about it.
MelkorHimself 1 week ago
@MelkorHimself "Water vapor accounts for thrice the levels of CO2". Hmm, yes, tho you could argue that H2O (the dominant GHG) is controlled by physical processes relating to saturation and air temperature, and the "sink" is well-defined as surface lakes (and ice). Therefore H2O can NOT accumulate. I think some people are worried that CO2 sinks are less immediate, operating on geological timescales, not human ones.
bobinhk1 6 days ago
@MelkorHimself
No problems. We will start worrying about the H2O when we start burning hydrogen at the scale we are burning fossil fuels at present. So and so we decentered the CO2 cycles (and through them the water cycles), what is the problem to decenter the water cycles directly ... until some 150 m wave wipes us out of the map.
U1T001 6 days ago
Carbon is life. Nuclear power is death: the least green technology on earth
JonThm 1 week ago
Comment removed
PacalB 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm Nuclear power is death? A bit of a science selective illiterate eh? Ever look up in the sky in the day? Notice that bright thing moving across the sky? U know, the Sun! Atoms of hydrogen coming together in "nuclear fusion reactions" to produce energy that pushes the life along on the surface of this planet? Nuclear power is hardly "death" when used right.
PacalB 1 week ago
@JonThm As 4 carbon, yes it is a foundation block for life on this planet but billions of tons of it locked away over hundreds of millions of years' then in the last 150 years much of it thrown back into the atmosphere by us? This is not an issue? This is having no effect? You state u have a master's degree in engineering on your profile & that you are working towards a PhD? I suggest u give it back & drop the PhD effort. For you ... it's done nothing for your critical thinking skills!
PacalB 1 week ago
@PacalB What is your educational background - to comment on anothers? Answer me this: Why has the temperature on Mars and Venus also increased?
A more relevent theory would be the result of deforestation, farming, roads, rooftops, etc. Everyting manmade that allows for the absorption of heat vs the relfelction of energy back thru the atmosphere - and thus into space. But alas- the entire planet is mostly covered by water - so the abosrption area is relatively small.
gnacdak 1 week ago
@gnacdak I can call him on it all I want, he was the one touting the masters degree & study for the PhD as if it gave him some kind of extra weight to his profile/"science videos".
By referencing Mars & Venus, I'm guessing you are one of those who states it's all due to the Sun & has nothing to do with human input, yes? As for Mars and Venus warming, show us links to scientific studies confirming that it is the Sun which is the reason for these planets warming.
PacalB 1 week ago
@gnacdak Also, as for the Earth increasing in temperature due to the changes in solar radiation? Well, according to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
pmodwrc(dot)ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
Now show us the scientific studies for your argument.
PacalB 1 week ago
@JonThm How ignorant. 20% of US power is nuclear. 80% of French power is nuclear. The list goes on. More people die from complications of auto accidents than emmissions from power plants (nuclear, coal, oil, etc.) combined.
gnacdak 1 week ago
Here comes Agenda 21
drr281 1 week ago
Your an idiot!
wouldyouohwait 1 week ago
Global Warming = The SUN.
When the SUN is very active the oceans warm and give off CO2. And the land warms.
When the SUN is Quiet, the oceans will take in the CO2 and the land cools.
Psssssst. It is the SUN........... Look Up.
And go to Space Weather.com for more info. on the SUN.
erngre1 1 week ago
@erngre1
RE: 'Psssssst. It is the SUN........ Look Up.'
Suppose it's really the Sun. If you take a look at the CO2 (ppmv) map by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder following your suggestion the greatest amounts of CO2 should be over the Atlantic and the Pacific, but by some coincidence the CO2 mapping is dark red over the southern parts of North and South America, over India, China, Morocco, South Africa, Japan & Australia. What does all this have to do with the ocean (which BTW is another story).
U1T001 1 week ago
great video thanks :)
LokiV 1 week ago
Green plants have been easily converted mankind's additional carbon dioxide into extra life on earth. Harvard University has noted that crop yields have increased by an average global carbon dioxide levels in the air hasn't changed since they fell at the end of the little ice age. Natural carbon dioxide rises in an ice ages. Explain.
JonThm 1 week ago
Green plants have greedily taken in all the extra carbon dioxide man has released, to grant! No increase of carbon dioxide in the air is possible outside of an ice age.
