If some gases contribute to global warming there have got to be some that contribute to global cooling.
I've heard that aerosols do that. But what is an aerosol? What things can I do in my daily life so that there are more aerosols in the atmosphere that will counteract global warming?
...that this is the case, just that characterizing opponents of the belief that "global warming is a problem" as believing in "conspiracy theories" is inaccurate.
Granted, I'm sure some really do think there's some deliberate plot, but my point is that to posit that special interests are driving this scientific reporting does NOT require positing any deliberation or conspiracy, just a bunch of people who aren't fully aware of their own motivations, which is a very human thing.
I don't know anybody who thinks it's "all a conspiracy" like this video portrays.
It's just a self-evident fact that people are more likely to believe things when something is in it for them, and it's clear that scientists who support global warming get more money, support, prestige, and lecturing opportunities.
For that to factor in does not require a conspiracy just the fact that people are often influenced by factors unknown to themselves. It's called the "subconscious".
@sicktoaster >and it's clear that scientists who support global warming get more money, support, prestige, and lecturing opportunities.< The problem with that point is that people forget to take that, too, into perspective. Compare the incentive to lie and financial means of scientists vs that of the fossil fuel/oil industry. Now tell me with a straight face that you're more convinced of corruption on the side of scientists (who work under the watch of peer review).
I never said they would've been doing it knowingly.
Regardless of which side is right it is very UNLIKELY that the scientists supporting the side that is wrong are doing any of it on purpose. Talking about it like you do in a way that assumes that it is all on purpose is counterproductive to convincing people of anything.
People have hidden motivations and biases that they themselves don't even know about. That is established fact by psychology.
@sicktoaster I agree, it's conceivable. The scientific method coupled with peer review is our best tool to keep such deception at bay. You seem to be a good person, so I don't even know why we argue. Regardless of how conceivable it is or isn't, there's also this watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
@sicktoaster Google should find you the video to the link from the link. But the title is "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" (over 5M views).
...that the scientists might be overlooking bits of data that doesn't support their theories. In fact it's more likely than not that BOTH sides of the aisle are doing this. And while the oil industry people are more likely to believe the research saying it isn't a problem, people who would be involved in some way in promoting regulations or in technological efforts to contain global warming would have an incentive to believe the science saying it's a major problem.
NONE of that requires any deliberate conspiracy on anybody's part. It's just a matter of fact that eveyone, even you or I sometimes acts on hidden biases and motivations that are not consciously perceived.
I bet an honest, impartial analysis of the data would find that both sides tend to ignore facts that don't fit in with what they are trying to promote.
But why is the main question even whether humans are causing it. The main questions should be:
1. Is the climate changing in a way that effects our environment in a way that significantly threatens our interests as a species(including health, economic, too many natural disasters,etc.)
AND
2. If so what sorts of things can be done to mitigate it?
Even if it is natural if the answer to #1 is "yes" we need to do something about it. And if we're causing it but the effect is extremely minute then we don't need to worry about it.
Either way we should continue researching the climate, but not just to know about it, but to CONTROL it. We need to learn ways of deliberately altering the climate through human technology. It is essential to our specie's survival. What if some sudden thing happened on the sun that would catapult us into a new ice age absent technological intervention?
Are there any human activities that would counteract global warming and make money.
It would be more realistic to try to encourage those activities than to discourage ones that reduce global warming. It would be much easier, and could probably be done without even raising the issue of "global warming"? Why not try that in order to combat climate change? It would be easier to persuade people on that, instead of trying to fight an uphill battle.
Wouldn't certain things if emitted cool the Earth?
@sicktoaster >Are there any human activities that would counteract global warming and make money.< Increased energy efficiency saves everyone but energy providers money. A stable habitat saves not only money, but our lives as well. Two problems are a) fossil fuel industry is huge and so is their lobbying power, bc the entire economy is built on oil. b) Humans aren't good with long term thought/delayed gratification/planning, but prone to the temptation of immediate gratification (cont.)
1. Wood regrows but that just means we don't have to worry about it running out. It doesn't change what ever amount it is releasing into the atmosphere.
2. Species across the board? I'm just thinking of human well-being. Predators sometimes naturally drive prey to extinction, is that evil?
3. I already try best I can to be efficient with my energy usage.
@sicktoaster >Wood regrows but that just means we don't have to worry about it running out. It doesn't change what ever amount it is releasing into the atmosphere.< But for wood to release CO2 upon burning, it must first capture CO2 during growth, otherwise there'd be nothing to release. If the fossilization process 'd be fast enough, there'd be no problem using oil. But CO2 of fossil fuels has been taken out of ecologic system millions of years ago, so it (climate/ecology)'s not adapted to it.
@sicktoaster >Species across the board? I'm just thinking of human well-being. Predators sometimes naturally drive prey to extinction, is that evil?< No. There's no inherent value to anything (though ideologists will tell you differently). But we don't know where our limit lies, without how much exactly we can make due, so it's good to keep things in order until we know where that limit lies.
3 - Good to hear. Habits are harder to change than people/leaders/products you support.
4. I can NOT do anything about the fossil fuel companies. I don't want to know what society can do, because I am just one person. I want to know what I PERSONALLY can do. And since I'm already pretty efficient with my energy usage the only way I can think of would be to purposefully use things that would contribute to the opposite effect, that is things that would cool the atmosphere. Anything?
5. You're generalizing humans. I've known people who obsess over being prepared
@sicktoaster >things that would cool the atmosphere. Anything?< I don't know, sorry. If you're doing your best to keep energy use down and efficiency high then you're already doing more than the majority of people.
Sorry, what are you referring to at "5. You're generalizing humans. I've known people who obsess over being prepared"? I can't quite match it. Please elaborate if you deem a reply necessary.
"Humans aren't good with long term thought/delayed gratification/planning, but prone to the temptation of immediate gratification"
I've known some humans to be obsessed with preparing for everything, so this is by no means a universal vice, even if it's a vice that is common among the more powerful echelons of society.
@sicktoaster (cont'd) Which is why we don't like investing in energy efficiency, in R&D/alternative technologies, which all take upfront investment and offer reward only later, and why we forget long term costs of non-sustainable activities (imagine of the pricing of products & transport included ecological damages incurred due to exhaust/pollution - industries would look entirely different). Money has abstract value, but the value of the environment we require to live in is very real.
I definitely believe there is global warming going on and there is climate change.
Just how do we know it's really that important?
Humans have been burning things at an exponentially higher rate throughout history. Burning wood will release CO2, so wouldn't nature adapt to that and continue to adapt?
Of course we're involved, and of course we're the biggest contributors, but what if that's just because we've been the biggest contributors throughout the history of civilization?
@sicktoaster >Burning wood will release CO2, so wouldn't nature adapt to that and continue to adapt?< Wood regrows, fossil fuels (hence the name fossil) don't. This is also why anthropogenic climate change didn't set in earlier. Secondly, evolution doesn't work nearly fast enough to have species across the board adapt to climate change over decades, which has historically taken millenia.
my biggest problem with climate change vs global warming is that man cannot produce CO2 in the volume that a natural event such as a volcano can. I believe in climate change, and that it is a natural process of us coming out of an ice age, but caveman fires certainly didn't melt the glaciers that created the great lakes. I also felt that this video had a lot of fluff but not a lot of content, data points are nice but they don't mean that they are true to your point.
@greenman3610 The video was meh, nothing I haven't heard before. My point (which you missed) was that increased volcanic activity has lead to a rise in co2 for quite a while, 3 recent volcanic eruptions have actually been tracked to major weather changes. Man's impact is very slight, in fact if you read data trends our co2 output has been diminishing over the past few decades, without the "green" movement. BTW your aggressive wording speaks clearly to being wrong.
@greenman3610 your irrationality shows how immature you are. Also you lack reading comprehension, as some of your other comments to other people are just as sad troll is sad. if you had "understood" my earlier comments, you would have realized that I accept climate change, but not global warming, which would not make me a "Denialist". There is a book you should read called "the skeptical enviromentalist" it should clear up your head a bit.
@greenman3610 LOL you haven't stated any facts, just sallow insults. Also a youtube video is not evidence. Obviously you didn't read any articles on current increased volcanism, or the fact that most active volcanoes are not measured, as the estimates are based on only a few active volcanoes. Recent volcanoes have put out more SO2 and CO2 then most countries have in years. Also i am not sure if you noticed that the ice age ended a bit ago, otherwise we wouldn't have the great lakes
@morakdais Congratulations. Your inability to understand current data and how CO2 volume from volcanoes is measured and compared explains your ignorance.
Why haven't you googled these data points and their sources? They were provided in the video description.
Furthermore, you should stick to arguing against this video. If you wanted to argue other points, then those videos are available on his YouTube channel.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
@greenman3610 You have a vested interest in this hoax, shame on you. I hope that when you & your fraudster buddies inevitably fail in your attempts to cull the population & make stinkingly huge amounts of dirty money in the process you all get what you truely deserve.
