The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
Ah, yes a climate scientist was pain with nice shiny tax-payer dollars. Perhaps in the millions of dollars granted to perform. And for what purpose has there been to measure so precisely and accurately a stable atmospheric molecule? Well Anthropogenic Global Warming motivations of politically greedy people. Why else would a scientist spend months freezing their arse on a glacier melting ice core samples.
In a scientific model all inputs of data must be looked at and no source of input can be overlooked. That is the basic fundamental of science. What heats the earth, what keeps the earth warm, what cools the earth, and so on. Earths climate is not a static model, for instance in Snow Mass, Colorado they recently unearthed Mastodons and Temperate Rainforest in an excavation and dated the remains 100K years froma climate much warmer than today's of manicured ski slopes. See above chart for CO2.
@fredrickdl Open letter to anyone new to all this.
If you want to know what this video is about, please look at the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry for Randomlaughingman aka Clara Massa. For Example “So the denier flies come a-swarming
Still dribberling the same old shit
Thermometers show the earth is warming
it's a fact their "facts" dudn't fit”
bernzeppi Aka Clara the rhymer
Not exactly intelligent discussion about climate change.
This is text book human patternicity, or want to associate patterns that seem to have a connection. This human trait leads to religion, superstition, and false positive connections. The fact of the chemistry is that CO2 is a weak GW-gas. A 30% increase is CO2 can no way accounting for our observed climate shift. Therefore the cause must be due to something else. CO2 can be increased by a factor of 10 and only a modest 2 degree Celsius rise in temps would be seen. Something else is is wrong
Oh, and the first railroad in the US was the B&O, construction started in 1827. But we digress, CO2 still isn't the "Witch to burn" in climate change.
Even though CO2 increase has produced the hockey stick... AGW is by no means about the hockey stick... it's about the well documented physics of CO2's ability to absorb energy... this has been known for 150 years...
“Does CO2 fulfill the physical and chemical properties capable of our observed climate change?" CO2 has a narrow ability to absorb in the Infrared (2349 (4.26 um) and at 667 (15.00 um)). Chemistry of CO2 is of a stable Covalent Bonded molecule that will not readily accept energy. Comparatively water vapor has a vast potential to absorb energy as is the greatest GH-gas. Once a threshold of CO2 is reached in our atmospheric there is an even weaker ability to warm with < concentrations.
Mr. Bernzeppi, in response to your exaggeration is the scale of the data sets in question. If a more accurate depiction showed a scale of all recoreded data sets it would be a more represented graph of concentrations in history. Yet in a youtube setting of 450 character notes an arguement may try to be too elegant. Let us state that CO2 again, does not have the potential for our observed warming. It has some characteristics that give pause but is not the "Which Hunt" we should be on.
Wonderfully exaggerated scale with the lowest range at 200 ppm... So lets take a second look at this data. The last greatest upswing in the data set shows CO2 increasing around 1700, yet the first coal fired power plant was built in 1878. As someone who has studied Chemical Engineering with great detail I could argue the basic stance that CO2 has the thermodynamic potential for our current climate increases, therefore it must be in large part due to other circumstances. Any debate is welcome
@fredrickdl You would also know then, as a chemical engineer, that coal was used for heating, cooking, steam locomotives and more long before the first power station.
It was and is also used in the production of steel... 4 tons of coal (carbon) is needed per 1 ton of iron ore.
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
This graph is a representation of actual measurements.
However, have you seen one of these spherical devices in action?
You seem VERY knowledgeable.
bernzeppi 2 weeks ago
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
LordMonckton78 3 weeks ago
nice to see you spell arse properly.
Sad you have sunk to the level conspiracy theories.
Next it'll be HARRP
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
Ah, yes a climate scientist was pain with nice shiny tax-payer dollars. Perhaps in the millions of dollars granted to perform. And for what purpose has there been to measure so precisely and accurately a stable atmospheric molecule? Well Anthropogenic Global Warming motivations of politically greedy people. Why else would a scientist spend months freezing their arse on a glacier melting ice core samples.
fredrickdl 4 weeks ago
@fredrickdl Yessss.... wonder what the motivation of studying the sex life of Drosophilidae...
Those anti-christians!
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
this is merely a historical account of CO2 in the atmosphere... not a scientific model of the earth.
In case you don't know the difference.
How goes you Nobel prize?
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
In a scientific model all inputs of data must be looked at and no source of input can be overlooked. That is the basic fundamental of science. What heats the earth, what keeps the earth warm, what cools the earth, and so on. Earths climate is not a static model, for instance in Snow Mass, Colorado they recently unearthed Mastodons and Temperate Rainforest in an excavation and dated the remains 100K years froma climate much warmer than today's of manicured ski slopes. See above chart for CO2.
fredrickdl 4 weeks ago
@fredrickdl Open letter to anyone new to all this.