JonThm 1 week ago
Biologie converts all available extra carbon dioxide into new life on earth. There can be no accumulation of this gas in the global air. All people andem and this impression that there can be an accumulation need to reset high school biology desperately
JonThm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
photosynthesis has metabolised all man is carbon dioxide to increased life on earth
JonThm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
photosynthesis has metabolised all man is carbon dioxide to increased life on earth
JonThm 1 week ago
Man kind of accounts for only 0.0000175% extra carbon dioxide every day for last 200 years. This has increased the amount of photosynthesis going on around the earth, but not affected the trace of carbon dioxide left in the air by world photosynthesis
JonThm 1 week ago
@JonThm "Man kind of accounts for only 0.0000175% extra carbon dioxide every day for last 200 years" But that's a 200% increase!
bobinhk1 1 week ago
It is biologically impossible for carbon dioxide levels to rise and the countryside. City levels have no importance on the world weather systems as there are too small an area. Go reset high school biology if you have trouble with this idea!
JonThm 1 week ago
@JonThm
RE: 'It is biologically impossible for carbon dioxide levels to rise in the countryside.'
False. For further details write in Google [wildfire] → [Images]→ [More Results]
RE: 'City levels have no importance ..as they are too small'
Let's check this: write in Google [burning garbage] → [Images]
BTW why don't you give us a definition of 'biologically impossible'.
It is also biologically impossible for the TPPs & the Motor Vehicles to become part of the carbon cycle ..but they actually are.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 photosynthesis has metabolised all man is carbon dioxide to increased life on earth
JonThm 1 week ago
@JonThm
OK, enough is enough.
1. If the CO2 is accumulated in the air (& in the ocean) it is OBVIOUS that it is NOT entirely processed by the photosynthesis
2. What is this mantra 'CO2 increases life on Earth' that you cannot stop repeating like a broken record. An agricultural survey in California shows that the growth of plants does not follow any more the increase of CO2 (diverges from it),
So you may rename this to 'CO2 & the Fall of the Third Shadow' & nominate it for Multi-Platinum Grammy
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 "An agricultural survey in California shows that the growth of plants does not follow any more the increase of CO2 ". Hey, hang about..The FACE studies show that increased CO2 leads to, er, increased crop yields,,,er,,,or something...probably. And anyway, Al Gore is laughing all the way to his billion-dollar mansion. Er, isn't he? Love and kisses, the skeptix.
bobinhk1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm "photosynthesis has metabolised all man is carbon dioxide". Reference please, to substantiate your premise / assertion.
bobinhk1 1 week ago
It's bad enough listening to some kid. It's worse listening to some kid who doesn't know what he is talking about.
blabblab1212 1 week ago
You switched the burden of proof, attacked green energy, and denied that scientists dont say Co2 is the only problem, there are many factors.
If you title a video like this, you need to support your claim, not draw and spit psuedoscience.
ThatFuckingAtheist 1 week ago
@ Shofoxy ...continued
BTW this claim here about what the climate change believers are believing in, is a glaring example of logical fallacy of class 'Straw Man' (when some people create a false claim based on false scenario and/or skillful misrepresentation & then attack it at full power and destroy it with 'reinforced concrete evidences').
Painting your opponent in a discussion with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument and turns the whole discussion into a top design cartoon.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 Imnot painting anyone, Im just commenting on how climate change believers act like creationists in how they attack anyone who doesnt agree with them. Personally, I an not a believer or a denier, I think both camps have failed to make their case. I didnt say anything about a tilted sun, I said the solar max cycle has changed in the last 40 years, dont believe me? go look at the NASA website for an article called 'the resurgent sun'
Looks like its not me trying to make strawmen.
Shofoxy 1 week ago
@Shofoxy
I don't see any correlation/analogy of type [like].
RE: 'the tilted Sun'
This comprises: Milankovich theory, the solar flare, the solar cycles, deviations in the solar radiation and it is not the Sun that is tilted, but the Earth (the precession of the Earth). If you know the theories you will have no problems with the hint.
RE: 'I think both camps have failed to make their case'
O.K., let's start form the very beginning. Write in Google [wildfire] -Images & try to explain case by case.
U1T001 1 week ago
@Shofoxy (cont.)
How will you explain the wildfires with the Milankovich theory & the Solar cycles.
Then got to floods & try to explain flood-by-flood with Milankovich & the Solar cycles.
Then go to huge waves, and so on.
Suppose your solar theory is true. If the cycle is 40 years, 40 years ago the very same natural disasters should have been observed ... at biblical scale as you see them now. Can you find any evidences?
RE: 'I am not believer'
You think think it is funny. What about the stake?
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 I have no idea what your on, I havent mentioned tilted sun. The cycle I mentioned was the solar max cycle, that is 11 years, not 40. Your responses are becomming bizzare.
Shofoxy 1 week ago
The shocking thing about climate change believers is they actually think Co2 has more effect on our earths warming than the SUN, they never mention it, never talk about the fact the solar max cycle has changed in the last 40 years and developed a second 'hump' that extends the cycle. They never talk about anything that may present an alternative to their arguments, in short, they are like creationists.