@Binkophile: it's really funny you would say that, because my wife does work in radiochemistry. Her job is (literally!) based around the fact that carbon which comes from burning fossil fuels differs from carbon which comes from "natural" sources; she has to take into account that fact that we've been burning 14C depleted hydrocarbons for the last few decades on a daily basis.
There's a reason why it's called "radiochemistry", and not just "radiology" or something like that.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
At 2:09 "CO2 released by fossil fuels has a different chemical signature than CO2 released by animals and plants" This is complete bollocks. And this is why climate change deniers have so much ammuniton. People make statements that are demonstrably false which discredits everything else they were saying. Get the facts straight, dont embelish and certainly dont make up things. Changing the chemical signature of CO2 would require a nuclear reactor, not a steam engine.
I let Heidi Cullen do the talking on that - I think she used "chemical" because it might be more understandable than "isotopic" to the nonscientific listener. In the description, I link to the paper
"Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research"
which you can google.
also see
"Suess effect"
and chill out dude -
I think the National Academy of Science probably has thought this thru beyond 8th grade science level.
@greenman3610 I have read a paper on the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere and understand (I think) how it works. The point I was making was that incorrect statements, such as the one I pointed to, should not be made. If you made a statement like that in a peer reviewed paper, would they 'chill out', or would they tear you a new one?
@Binkophile Correct there is only one Co2 and it is an atmospheric trace gas essential to life on our Planet. Another fact is that our Sun is very inactive and may even be entering a Grand Minimum therefore deep and longterm global cooling is much more likely than warming. At present we have a cooling Pacific, all levels of the atmosphere are cooler than this time last year, the Gulf stream current is very weak, volcanic and tectonic activity are increasing due to a weak magnetosphere.
Interesting... --the repeated use of the term "Denier" (to refuse to agree or accede to) --the term alone is an intentional subtlety inplicating any disagreement with Mr. Sinclair as recognizing "human global warming" as absolute fact. Looking back at all of this in 20 years, and I believe we'll wonder what all the fuss was about --jast as we did with Y2K.
@RL36D Hi there, The total cost of the work done in preparation for Y2K is estimated at over 300 billion US dollars.[35] IDC calculated that the U.S. spent an estimated $134 billion preparing for Y2K, and another $13 billion fixing problems in 2000 and 2001. Worldwide $308 billion was estimated to have been spent on Y2K remediation.[36]. 308 billion reasons why your belief that y2k never existed is laughable.
@ikt123 wow. so, Y2K, really. Your defense of this bullocks is Y2K? Really? Alright. In 1999, they told me my 286 would crash on January 1st if I did nothing about it. It would 'fall out of the sky' from my office. I never bothered and nothing happened. Nothing. Your defense of so-called-global-warming is the billions of dollars wasted on Y2K. Why don't you tell us about the billions spent preventing SARS and other make-believe-pandemics. Wasted money is your defense? Yikes!
@ikt123 "912 confirmed" is a pandemic? s**t man, your pandemics come cheap. Tooth decay and ingrown toenails are probably pandemics as well as I'm sure worldwide they've caused more deaths.
I care a great deal about human life, that's why I don't support throwing trillions of dollars at this unproved hypothesis which calls carbon dioxide a pollutant
people who believe that support: nuclear energy- Fukishima; CFL bulbs- mercury; ethanol- starvation and GMO corn, and they forget about real issues
@RL36D Your argument is bad because it puts the position of human life below money, your exact argument is that we shouldn't spend money preventing bad things from happening UNLESS there are a lot of deaths, you are in essence George Bush. 9/11 was just an "unproved hypothesis" and there was no point spending billions of dollars on security, now look at the trillions that have been spent.
@ikt123 wow, no wonder you believe in global warming, you do only hear what you want. To twist what I said about your specious 'pandemic' comment to mean that I think we should only prevent pandemics shows where your pea brain is really at.
I won't waste any more time on you as you yourself are proof of the dimness of the true believer. Yes, you found me out, I am George Bush. clown.
@RL36D wow, no wonder you are a climate change denier, you do only hear what you want, then you make several bad arguments and have a cry when I point this out.
a) do some basic research on climate change.
b) get some better arguments.
c) stop watching conspiracy theory videos on youtube.
Also I never called you George Bush, trying googling for "in essence idiom".
@ikt123 thanks for the sound educational advice. I can always count on true believers for smug advice and condescension. Everyone who shares your point of view, from climate Kate to erotica writing IPCC heads are geniuses, and everyone who disagrees, from me to Piers Corbyn are 'in essence' George Bush or in essence, idiots. You, in essence, have too much time on your hands on a work day like myself, are not a scientist, but another guy, like myself- with beliefs.
@RL36D Right, except the overwhelming majority of those who are climate scientists (rather than "just [an]other guy[s]") happen to agree with ikt123, rather than with you. Unfortunately much as we might wish it not to be the case smugness is no guarantee of wrongness; no matter how smug ikt123 is, s/he is almost certainly correct.
@RL36D Just saw this, you might like it! "In Australia we have just voted to spend $50 billion (billion with a "B") to build 12 new submarines to replace the 6 older ones that we haven't used yet. And no one is quite certain who we need these to protect us from, and no one is sure what day we will need them, and no one is quite certain where we should park them on that day, and if you listen to the Navy we aren't certain if we'll have enough crew to staff them.
@RL36D But whenever it comes to making decisions about national defense, whenever the decision comes up about our health, whenever the consequences are catastrophic, what sensible people do is take the conservative path."
@RL36D "I care a great deal about human life, that's why I don't support throwing trillions of dollars"
That's a contradiction, you care only enough to not spend lots of money, you would rather thousands of people die before spending money on it, because hey, preventing things from happening costs money, and that's bad.
Nostradamus, and the Mayan both speak to an understanding of climate warming with a focus on the 90's up to around 2012. They both involve drought with regards to heat. So Peter Sinclair and his "over whelming" truth and just that... his. Hey, in 1954 9 out of 10 doctors recommended smoking cigarettes as healthy relaxtion tool :) -- Todays SCIENCE is no damn different.
climate denial has been shaped using the tactics that were successful for the tobacco industry to fight off regulation for 40 years. In many cases, the same PR firms, and even the same stable of "expert" scientists from groups like the George Marshall institute were involved in assuring us that cigarette smoke was "safe", and that there was no climate change. see Naomi Oreskes lecture on line. or here
Such an incredible video. I am involved with a group of nurses informing ourselves and the communities in which we live and work of the human health impacts of climate change. In the meantime we have politicians who are trying to roll back the clock on the EPA and are trying to block legislation which will be protective of human health. The EPA began in 1970; six months prior the Cuyahoga River caught fire from toxins. We are not only endangering humans; all life will be impacted.
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. Take a look if you'd like!
You assume by changing our ways we can fix the problem. There's no science that supports that. Everything I've read on STOPPING agw is basically to slow it down at best. You fail to understand my basic problem with the green movement. Man can't pick the climate even if we do impact it. You believe we should adapt society to not impact climate. I believe we should adapt to the climate like we've done throughout the history of man. No science will make us agree.
i agree 100%. i LOVE your videos, and still you have these dumbasses who try to prove you wrong. look at the likes vs dislikes on this video. idk if you have any, but i LOVE evolution videos as well. do you also do evolution or just climate change? great video, though!
5 billion years of climate and we've figured it out in 150 years of observation. Great!! I'm going to the Bahama's in September. What's the weather going to be like there? My point is not that man-made global warming is fake, but that the science is no where close to accurate yet. One excuse for the climate change computers always being horribly wrong in their predictions is weather plays a significant role in climate, and they can't predict decades of weather, so stop scaring children.
well, we figured out nuclear fission and space travel, so that's not so bad.
as far as "computer predictions", you are mistaken if you think that is the basis of the science.
We know how the earth has behaved the last 5 billion years, and we expect that it will probably behave in the same or similar manner now. That is the primary science behind agw.
@greenman3610 Yet we can't predict the local climate for next seasons crops. I have no problem with the science behind agw. Just the doomsday predictions and the ass-headed solutions.
@greenman3610 So weather and climate aren't the same? Your admitting that extreme weather events can not be linked to climate change. Why does the video show footage of people being swept away in a flood? Is that proof or a scare tactic? When weather helps the cause it important, when it hurts the cause it unimportant. I have been following the research for a long time. You don't understand that I don't disagrees with the basis of agw, just the hysteria and the movement.
@greenman3610 How much reduction in CO2 output would it take and how long to make a dent in the warming? Explain to me why you believe some convoluted UN system of carbon credits is going to be effective and not full of global politics and completely ineffective. Also explain your conspiracy as to why fossil fuels have not been replaced with "green" energy, and if your answer is cost then what do you expect poor people to do. You seem to understand science, how about reality?