If you want to know what this video is about, please look at the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry for Randomlaughingman aka Clara Massa. For Example “So the denier flies come a-swarming
Still dribberling the same old shit
Thermometers show the earth is warming
it's a fact their "facts" dudn't fit”
bernzeppi Aka Clara the rhymer
Not exactly intelligent discussion about climate change.
LordMonckton78 3 weeks ago
This is text book human patternicity, or want to associate patterns that seem to have a connection. This human trait leads to religion, superstition, and false positive connections. The fact of the chemistry is that CO2 is a weak GW-gas. A 30% increase is CO2 can no way accounting for our observed climate shift. Therefore the cause must be due to something else. CO2 can be increased by a factor of 10 and only a modest 2 degree Celsius rise in temps would be seen. Something else is is wrong
fredrickdl 4 weeks ago
@fredrickdl you just making those numbers up.
Standby... you are gonna get the Nobel prize by telling us what is wrong...
I wait with baited breath!
Booo to those thousands of pesky climate scientists.... Fred has the answer...
Lets hear it Fred...
The floor is yours
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
Oh, and the first railroad in the US was the B&O, construction started in 1827. But we digress, CO2 still isn't the "Witch to burn" in climate change.
fredrickdl 4 weeks ago
@fredrickdl steel was made long before that.
And the steam engine was invented in Britain... where the industrial revolution began
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
@fredrickdl But let us take even a later date... say 1880.
Here is the climate history since 1880 animated for you
watch?v=9kFHQpZpgdg&feature=g-hist&context=G20528d9AHTynrVgAHAA
Even though CO2 increase has produced the hockey stick... AGW is by no means about the hockey stick... it's about the well documented physics of CO2's ability to absorb energy... this has been known for 150 years...
Fred... you are still in denial
watch?v=uHhLcoPT9KM&feature=g-like&context=G22c7447ALTyafowApAA
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
“Does CO2 fulfill the physical and chemical properties capable of our observed climate change?" CO2 has a narrow ability to absorb in the Infrared (2349 (4.26 um) and at 667 (15.00 um)). Chemistry of CO2 is of a stable Covalent Bonded molecule that will not readily accept energy. Comparatively water vapor has a vast potential to absorb energy as is the greatest GH-gas. Once a threshold of CO2 is reached in our atmospheric there is an even weaker ability to warm with < concentrations.
fredrickdl 4 weeks ago
@fredrickdl As you would know water vapor absorbes a different band of the IR spectrum.
The point is not the absolute energy absorption of CO2 v WV for we all know WV is a bigger contributer as a greenhouse gas.
But earths energy budget has been relatively stable for thousands of years...
Until we added 34% extra CO2 to the atmosphere.
That small increase in the greenhouse effect has begun a gradual rise in earths temperature.
We NEED the greenhouse effect otherwise earth would be frozen.
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
Mr. Bernzeppi, in response to your exaggeration is the scale of the data sets in question. If a more accurate depiction showed a scale of all recoreded data sets it would be a more represented graph of concentrations in history. Yet in a youtube setting of 450 character notes an arguement may try to be too elegant. Let us state that CO2 again, does not have the potential for our observed warming. It has some characteristics that give pause but is not the "Which Hunt" we should be on.
fredrickdl 4 weeks ago
@fredrickdl Ths is data direct from NASA... nothing is exaggerated.
Unless you have your own data set???
Hmm?
bernzeppi 4 weeks ago
Wonderfully exaggerated scale with the lowest range at 200 ppm... So lets take a second look at this data. The last greatest upswing in the data set shows CO2 increasing around 1700, yet the first coal fired power plant was built in 1878. As someone who has studied Chemical Engineering with great detail I could argue the basic stance that CO2 has the thermodynamic potential for our current climate increases, therefore it must be in large part due to other circumstances. Any debate is welcome
fredrickdl 1 month ago
@fredrickdl I'm left to suppose you have the 'real' data to support your claim this is 'wonderfully exaggerated'.
Can I see it?
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@fredrickdl You would also know then, as a chemical engineer, that coal was used for heating, cooking, steam locomotives and more long before the first power station.
It was and is also used in the production of steel... 4 tons of coal (carbon) is needed per 1 ton of iron ore.
You know this.
It is also used in the production of Aluminium.
Why wold you conveniently forget (ignore) this?
bernzeppi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The climate models are not actually models you know they are spherical crystal devices that when the climatologists hands are laid on them a swirling mist reveals what will be happening in the future
LordMonckton78 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@LordMonckton78 Obviously the coal fired revolution began and is still dominant in the northern hemisphere.
This is the data... I'm not making this shit up.
bernzeppi 1 month ago
@LordMonckton78 I think your brain exists in a swirling mist.
bernzeppi 1 month ago
Fantastic graphics, not arguing with the data - but why quite such a preponderance of data from the northern hemisphere? - but SO WHAT?
nickdougan 6 months ago
@nickdougan Obviously the coal fired revolution began and is still dominant in the northern hemisphere.
This is the data... I'm not making this shit up.
bernzeppi 1 month ago