Shofoxy 1 week ago
@Shofoxy
RE:'The shocking thing about climate change believers is they actually think CO2 has more effect on our earths warming than the SUN'
What climate change believers actually believe is a little bit different:
'It is really shocking that the uneven distribution of CO2 emissions can have stronger effect on the extreme weather than the Mumbo-Jumbo theories of the tilted SUN'.
This is because any change in the solar radiation is SLOW (much slower than the operation of the TPPs & the Vehicles)
U1T001 1 week ago
Carbon dioxide has been a static trace gas at 0.0002% for last 200 years. Mankind's additional carbon dioxide has resulted in extra life on earth not extra carbon dioxide in the air. That is all lie from nuclear power and the stupid. Or page.
JonThm 1 week ago
@JonThm
RE: 'Carbon dioxide has been a static trace gas at 0.0002% for last 200 years.'
1. Onto the present moment CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0392% by volume.
2. Nothing connected with CO2 is 'static' - neither its increase into the air, nor the acidification of the ocean as a result of the bacchanalia with the fossil fuels, nor the decentering of the energy and the water cycles in the climate system.
3. The very fact that it is a trace gas does not necessarily mean that it cannot cause trouble.
U1T001 1 week ago
Man kind minuscule carbon emissions have boosted life on earth, but not increased the global average carbon dioxide level in the air. Will somebody please answer this! Man made climate change is biologically impossible fiction from nuclear power. Also answer about. Mankind can not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the air by burning fossilised life from the Jurassic! Are you guy stupid?
JonThm 1 week ago
@JonThm "Man kind minuscule carbon emissions ". Oh really, Jon! How is 8 billion tonnes per year miniscule? Every year. And I thought coal was Carboniferous, not Jurassic?
bobinhk1 1 week ago
The carbon cycle was developed by biology into 1880: teaching that photosynthesis transforms lobal available carbon dioxide into new life on earth. No increase the level of this gas in the air is biologically possible. All academics talking about man made climate change are stupid I have no place in education
JonThm 1 week ago
@JonThm "All academics talking about man made climate change are stupid". Why is air composed of 21% oxygen and 78.9% nitrogen?
bobinhk1 1 week ago
@JonThm
RE: 'No increase in the level of this gas (CO2) in the air is biologically possible.'
You don't hear yourself what you are talking (or sooner don't see what you are writing).
CO2 CAN increase in the air and in the ocean!
For further details see the 99.5% of extinct species (ever lived on Earth) & the 500 mya-CO2/Temp Diagram.
BTW the increase of CO2 at present is dominated by the TPPs & the Vehicles What do these have to do with biology,
& biologically possible (whatever that might mean)
U1T001 1 week ago
11 of the warmest years since 1880 have all occured in the last 13 years.
How does this not prove the globe is warming?
Also, you start by saying we think everything humans do effects Earth.
That' silly. I don;t think anyone believes that everything they do hurts the Earth.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 week ago
One thing that the scientists have overlooked is that CO2 cannot cause global warming. The historical data shows that warming causes increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere (look at the graph published by Al Gore but put the right labels on). If CO2 then also increased temperatures then we would have a system of thermal runaway. The earth could not have been through warming and cooling periods, just ever spiraling warming. This we know is not the case. Ergo CO2 is not a greenhouse gas!
kiwibrianreid 1 week ago
@kiwibrianreid
The problem is the industrial age, obviously omitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has never happened in history, so there is no mean to compare it to.
Does the Cos we emit disappear? No. Spikes in Cos in the air and warming can only be connected when we find no other plausible answer. No historic data addresses an industrial age.
HopeForPeaceNow 1 week ago
@kiwibrianreid
RE: 'hence CO2 is not a GHG'
Take two jars with glass cover (potassium glass or s.th.). Put the two jars at equal distance from a 250 W lamp (or another light & heat source simulating the Sun). Now put several sticks of dry ice into one of the jars (urban atmosphere with CO2 emissions) and nothing into the other (walk in the woods) and record the temperatures in 5 min—15 min—30 min—50 min—1.5 h—3 h—
Connect them in graphic and match the functions of approximation. What do you see?
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001
You have over simplified things and ignored much stronger influences. This experiment is utterly pointless also as, in case you were unaware, dry ice is CO2. It has been shown that changes in CO2 levels RESULT from temperature changes. In the periods of change of trend (ie from cooling to warming or warming to cooling) then if CO2 influenced temperature change then it would reverse these temperature trends. This has been disproved with every change in the last 450,000 odd years.
kiwibrianreid 1 week ago
@kiwibrianreid
RE: ' It has been shown that changes in CO2 levels RESULT from temperature changes.'
This is another CO2 (from the rocks (calcium carbide) and from the surface of the ocean).
I personally hope not to witness this.