@greenman3610 Sorry for the multiple posts, but one more question. Do you think its more effective as an individual to join the "green" movement to force everyone to go "green" and hope we can stop it, or expect it and accept it and prepare to the best of your ability.
@poonjabinator These comments show your real motivation. You are opposed to the political green movement, and dislike the changes that they propose to deal with climate change. So its the politics, and not really about the science. You don't like the implications, so you attempt to rationalize the science away.
@poonjabinator Do you know what kind of changes global warming will probably mean? Flooding along coastal areas means that the amount of arable and livable land vastly decrease. Coastal cities housing millions (if not billions since the majority of people live along the coast) will become unlivable meaning that most places are going to get alot more crowded. So, we've got millions of refugees and less farming ability.
@poonjabinator Add increased probability of wet weather and expansion of the tropics and this probably means that diseases are going to become more prevalent. Diseases like malaria. Mix this with crowded living spaces and epidemics are bound to happen. Not to mention the billions lost due to the ecological value of rain forests (as a source of new medicines) and adversely affected fisheries (coral reefs don't do well in acidic waters).
@poonjabinator Now, how much will all this change cost? Alot more than if we made a shift to green technology. No government is forcing it but alot of governments are encouraging it by giving green industries more funding. Oil prices will rise. Coal prices will rise. Gas prices will rise. This is inevitable as they are resources that are finite and must be extracted (and easy to get to sources of fossil fuels are running out). Green industries represent a real growth area.
@poonjabinator By consistently raising the point "weather" and by raising fears of a "government takeover of green", you demonstrate a lack of science understanding, critical thought and propaganda. Additionally, it's callous to say "oh, just prepare." Yes, the developed world might be able to prepare. What about Africa or India or any other less developed nation? Africa can barely feed itself, how is it supposed to prepare?
@poonjabinator What about the people who live in New York City or San Francisco or New Orleans or Seattle or any number of coastal cities? I suppose we should just abandon those cities, with billions (if not trillions) of infrastructure invested in them and build, what, new cities that will coast billions/trillions of dollars? Sigh, your ignorance astounds me.
@poonjabinator Climate and weather are two separate things. Weather is very chaotic and hard to predict, but climate is more stable and changes gradually. This is equivalent misunderstanding that creationists make when they say "If evo is true, why are there still monkeys?" Both rely on very deep seated misunderstandings of the theory in question and imply that the person has no actual familiarly with them.
@poonjabinator You do realize that climate is the measure of weather over a prolonged period of time, right? Additionally, climate change computers do not predict tomorrow's weather - that'd be a waste of a million dollar super computer. The science is pretty accurate in that mean global temperature is rising and is anthropogenic in nature. Yes, it can't make specific weather predictions for the next 30 days but it can make good guesses as to weather for the next 100 years.
@poonjabinator You could make some of those guesses yourself. Increasing temperatures, in general, is going to contribute to increasing desertification, retreat of the temperate climate zone and an advance of the tropic and desert climate zones. You can hazard a guess that the number of hurricanes and tornados is going to increase as a result of disruption of global weather patterns. Additionally it's not just weather. Increasing global temperatures will affect oceans as well.
@poonjabinator By equating climatology to meteorology and expecting science to give clear cut, definitive, short term, 100% accurate predictions, you demonstrate your clear misunderstanding of science and climate science. And, as this video demonstrates, we can also look at data concerning the planet's past, when it was warmer, to be able to gain insight on how the Earth will be impacted in the future.
What & how it that this earth made thru several ice ages? Fluctuation in orbits & so forth. We do know that other planets are rising in temperature as well & the solid ice moons of them have been turning to liquid. Use your head, we will find a way through every problem we face with true factual scientific applications.
Or you can just sit back, complain & then pray... People are truly stupid !
Many straw-man arguments were utilized in the making of this video. The biggest one is that opponents are deniers and fools. Actually very few of them are, and have legitimate, skeptical questions such as: 1) why are all the planets in the solar system also warming? 2) has the good of global warming been balanced against the bad? 3) Does CO2 cause warming, or does warming create more CO2? Inconvenient questions for the climate zealot to be sure.
more evidence that opponents are deniers and fools.
"planets" canard -
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
"could more warming be good?"
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
as for the "does warming create more CO2?" - clearly you were sleeping when this video pointed out that we can identify the source of the increased CO2 by looking at the isotopic signature. The study referenced is in the description under "isotopes".
Please pay attention. I'm here to help you avoid more embarrassments like this.
@Landrew0 The earth has been warming since the end of the LIA. The scientists that now predict GW were the same type that predicting global cooling in the 70’s. With GW a few hundred million acres that were uninhabitable because it was too cold are now open for humans, and other animals, to live on. A year around ice free Northwest Passage would save trillions in transportation costs alone. At best mans effect on the planet is like two fleas on a dog arguing over who gets to steer.
72 – Kukla-Mathews publishes about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes to Nixon in 72, specifically warning about global cooling.
73 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
78 -Carter signs Climate Program Act due to a number of SEVERE WINTER experiences the preceding years.
@cupera1 "Kukla-Mathews publishes about the end of the current inter glacial"
They were geologists.They were not concerned with accurate prediction of future climate.
"Carter signs Climate Program Act due to a number of SEVERE WINTER experiences the preceding years."
More like due to a number of government studies stating the need to research the effects of climactic change on global politics and after years of effort.
@cupera1 "try the 1974 CIA report that shows a consensus of scientist that concurs that the world was heading to another ice age."
Do you mean this?
tinyurl (dot) com / yds3ynt
Nowhere does it state that the scientific consensus was long term global cooling. It does however say:
"... the views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official position ... of the CIA"
@Landrew0 Every one is hip to hit the panic button & science depicts that people like fear for it breeds unnecessary human drama necessary for "Dim Bulb Thinkers", that can't think for them self !
@watermelonygoodness because they can't connect global warming to man. Don't believe this guy Peter Sinclair is a glorified blogger. he has no formal climate education his only education came from an AL GORE ran weekend seminar. There is a reason there will never be a public aired debate the ""global warming scientist" KNOW there numbers are twisted and manipulated lies with a large amount of miss information
You spend too much time proving that the Earth's temperature is increasing and not enough time proving that the cause of this warming is human activity.
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
Wait wait you said that most of the atmosphere is made up of mostly oxygen and carbon dioxide which isn't true the atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen and about 20% Oxygen and the other 2% is carbon and other gases
What about "negative feedback". More CO2 + pollution + water vapor from heat = more clouds that will keep sunlight from entering the earth's surfaces. This results in a cooling effect—a negative feedback.
If youre saying my reason is just a hypothesis, so is "CO2 causes global warming"
the problem with your formulation, is that it is not born out in observations of paleoclimate, nor is it observed in the instrumental record of the last 150 years.
What fits the observations is greenhouse gas forcing. That's why every relevant scientific group has come to the same conclusion.
tHIS VIDEO IS MORE JUNK PROPAGANDA. Note Oceans have been raising an average of 4 ft per century over the past 10,000 years. Now they are rising about 1 ft per century. Oceans rose 2 mm per year during the first half of the 20th century, and only 1.5 mm per year during the second half. Humans are not the cause. Over the past three years, oceans have totally stopped rising, as determined by satellite measurements and published by University of Colorado.
@greenman3610 Better yet read chaps 1, 6 and 9 for the science all based on RF theory where the value is unknown and positive loopbacked biased models that predict an amplfying effecrt but that also just missed ther last 10 years. Believers dont even know that they believe in
Here is the big problem a 100 ppm increase of CO2 in the lab has no effect on temp as it takes an increase of about 200,000 ppm CO2 in the lab to cause a 3 degree C temp change. This is going from .01% to 20%. The believers say well a lab test is not fair because CO2 is in 50,000 feet of atmosphere and the CO2 cause reflective layers. This is known as IR theory but it is completely unproven and the value unknown.
@greenman361o Oh good your a reader, great give us some reproducable proof an increase of 100ppm in co2 has any effect on temp, plz do tell. My guess is you dont even understand what you believe in,
If you read the IPCC 4th report chap 1,6, and 9 in particular this is all laid out. They claim RF raises the temp a certain UNPROVEN amount then they throw incomplete positive biased loopback models to claim an amplifying effect. The problem is the models just missed the last 10 years as temp stayed flat.
The IPCC claims the current temp increase is man made because they cant explain it, but they ignore 10,000s of years of ice core data showing the temp naturally oscillates 3 degrees C in as little as 200 years. For example if you look at the GISP (Greenland ice core) you will see it was 1 degree higher in the NH 1000 years ago, 2 degrees C 2000 years ago and 3 degrees C higher 3300 years ago with many ups and downs in between these changes.
The IPCC does try to use proxies (tree rings, coral reefs, etc) and 40 year filters to dampen the change seen in the ice cores the problem is the proxies are not that accurate after a 1000 years but even these proxies show a temp increase 1000 and 2000 years ago with higher temps than today
However the IPCC claims it is not their mission to explain past natural temp changes so they ignore it then have the nerve to claim the current temp increase must be man because they cant explain it, this is a disservice to mankind.
Global warming was thought up in the 1970s, from a steam in Soylant Green, but also gave the unibomber his manifesto.
It was arguing that man is carbon dioxide would inevitably warm the weather. But there is no mechanism, or historical data are behind this idea. Green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide from the air. To give a global level of two PPM.
@LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI Co2 is a green house gas -fact!! we are emitting more more co2- fact!!! Conclusion the earth is warming due to changes in atmospheric gas concentration!! question how much longer will the earth be habitable! what part of this simple, child like argument do you dispute/ have a problem with ?
@torturedgenius314 C02 i a green house gas. Yes. We are emitting more CO2 yes. But you are also forgetting an element called negative feedback. If the temperature increased more water from the oceans would turn into vapor, which would cause more clouds. This would block the short wave radiation from the sun and this would have a cooling effect.
@ImperialGrim Ok you want to talk feed back loops fine ! All the research and everything we know at the moment points to the FACT that the more co2 the more POSITIVE feedbacks come into play. For example the ice caps melt and instead of ice reflecting heat u have sea absorbing it, as the temperture increase the amazon drys out trees dry and there are huge fires so the amazon instead of being a massive carbon sink becames a huge source of carbon! but its ok right cos we have a few clouds!!
Deniers, try to provide ONE respected scientific institution that says humans are not warming the climate. They can't. So how about ONE credible study from a respected source? Not likely they can dig it up. Then what reasoning supports denials? Is it just because they don't WANT it to be true? Is it their baseless BELIEF that prevents them from seeing the overwhelming evidence? The conclusion is solid; HUMANS cause warming.
Come on deniers, where is your rational argument?
The closest thing to a 'single paper' is Harries 2001, it links the radiative transfer equations with observed changes in outgoing long wave radiation.
Green plants scare are all available carbon dioxide from the air. So man is carbon dioxide has increased life on earth but not affected the weather. That is a nuclear line from paid stooges!
Plants sink all the carbon dioxide to do photosynthesis. Man is carbon dioxide emissions has boosted life on earth by 15%, but have no possible effect on the weather - as there is no residual increase in carbon dioxide in the air.
@JonThm ? How can you say that there is not a cumulative increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? The Co2 concentration is monitored very closely and shows an increase of 2ppm a year that is around 2ppm less than we are realeasing due to that the ocean and to some extend forrests still works as carbon sinks. Where did you get that idea from? I'm honestly very curious.
/wires.wiley . Com /WileyCDA/WiresArticle/articles.html?doi=10.1002/wcc.18 here is the paper you take the incorrect graph from you used fig6 when infact you should have used fig5!
@greenman3610 My "key point" is that in your film you quote "solar irradiance" and figure 6 does not show this. Therefore this is incorrect and a fallacy. The specific graph which you should use is figure 5. I am not disputing solar forcing.
@greenman3610 I quote from Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate
"Figure 6.
Compared with the CRU monthly mean global temperature time series (hadcrut3vcgl) in (a) is an empirical mean global temperature time series (hadcrut3vcgl)......"
Check out section (d) of figure 6 (the green series).
"Reconstructions of the contributions to the monthly mean global surface temperatures by individual (b) ENSO, (c) volcanic, (d) solar, and (d) anthropogenic influences (at appropriate lags) are also shown."
@JonThm Brilliant, you could possibly pass the 4th grade in the US! Very long term climate variation is dictated by..... Solar and orbital cycles. Not a single climatologist would deny this, it is scientific fact. Contemporary climate change is an issue, because the change is occurring at a rate that does not match natural cycles. Warming that should have occurred on the order of thousands of years with natural processes has occurred in less than 2 centuries.
You quoted the article "Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate" and used figure 6 to show "no increase in solar Irradiance since 1950", this is incorrect, this is a figure that shows the anomalous difference between the CRU data and their research.
The figure you should have used is figure 5. which shows an increasing in solar Irradiance in w/m2 from the 1700's to present day!
People please thumb this for attention of viewers. Only counter made to AGW is a fake graph, impressive
@greenman3610 like i said in my comment your video is incorrect and miss leading. you have tellingly not addressed this issue raised which is you have used a the wrong graph to justify your own position, hardly scientific. maybe you should read the article in its entirety and get back to me. Oh and change that graph on your video or add an annotation! Cheers.
Skeptical science has an excellent series of 6 articles on the phony scandal called climate gate. Starts with article - "The Fake Scandal of Climategate"
If some gases contribute to global warming there have got to be some that contribute to global cooling.
I've heard that aerosols do that. But what is an aerosol? What things can I do in my daily life so that there are more aerosols in the atmosphere that will counteract global warming?
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
...that this is the case, just that characterizing opponents of the belief that "global warming is a problem" as believing in "conspiracy theories" is inaccurate.
Granted, I'm sure some really do think there's some deliberate plot, but my point is that to posit that special interests are driving this scientific reporting does NOT require positing any deliberation or conspiracy, just a bunch of people who aren't fully aware of their own motivations, which is a very human thing.
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
I don't know anybody who thinks it's "all a conspiracy" like this video portrays.
It's just a self-evident fact that people are more likely to believe things when something is in it for them, and it's clear that scientists who support global warming get more money, support, prestige, and lecturing opportunities.
For that to factor in does not require a conspiracy just the fact that people are often influenced by factors unknown to themselves. It's called the "subconscious".
I'm not saying...
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@sicktoaster >and it's clear that scientists who support global warming get more money, support, prestige, and lecturing opportunities.< The problem with that point is that people forget to take that, too, into perspective. Compare the incentive to lie and financial means of scientists vs that of the fossil fuel/oil industry. Now tell me with a straight face that you're more convinced of corruption on the side of scientists (who work under the watch of peer review).
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
I never said they would've been doing it knowingly.
Regardless of which side is right it is very UNLIKELY that the scientists supporting the side that is wrong are doing any of it on purpose. Talking about it like you do in a way that assumes that it is all on purpose is counterproductive to convincing people of anything.
People have hidden motivations and biases that they themselves don't even know about. That is established fact by psychology.
So it's conceivable...
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@sicktoaster I agree, it's conceivable. The scientific method coupled with peer review is our best tool to keep such deception at bay. You seem to be a good person, so I don't even know why we argue. Regardless of how conceivable it is or isn't, there's also this watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
1. We argue, because there's a good exchange of ideas going on here. Hurray for arguing!
2. The link doesn't follow. Anything I can type into the search?
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sicktoaster Google should find you the video to the link from the link. But the title is "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" (over 5M views).
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
...that the scientists might be overlooking bits of data that doesn't support their theories. In fact it's more likely than not that BOTH sides of the aisle are doing this. And while the oil industry people are more likely to believe the research saying it isn't a problem, people who would be involved in some way in promoting regulations or in technological efforts to contain global warming would have an incentive to believe the science saying it's a major problem.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
NONE of that requires any deliberate conspiracy on anybody's part. It's just a matter of fact that eveyone, even you or I sometimes acts on hidden biases and motivations that are not consciously perceived.
I bet an honest, impartial analysis of the data would find that both sides tend to ignore facts that don't fit in with what they are trying to promote.
But why is the main question even whether humans are causing it. The main questions should be:
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
1. Is the climate changing in a way that effects our environment in a way that significantly threatens our interests as a species(including health, economic, too many natural disasters,etc.)
AND
2. If so what sorts of things can be done to mitigate it?
Even if it is natural if the answer to #1 is "yes" we need to do something about it. And if we're causing it but the effect is extremely minute then we don't need to worry about it.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
Either way we should continue researching the climate, but not just to know about it, but to CONTROL it. We need to learn ways of deliberately altering the climate through human technology. It is essential to our specie's survival. What if some sudden thing happened on the sun that would catapult us into a new ice age absent technological intervention?
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
Are there any human activities that would counteract global warming and make money.
It would be more realistic to try to encourage those activities than to discourage ones that reduce global warming. It would be much easier, and could probably be done without even raising the issue of "global warming"? Why not try that in order to combat climate change? It would be easier to persuade people on that, instead of trying to fight an uphill battle.
Wouldn't certain things if emitted cool the Earth?
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@sicktoaster >Are there any human activities that would counteract global warming and make money.< Increased energy efficiency saves everyone but energy providers money. A stable habitat saves not only money, but our lives as well. Two problems are a) fossil fuel industry is huge and so is their lobbying power, bc the entire economy is built on oil. b) Humans aren't good with long term thought/delayed gratification/planning, but prone to the temptation of immediate gratification (cont.)
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
1. Wood regrows but that just means we don't have to worry about it running out. It doesn't change what ever amount it is releasing into the atmosphere.