RE: The two jars
Did you make the experiment - or just talking.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001
You seem to have completely missed the point. Show me where in the last 450,000 years where the temperature trend has changed due to CO2, evidence shows the opposite.
kiwibrianreid 1 week ago
@kiwibrianreid
The point is NOT the mya diagram.
CO2 is a GHG as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the IR & near-IR, before slowly re-emitting the IR.
Forget about the mya diagram of the paleoclimatologists and try to follow this inference: CO2 slowly re-emits the IR thus heating up locally the area of its emission → moisture is reduced (by accelerated evaporation) → the conductivity of the air↓ → static charges occur → CO2 decomposes into CO → self-ignition hazard → forest fire
U1T001 1 week ago
@kiwibrianreid
1. Forget about the last 450 000 -consider the last 200 000 (with humans)
2. Forget the last 200 000 & consider only the years of the industrial revolution (the last 200).
3. CO2 is GHG
U1T001 5 days ago
Photosynthesis metabolises all available carbon dioxide. The fossil fuels were life that died in the Jurassic
JonThm 1 week ago
Green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide they can get. Man made climate change and global warming or lies from nuclear power. Which part of this country understand?
JonThm 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm
RE: 'Green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide they can get'
This is logical fallacy of class 'argumentum ad ignirantiam' (misleading argument used in reliance with people's ignorance). Most of the people are perplexed to understand what does 'they can get' mean & remain with the impression that 'Green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide' which is also not entirely clear but suggests that everything that the TPPs and the vehicles produce is processed back by the plants -FALSE
U1T001 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm "Man made climate change and global warming or lies from nuclear power." I am strongly in favour of nuclear power. My faith in photosynthesis is limited by the rising temperature anomaly trend which will increasingly affect photosynthetic capacity. Anyway, do we really want global photosynthetic capacity to be controlled only by (our) atmospheric CO2?
bobinhk1 1 week ago
@WaxItYourself
RE: 'what does what you're stating have to do with AGW?'
It has everything to do.
The average temperatures do not represent too much of the actual situation, especially 1 MLN (years) average. Suppose we have average value 12°C of two temps. It is not all the same whether these 2 averaged values are obtained as based on 11° & 13° or 0° & 24° or -30° & 54°. The cases are very different.
The paleontologists should either explain that diagram or pronounce it as the cartoon of any age.
U1T001 2 weeks ago
@U1T001 I have an odd feeling you do not understand. The 'average temperature' of the globe caused by 'increased heat retention' from 'additional greenhouse gases'. It is a physical impossibility that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at current concentrations will not have any effect on temperatures. By average I am referring to not regional not over a specified amount of time. Paleontology deals with dinosaurs not climate... Perhaps you are referring to 'paleoclimatologists'.
WaxItYourself 2 weeks ago
@WaxItYourself
RE: The 'average temperature' of the globe caused by 'increased heat retention' from 'additional greenhouse gases'.
Unfortunately I am not the only one not understanding this and that.
1. As far as 'heat retention' is concerned the heat never stays on one place. There are some processes like convection, emission, reflection, heat exchange (with water molecules).
2. The presence of CO2 in the air is heat at first, but then turns into potential and kinetic energy of the air masses.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 I well aware that heat does not stay in one place. Global warming does not refer to regional warming, as that is what you are trying to get across. The word 'global' should give you a hint. Global warming refers to the energy balance of the planet. Heat can be redistributed all it wants when it's within the system. The energy balance of the planet will still be the same. Regional warming != Global warming. Heat redistribution != Energy imbalance.
WaxItYourself 1 week ago
@WaxItYourself
I have never said it is 'regional warming'. I have a reasonable ground to believe that we actually don't know what the regional increase of CO2 here & there may cause to the climate (water cycles, energy cycles, air components, etc.).
RE: 'Heat can be redistributed .. when it's within the system'
The system is open (it constantly receives energy from the Sun & a small amount of other rays from outside, and emits). It is not that simple for the heat to be redistributed ... as heat.
U1T001 1 week ago
@U1T001 CO2, for the most part, is relatively the same throughout the planet unless you are near a source. We have been measuring CO2 concentration in free air for over 50 years from various sources (See Scripps CO2). The system is not an open system. Heat/energy is redistributed during such things as ENSO cycles and other oscillatory cycles. again, global warming deals with the energy imbalance and the total energy within the system. Yes, you're talking regionally regarding warming.
WaxItYourself 1 week ago
@WaxItYourself
RE: 'The system is not an open system.'
The atmosphere of the Earth is an OPEN system, interacting with (1) Matter (meteorites, cosmic dust — from outer space; volcano eruptions, earthquakes, variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, & precession — from the planet itself) and (2) Energy (solar radiation, solar flare, cosmic UV flux — from outer space), and (earthquakes, variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, & precession — from the planet). CO2 changes the thermodynamic equilibrium
U1T001 1 week ago