2. Species across the board? I'm just thinking of human well-being. Predators sometimes naturally drive prey to extinction, is that evil?
3. I already try best I can to be efficient with my energy usage.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sicktoaster >Wood regrows but that just means we don't have to worry about it running out. It doesn't change what ever amount it is releasing into the atmosphere.< But for wood to release CO2 upon burning, it must first capture CO2 during growth, otherwise there'd be nothing to release. If the fossilization process 'd be fast enough, there'd be no problem using oil. But CO2 of fossil fuels has been taken out of ecologic system millions of years ago, so it (climate/ecology)'s not adapted to it.
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@sicktoaster >Species across the board? I'm just thinking of human well-being. Predators sometimes naturally drive prey to extinction, is that evil?< No. There's no inherent value to anything (though ideologists will tell you differently). But we don't know where our limit lies, without how much exactly we can make due, so it's good to keep things in order until we know where that limit lies.
3 - Good to hear. Habits are harder to change than people/leaders/products you support.
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
4. I can NOT do anything about the fossil fuel companies. I don't want to know what society can do, because I am just one person. I want to know what I PERSONALLY can do. And since I'm already pretty efficient with my energy usage the only way I can think of would be to purposefully use things that would contribute to the opposite effect, that is things that would cool the atmosphere. Anything?
5. You're generalizing humans. I've known people who obsess over being prepared
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@sicktoaster >things that would cool the atmosphere. Anything?< I don't know, sorry. If you're doing your best to keep energy use down and efficiency high then you're already doing more than the majority of people.
Sorry, what are you referring to at "5. You're generalizing humans. I've known people who obsess over being prepared"? I can't quite match it. Please elaborate if you deem a reply necessary.
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
"Humans aren't good with long term thought/delayed gratification/planning, but prone to the temptation of immediate gratification"
I've known some humans to be obsessed with preparing for everything, so this is by no means a universal vice, even if it's a vice that is common among the more powerful echelons of society.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@sicktoaster (cont'd) Which is why we don't like investing in energy efficiency, in R&D/alternative technologies, which all take upfront investment and offer reward only later, and why we forget long term costs of non-sustainable activities (imagine of the pricing of products & transport included ecological damages incurred due to exhaust/pollution - industries would look entirely different). Money has abstract value, but the value of the environment we require to live in is very real.
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
@playgrrrr
"We".
I am a "me".
If I could promote a "We" to solve all the world's problems I would, but I'm not that good of a public speaker, sorry.
I just want to know if global warming is real and is here what can I do about it?
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
I definitely believe there is global warming going on and there is climate change.
Just how do we know it's really that important?
Humans have been burning things at an exponentially higher rate throughout history. Burning wood will release CO2, so wouldn't nature adapt to that and continue to adapt?
Of course we're involved, and of course we're the biggest contributors, but what if that's just because we've been the biggest contributors throughout the history of civilization?
sicktoaster 3 weeks ago
@sicktoaster >Burning wood will release CO2, so wouldn't nature adapt to that and continue to adapt?< Wood regrows, fossil fuels (hence the name fossil) don't. This is also why anthropogenic climate change didn't set in earlier. Secondly, evolution doesn't work nearly fast enough to have species across the board adapt to climate change over decades, which has historically taken millenia.
playgrrrr 2 weeks ago
my biggest problem with climate change vs global warming is that man cannot produce CO2 in the volume that a natural event such as a volcano can. I believe in climate change, and that it is a natural process of us coming out of an ice age, but caveman fires certainly didn't melt the glaciers that created the great lakes. I also felt that this video had a lot of fluff but not a lot of content, data points are nice but they don't mean that they are true to your point.
morakdais 1 month ago in playlist Climate change
@morakdais
wrong. man produces 100 times as much co2 as volcanoes over the course of the year.
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
you can also google the US geological survey on this -
USGS volcanic gases climate
Don't pretend to know what you do not. Watching the all the videos would help you avoid embarrassments like this in the future.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 The video was meh, nothing I haven't heard before. My point (which you missed) was that increased volcanic activity has lead to a rise in co2 for quite a while, 3 recent volcanic eruptions have actually been tracked to major weather changes. Man's impact is very slight, in fact if you read data trends our co2 output has been diminishing over the past few decades, without the "green" movement. BTW your aggressive wording speaks clearly to being wrong.
morakdais 1 month ago
@morakdais
wow. totally refractory to evidence. check. no supporting citations. check.
complete certainty. check.
thanks for proving my point about denialists, once again.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 your irrationality shows how immature you are. Also you lack reading comprehension, as some of your other comments to other people are just as sad troll is sad. if you had "understood" my earlier comments, you would have realized that I accept climate change, but not global warming, which would not make me a "Denialist". There is a book you should read called "the skeptical enviromentalist" it should clear up your head a bit.
morakdais 1 month ago
@morakdais
when you wish to actually cite a fact and back it up, let me know.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 LOL you haven't stated any facts, just sallow insults. Also a youtube video is not evidence. Obviously you didn't read any articles on current increased volcanism, or the fact that most active volcanoes are not measured, as the estimates are based on only a few active volcanoes. Recent volcanoes have put out more SO2 and CO2 then most countries have in years. Also i am not sure if you noticed that the ice age ended a bit ago, otherwise we wouldn't have the great lakes
morakdais 1 month ago
@morakdais
the description is copiously documented. I assumed you could read.
cite something when you get around to it.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@morakdais Congratulations. Your inability to understand current data and how CO2 volume from volcanoes is measured and compared explains your ignorance.
Why haven't you googled these data points and their sources? They were provided in the video description.
Furthermore, you should stick to arguing against this video. If you wanted to argue other points, then those videos are available on his YouTube channel.
VvDOPAMEANvV 3 weeks ago
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577
thanks for giving me the chance to rebut that ridiculous piece of trash yet again.
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 You have a vested interest in this hoax, shame on you. I hope that when you & your fraudster buddies inevitably fail in your attempts to cull the population & make stinkingly huge amounts of dirty money in the process you all get what you truely deserve.
Galv140577 1 month ago
Great Video; act now on increasing renewable use!
dmlt12 5 months ago
Yes I don't believe in 50b for subs or 50b to fight carbon dioxide. It's all lunacy.
RL36D 6 months ago
@Binkophile: it's really funny you would say that, because my wife does work in radiochemistry. Her job is (literally!) based around the fact that carbon which comes from burning fossil fuels differs from carbon which comes from "natural" sources; she has to take into account that fact that we've been burning 14C depleted hydrocarbons for the last few decades on a daily basis.
There's a reason why it's called "radiochemistry", and not just "radiology" or something like that.
IICVX 6 months ago
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
wonderful...thanks
SuperCharsy 6 months ago
At 2:09 "CO2 released by fossil fuels has a different chemical signature than CO2 released by animals and plants" This is complete bollocks. And this is why climate change deniers have so much ammuniton. People make statements that are demonstrably false which discredits everything else they were saying. Get the facts straight, dont embelish and certainly dont make up things. Changing the chemical signature of CO2 would require a nuclear reactor, not a steam engine.
Binkophile 6 months ago
@Binkophile
I let Heidi Cullen do the talking on that - I think she used "chemical" because it might be more understandable than "isotopic" to the nonscientific listener. In the description, I link to the paper
"Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research"
which you can google.
also see
"Suess effect"
and chill out dude -
I think the National Academy of Science probably has thought this thru beyond 8th grade science level.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 I have read a paper on the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere and understand (I think) how it works. The point I was making was that incorrect statements, such as the one I pointed to, should not be made. If you made a statement like that in a peer reviewed paper, would they 'chill out', or would they tear you a new one?
Binkophile 6 months ago
@Binkophile
you would not make a statement like that in a peer reviewed paper.
You might very well make it in a made for tv/general audiences commentary
greenman3610 6 months ago
Respond to this video... And I know Im being a pedantic git quibbling over terminology, but... it does matter :)
Binkophile 6 months ago
@Binkophile Correct there is only one Co2 and it is an atmospheric trace gas essential to life on our Planet. Another fact is that our Sun is very inactive and may even be entering a Grand Minimum therefore deep and longterm global cooling is much more likely than warming. At present we have a cooling Pacific, all levels of the atmosphere are cooler than this time last year, the Gulf stream current is very weak, volcanic and tectonic activity are increasing due to a weak magnetosphere.
david222444 4 months ago
Great video!
ObamaFTWdotcom 7 months ago
Very minor suggestion / nitpick - for the glacier melting comparison at the 8 minutes 19- 30 second mark could benefit from dates being added.
Astrostevo 8 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
Interesting... --the repeated use of the term "Denier" (to refuse to agree or accede to) --the term alone is an intentional subtlety inplicating any disagreement with Mr. Sinclair as recognizing "human global warming" as absolute fact. Looking back at all of this in 20 years, and I believe we'll wonder what all the fuss was about --jast as we did with Y2K.
909Experiment 8 months ago
@909Experiment
of course, Y2k didn't happen, because we worked hard and did something about it.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 you're fuckin kidding right? you believe in Y2K? goodbye.
RL36D 8 months ago
@RL36D Hi there, The total cost of the work done in preparation for Y2K is estimated at over 300 billion US dollars.[35] IDC calculated that the U.S. spent an estimated $134 billion preparing for Y2K, and another $13 billion fixing problems in 2000 and 2001. Worldwide $308 billion was estimated to have been spent on Y2K remediation.[36]. 308 billion reasons why your belief that y2k never existed is laughable.
ikt123 8 months ago
@ikt123 wow. so, Y2K, really. Your defense of this bullocks is Y2K? Really? Alright. In 1999, they told me my 286 would crash on January 1st if I did nothing about it. It would 'fall out of the sky' from my office. I never bothered and nothing happened. Nothing. Your defense of so-called-global-warming is the billions of dollars wasted on Y2K. Why don't you tell us about the billions spent preventing SARS and other make-believe-pandemics. Wasted money is your defense? Yikes!
RL36D 6 months ago
@RL36D wow! really?
"In 1999, they told me"
It's not my problem you are gullible.
"make-believe-pandemics"
8,422 known infected cases and 916 confirmed human deaths[2]
It's good to know you care more about money than human lives. Here's a thought, crawl back into your hole where you came from.
ikt123 6 months ago
@ikt123 "912 confirmed" is a pandemic? s**t man, your pandemics come cheap. Tooth decay and ingrown toenails are probably pandemics as well as I'm sure worldwide they've caused more deaths.
I care a great deal about human life, that's why I don't support throwing trillions of dollars at this unproved hypothesis which calls carbon dioxide a pollutant
people who believe that support: nuclear energy- Fukishima; CFL bulbs- mercury; ethanol- starvation and GMO corn, and they forget about real issues
RL36D 6 months ago
@RL36D Your argument is bad because it puts the position of human life below money, your exact argument is that we shouldn't spend money preventing bad things from happening UNLESS there are a lot of deaths, you are in essence George Bush. 9/11 was just an "unproved hypothesis" and there was no point spending billions of dollars on security, now look at the trillions that have been spent.
ikt123 6 months ago
@ikt123 wow, no wonder you believe in global warming, you do only hear what you want. To twist what I said about your specious 'pandemic' comment to mean that I think we should only prevent pandemics shows where your pea brain is really at.
I won't waste any more time on you as you yourself are proof of the dimness of the true believer. Yes, you found me out, I am George Bush. clown.
RL36D 6 months ago
@RL36D wow, no wonder you are a climate change denier, you do only hear what you want, then you make several bad arguments and have a cry when I point this out.
a) do some basic research on climate change.
b) get some better arguments.
c) stop watching conspiracy theory videos on youtube.
Also I never called you George Bush, trying googling for "in essence idiom".
Have fun. =)
ikt123 6 months ago
@ikt123 thanks for the sound educational advice. I can always count on true believers for smug advice and condescension. Everyone who shares your point of view, from climate Kate to erotica writing IPCC heads are geniuses, and everyone who disagrees, from me to Piers Corbyn are 'in essence' George Bush or in essence, idiots. You, in essence, have too much time on your hands on a work day like myself, are not a scientist, but another guy, like myself- with beliefs.
RL36D 6 months ago
@RL36D Right, except the overwhelming majority of those who are climate scientists (rather than "just [an]other guy[s]") happen to agree with ikt123, rather than with you. Unfortunately much as we might wish it not to be the case smugness is no guarantee of wrongness; no matter how smug ikt123 is, s/he is almost certainly correct.
BalsamicWeevil 6 months ago
@RL36D Just saw this, you might like it! "In Australia we have just voted to spend $50 billion (billion with a "B") to build 12 new submarines to replace the 6 older ones that we haven't used yet. And no one is quite certain who we need these to protect us from, and no one is sure what day we will need them, and no one is quite certain where we should park them on that day, and if you listen to the Navy we aren't certain if we'll have enough crew to staff them.
ikt123 6 months ago
@RL36D But whenever it comes to making decisions about national defense, whenever the decision comes up about our health, whenever the consequences are catastrophic, what sensible people do is take the conservative path."
Seems sensible you agree?
ikt123 6 months ago
@RL36D "I care a great deal about human life, that's why I don't support throwing trillions of dollars"
That's a contradiction, you care only enough to not spend lots of money, you would rather thousands of people die before spending money on it, because hey, preventing things from happening costs money, and that's bad.
ikt123 6 months ago
Comment removed
909Experiment 8 months ago
Nostradamus, and the Mayan both speak to an understanding of climate warming with a focus on the 90's up to around 2012. They both involve drought with regards to heat. So Peter Sinclair and his "over whelming" truth and just that... his. Hey, in 1954 9 out of 10 doctors recommended smoking cigarettes as healthy relaxtion tool :) -- Todays SCIENCE is no damn different.
909Experiment 8 months ago
@909Experiment
funny you should mention the tobacco industry.
climate denial has been shaped using the tactics that were successful for the tobacco industry to fight off regulation for 40 years. In many cases, the same PR firms, and even the same stable of "expert" scientists from groups like the George Marshall institute were involved in assuring us that cigarette smoke was "safe", and that there was no climate change. see Naomi Oreskes lecture on line. or here
watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
greenman3610 8 months ago
Such an incredible video. I am involved with a group of nurses informing ourselves and the communities in which we live and work of the human health impacts of climate change. In the meantime we have politicians who are trying to roll back the clock on the EPA and are trying to block legislation which will be protective of human health. The EPA began in 1970; six months prior the Cuyahoga River caught fire from toxins. We are not only endangering humans; all life will be impacted.
superpamrn 8 months ago
@superpamrn
thanks for your comments, and your work.
hope you'll pass these vids around, and check out the other ones, as well.
greenman3610 8 months ago
Hi all, just trying to spread the word about a new community site we're putting together based around our planet - earth-forums (dot) com. Take a look if you'd like!
hoppimike 9 months ago
You assume by changing our ways we can fix the problem. There's no science that supports that. Everything I've read on STOPPING agw is basically to slow it down at best. You fail to understand my basic problem with the green movement. Man can't pick the climate even if we do impact it. You believe we should adapt society to not impact climate. I believe we should adapt to the climate like we've done throughout the history of man. No science will make us agree.
poonjabinator 9 months ago
@poonjabinator
we can't "fix" the problem at this point, but we can slow it down, and keep it from becoming as catastrophic as it might be.
Our choices at this time are mitigation, adaptation, or suffering. the more we mitigate and adapt, the less we will suffer.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610
i agree 100%. i LOVE your videos, and still you have these dumbasses who try to prove you wrong. look at the likes vs dislikes on this video. idk if you have any, but i LOVE evolution videos as well. do you also do evolution or just climate change? great video, though!
elli0ttherbert 9 months ago
They killed bin Laden to hide the decline in global temperatures, it's obvious to everyone but the sheeple.
InnerSmile72 9 months ago
5 billion years of climate and we've figured it out in 150 years of observation. Great!! I'm going to the Bahama's in September. What's the weather going to be like there? My point is not that man-made global warming is fake, but that the science is no where close to accurate yet. One excuse for the climate change computers always being horribly wrong in their predictions is weather plays a significant role in climate, and they can't predict decades of weather, so stop scaring children.
poonjabinator 9 months ago
@poonjabinator
well, we figured out nuclear fission and space travel, so that's not so bad.
as far as "computer predictions", you are mistaken if you think that is the basis of the science.
We know how the earth has behaved the last 5 billion years, and we expect that it will probably behave in the same or similar manner now. That is the primary science behind agw.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 Yet we can't predict the local climate for next seasons crops. I have no problem with the science behind agw. Just the doomsday predictions and the ass-headed solutions.
poonjabinator 9 months ago
@poonjabinator
you're only giving further evidence that you do not understand the issue. It's not about short term prediction - that's weather.
Perhaps you'd better watch more of the videos and do some research.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 So weather and climate aren't the same? Your admitting that extreme weather events can not be linked to climate change. Why does the video show footage of people being swept away in a flood? Is that proof or a scare tactic? When weather helps the cause it important, when it hurts the cause it unimportant. I have been following the research for a long time. You don't understand that I don't disagrees with the basis of agw, just the hysteria and the movement.
poonjabinator 9 months ago
@poonjabinator
"So weather and climate aren't the same?"
I rest my case. You are not serious.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 How much reduction in CO2 output would it take and how long to make a dent in the warming? Explain to me why you believe some convoluted UN system of carbon credits is going to be effective and not full of global politics and completely ineffective. Also explain your conspiracy as to why fossil fuels have not been replaced with "green" energy, and if your answer is cost then what do you expect poor people to do. You seem to understand science, how about reality?
poonjabinator 9 months ago
@greenman3610 Sorry for the multiple posts, but one more question. Do you think its more effective as an individual to join the "green" movement to force everyone to go "green" and hope we can stop it, or expect it and accept it and prepare to the best of your ability.
poonjabinator 9 months ago
@poonjabinator
did we "force everyone" to get on the internet? or join facebook?
people are going green because it works better, it's cheaper, and makes more sense.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@poonjabinator These comments show your real motivation. You are opposed to the political green movement, and dislike the changes that they propose to deal with climate change. So its the politics, and not really about the science. You don't like the implications, so you attempt to rationalize the science away.
harizotoh7 9 months ago
@poonjabinator Do you know what kind of changes global warming will probably mean? Flooding along coastal areas means that the amount of arable and livable land vastly decrease. Coastal cities housing millions (if not billions since the majority of people live along the coast) will become unlivable meaning that most places are going to get alot more crowded. So, we've got millions of refugees and less farming ability.
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
@poonjabinator Add increased probability of wet weather and expansion of the tropics and this probably means that diseases are going to become more prevalent. Diseases like malaria. Mix this with crowded living spaces and epidemics are bound to happen. Not to mention the billions lost due to the ecological value of rain forests (as a source of new medicines) and adversely affected fisheries (coral reefs don't do well in acidic waters).
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
@poonjabinator Now, how much will all this change cost? Alot more than if we made a shift to green technology. No government is forcing it but alot of governments are encouraging it by giving green industries more funding. Oil prices will rise. Coal prices will rise. Gas prices will rise. This is inevitable as they are resources that are finite and must be extracted (and easy to get to sources of fossil fuels are running out). Green industries represent a real growth area.
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
@poonjabinator By consistently raising the point "weather" and by raising fears of a "government takeover of green", you demonstrate a lack of science understanding, critical thought and propaganda. Additionally, it's callous to say "oh, just prepare." Yes, the developed world might be able to prepare. What about Africa or India or any other less developed nation? Africa can barely feed itself, how is it supposed to prepare?
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
@poonjabinator What about the people who live in New York City or San Francisco or New Orleans or Seattle or any number of coastal cities? I suppose we should just abandon those cities, with billions (if not trillions) of infrastructure invested in them and build, what, new cities that will coast billions/trillions of dollars? Sigh, your ignorance astounds me.
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
@poonjabinator Climate and weather are two separate things. Weather is very chaotic and hard to predict, but climate is more stable and changes gradually. This is equivalent misunderstanding that creationists make when they say "If evo is true, why are there still monkeys?" Both rely on very deep seated misunderstandings of the theory in question and imply that the person has no actual familiarly with them.
harizotoh7 9 months ago
@poonjabinator your a fucking moron.
munen3434 9 months ago
@poonjabinator You do realize that climate is the measure of weather over a prolonged period of time, right? Additionally, climate change computers do not predict tomorrow's weather - that'd be a waste of a million dollar super computer. The science is pretty accurate in that mean global temperature is rising and is anthropogenic in nature. Yes, it can't make specific weather predictions for the next 30 days but it can make good guesses as to weather for the next 100 years.
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
@poonjabinator You could make some of those guesses yourself. Increasing temperatures, in general, is going to contribute to increasing desertification, retreat of the temperate climate zone and an advance of the tropic and desert climate zones. You can hazard a guess that the number of hurricanes and tornados is going to increase as a result of disruption of global weather patterns. Additionally it's not just weather. Increasing global temperatures will affect oceans as well.
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
@poonjabinator By equating climatology to meteorology and expecting science to give clear cut, definitive, short term, 100% accurate predictions, you demonstrate your clear misunderstanding of science and climate science. And, as this video demonstrates, we can also look at data concerning the planet's past, when it was warmer, to be able to gain insight on how the Earth will be impacted in the future.
Gilgamesh417 9 months ago
Harvard University confirmed there has never been any man made rise in carbon dioxide in the air
JonThm 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Save the planet. Kill yourself.
StrahaoftheRace 9 months ago
What & how it that this earth made thru several ice ages? Fluctuation in orbits & so forth. We do know that other planets are rising in temperature as well & the solid ice moons of them have been turning to liquid. Use your head, we will find a way through every problem we face with true factual scientific applications.
Or you can just sit back, complain & then pray... People are truly stupid !
MickZewOMG 9 months ago
Many straw-man arguments were utilized in the making of this video. The biggest one is that opponents are deniers and fools. Actually very few of them are, and have legitimate, skeptical questions such as: 1) why are all the planets in the solar system also warming? 2) has the good of global warming been balanced against the bad? 3) Does CO2 cause warming, or does warming create more CO2? Inconvenient questions for the climate zealot to be sure.
Landrew0 11 months ago
@Landrew0
more evidence that opponents are deniers and fools.
"planets" canard -
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
"could more warming be good?"
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
as for the "does warming create more CO2?" - clearly you were sleeping when this video pointed out that we can identify the source of the increased CO2 by looking at the isotopic signature. The study referenced is in the description under "isotopes".
Please pay attention. I'm here to help you avoid more embarrassments like this.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@Landrew0 The earth has been warming since the end of the LIA. The scientists that now predict GW were the same type that predicting global cooling in the 70’s. With GW a few hundred million acres that were uninhabitable because it was too cold are now open for humans, and other animals, to live on. A year around ice free Northwest Passage would save trillions in transportation costs alone. At best mans effect on the planet is like two fleas on a dog arguing over who gets to steer.
cupera1 11 months ago
@cupera1
"global cooling in 70s"
watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman
72 – Kukla-Mathews publishes about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes to Nixon in 72, specifically warning about global cooling.
73 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
78 -Carter signs Climate Program Act due to a number of SEVERE WINTER experiences the preceding years.
cupera1 11 months ago
@cupera1 "Kukla-Mathews publishes about the end of the current inter glacial"
They were geologists.They were not concerned with accurate prediction of future climate.
"Carter signs Climate Program Act due to a number of SEVERE WINTER experiences the preceding years."
More like due to a number of government studies stating the need to research the effects of climactic change on global politics and after years of effort.
tinyurl (dot) com / 6z4wyvs
tinyurl (dot) com / 5rdluqu
smartmusicfreak 11 months ago
@greenman3610 try the 1974 CIA report that shows a consensus of scientist that concurs that the world was heading to another ice age.
cupera1 11 months ago
@cupera1
sorry, "secret cia reports" don't cut it. peer reviewed science does. for more on the "70s cooling" nonsense
watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
greenman3610 11 months ago
@cupera1 "try the 1974 CIA report that shows a consensus of scientist that concurs that the world was heading to another ice age."
Do you mean this?
tinyurl (dot) com / yds3ynt
Nowhere does it state that the scientific consensus was long term global cooling. It does however say:
"... the views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official position ... of the CIA"
smartmusicfreak 11 months ago
@cupera1 Ummm we have to get to the end of this current ice age first.
anarimus 11 months ago
@Landrew0 Every one is hip to hit the panic button & science depicts that people like fear for it breeds unnecessary human drama necessary for "Dim Bulb Thinkers", that can't think for them self !
MickZewOMG 9 months ago
@watermelonygoodness because they can't connect global warming to man. Don't believe this guy Peter Sinclair is a glorified blogger. he has no formal climate education his only education came from an AL GORE ran weekend seminar. There is a reason there will never be a public aired debate the ""global warming scientist" KNOW there numbers are twisted and manipulated lies with a large amount of miss information
dieseldudee 1 year ago
@dieseldudee
since I have no climate creds, I stick to what the real scientists say, as opposed to deniers, who parrot Glenn Beck talking points.
If you want to see what happens when a real scientist debates with a denier, check
"climate scientist beat down"
watch?v=nwPnz3AJ0qQ
greenman3610 1 year ago
You spend too much time proving that the Earth's temperature is increasing and not enough time proving that the cause of this warming is human activity.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness
there is no other explanation.
Sun's not doing it.
Volcanoes aren't doing it.
Orbital factors aren't doing it.
Do you propose fairy dust?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 You didn't articulate that in your video. Where is your evidence of this? You should have presented it is what I'm saying.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness
try to imagine that compressing 150 years of science into 10 minutes is challenging.
check some of my other videos for more answers.
greenman3610 1 year ago
2/2 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
watch?v=bgKr480RYc4
Fashionificationful 1 year ago
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
.
Allen West 2012
Fashionificationful 1 year ago
Wait wait you said that most of the atmosphere is made up of mostly oxygen and carbon dioxide which isn't true the atmosphere is made up of 78% Nitrogen and about 20% Oxygen and the other 2% is carbon and other gases
TheDAVXX 1 year ago
What about "negative feedback". More CO2 + pollution + water vapor from heat = more clouds that will keep sunlight from entering the earth's surfaces. This results in a cooling effect—a negative feedback.
If youre saying my reason is just a hypothesis, so is "CO2 causes global warming"
FMAZON3 1 year ago
@FMAZON3
the problem with your formulation, is that it is not born out in observations of paleoclimate, nor is it observed in the instrumental record of the last 150 years.
What fits the observations is greenhouse gas forcing. That's why every relevant scientific group has come to the same conclusion.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@FMAZON3 isnt this the dimming effect you are talking about?
it has been proven.
and when we start to decrease our pollution the global heat will double..fast.
dognuts101 1 year ago
tHIS VIDEO IS MORE JUNK PROPAGANDA. Note Oceans have been raising an average of 4 ft per century over the past 10,000 years. Now they are rising about 1 ft per century. Oceans rose 2 mm per year during the first half of the 20th century, and only 1.5 mm per year during the second half. Humans are not the cause. Over the past three years, oceans have totally stopped rising, as determined by satellite measurements and published by University of Colorado.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom
readers can judge for themselves.
graph available: google
university of colorado sea level
and
nasa key indicators
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Better yet read chaps 1, 6 and 9 for the science all based on RF theory where the value is unknown and positive loopbacked biased models that predict an amplfying effecrt but that also just missed ther last 10 years. Believers dont even know that they believe in
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
NOTE YOUR WONDERFUL MODELS JUST MISSED THE LAST 10 YEARS AND CANT PREDICT CRAP.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Here is the big problem a 100 ppm increase of CO2 in the lab has no effect on temp as it takes an increase of about 200,000 ppm CO2 in the lab to cause a 3 degree C temp change. This is going from .01% to 20%. The believers say well a lab test is not fair because CO2 is in 50,000 feet of atmosphere and the CO2 cause reflective layers. This is known as IR theory but it is completely unproven and the value unknown.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom
Steven Hawking called. He wants to come and learn physics from you.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman361o Oh good your a reader, great give us some reproducable proof an increase of 100ppm in co2 has any effect on temp, plz do tell. My guess is you dont even understand what you believe in,
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
@MissingGWdotcom here you go
watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
Aanthanur 1 year ago
If you read the IPCC 4th report chap 1,6, and 9 in particular this is all laid out. They claim RF raises the temp a certain UNPROVEN amount then they throw incomplete positive biased loopback models to claim an amplifying effect. The problem is the models just missed the last 10 years as temp stayed flat.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
The IPCC claims the current temp increase is man made because they cant explain it, but they ignore 10,000s of years of ice core data showing the temp naturally oscillates 3 degrees C in as little as 200 years. For example if you look at the GISP (Greenland ice core) you will see it was 1 degree higher in the NH 1000 years ago, 2 degrees C 2000 years ago and 3 degrees C higher 3300 years ago with many ups and downs in between these changes.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
The IPCC does try to use proxies (tree rings, coral reefs, etc) and 40 year filters to dampen the change seen in the ice cores the problem is the proxies are not that accurate after a 1000 years but even these proxies show a temp increase 1000 and 2000 years ago with higher temps than today
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
However the IPCC claims it is not their mission to explain past natural temp changes so they ignore it then have the nerve to claim the current temp increase must be man because they cant explain it, this is a disservice to mankind.
MissingGWdotcom 1 year ago
Global warming was thought up in the 1970s, from a steam in Soylant Green, but also gave the unibomber his manifesto.
It was arguing that man is carbon dioxide would inevitably warm the weather. But there is no mechanism, or historical data are behind this idea. Green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide from the air. To give a global level of two PPM.
JonThm 1 year ago
GREENMAN YOU ARE A BAD JOKE OF A PROPAGANDIST
IDIOTS LIKE YOU IN U.K. METRO PREDICTED A WARM WET WINTER
PIERS CORBYN USING SUN DATA PREDICTED A TRAGIC WINTER.
SOOOOOO
IF YOU CANNOT PREDICT 5 MONTHS INTO FUTURE....
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME ABOUT A LONGER TIME LINE...FOOL
LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI 1 year ago
@LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI
Please document any weather predictions made in this series.
Weather, is, of course, not climate.
Curious readers can google my blog postings on recent weather events-
White Christmas in Southeast. Heatwave in Hudson Bay.
Today’s NOAA Image: Cold Continents/Warm Arctic continues
Be advised: Spamming comments will get you blocked - but thanks for the opportunity to make a point.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI Co2 is a green house gas -fact!! we are emitting more more co2- fact!!! Conclusion the earth is warming due to changes in atmospheric gas concentration!! question how much longer will the earth be habitable! what part of this simple, child like argument do you dispute/ have a problem with ?
torturedgenius314 1 year ago
@torturedgenius314 C02 i a green house gas. Yes. We are emitting more CO2 yes. But you are also forgetting an element called negative feedback. If the temperature increased more water from the oceans would turn into vapor, which would cause more clouds. This would block the short wave radiation from the sun and this would have a cooling effect.
ImperialGrim 9 months ago
@ImperialGrim
if we're going to get negative feedback, now would be a good time, before we lose the northern polar ice in summer.
so far, it hasn't shown up, despite the fondest wishes of deniers.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@ImperialGrim Ok you want to talk feed back loops fine ! All the research and everything we know at the moment points to the FACT that the more co2 the more POSITIVE feedbacks come into play. For example the ice caps melt and instead of ice reflecting heat u have sea absorbing it, as the temperture increase the amazon drys out trees dry and there are huge fires so the amazon instead of being a massive carbon sink becames a huge source of carbon! but its ok right cos we have a few clouds!!
torturedgenius314 9 months ago
Deniers, try to provide ONE respected scientific institution that says humans are not warming the climate. They can't. So how about ONE credible study from a respected source? Not likely they can dig it up. Then what reasoning supports denials? Is it just because they don't WANT it to be true? Is it their baseless BELIEF that prevents them from seeing the overwhelming evidence? The conclusion is solid; HUMANS cause warming.
Come on deniers, where is your rational argument?
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
The closest thing to a 'single paper' is Harries 2001, it links the radiative transfer equations with observed changes in outgoing long wave radiation.
dancedissadent2 1 year ago
Green plants scare are all available carbon dioxide from the air. So man is carbon dioxide has increased life on earth but not affected the weather. That is a nuclear line from paid stooges!
JonThm 1 year ago
Plants sink all the carbon dioxide to do photosynthesis. Man is carbon dioxide emissions has boosted life on earth by 15%, but have no possible effect on the weather - as there is no residual increase in carbon dioxide in the air.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm ? How can you say that there is not a cumulative increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? The Co2 concentration is monitored very closely and shows an increase of 2ppm a year that is around 2ppm less than we are realeasing due to that the ocean and to some extend forrests still works as carbon sinks. Where did you get that idea from? I'm honestly very curious.
Fyhrtheflame 1 year ago
Carbon dioxide has boosted life on earth, but has never affected the climate -through or recorded history.
JonThm 1 year ago
Harvard University has found free carbon dioxide in the air has not changed for 200 years. Crop yields are gone up by 15%.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm google "Keeling Curve", and please do remember that repeating a falsehood over and over does not promote that falsehood to truth.
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago
@ainefairygoddess
it does if you close your eyes and click your magic slippers together 3 times!!
greenman3610 1 year ago
/wires.wiley . Com /WileyCDA/WiresArticle/articles.html?doi=10.1002/wcc.18 here is the paper you take the incorrect graph from you used fig6 when infact you should have used fig5!
asdasdasdasdasdas98 1 year ago
@asdasdasdasdasdas98
why?
the solar changes around the Maunder minimum are well known and not in dispute.
The important figure is for solar forcing over the last 100 years or so, which fig 6 shows to be
flat since about 1950.
The only reason to use fig 5 would be to deliberately avoid that key point, which, of course, I am
sure is your aim.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 My "key point" is that in your film you quote "solar irradiance" and figure 6 does not show this. Therefore this is incorrect and a fallacy. The specific graph which you should use is figure 5. I am not disputing solar forcing.
asdasdasdasdasdas98 1 year ago
@asdasdasdasdasdas98
fig 6 is specifically labeled "solar irradiance".
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I quote from Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate
"Figure 6.
Compared with the CRU monthly mean global temperature time series (hadcrut3vcgl) in (a) is an empirical mean global temperature time series (hadcrut3vcgl)......"
"Figure 5.
Reconstructions of total solar irradiance....."
what are you on about?
asdasdasdasdasdas98 1 year ago
@asdasdasdasdasdas98
Check out section (d) of figure 6 (the green series).
"Reconstructions of the contributions to the monthly mean global surface temperatures by individual (b) ENSO, (c) volcanic, (d) solar, and (d) anthropogenic influences (at appropriate lags) are also shown."
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
Climate change is caused by solar cycles. Carbon dioxide levels follow the natural weather
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm Brilliant, you could possibly pass the 4th grade in the US! Very long term climate variation is dictated by..... Solar and orbital cycles. Not a single climatologist would deny this, it is scientific fact. Contemporary climate change is an issue, because the change is occurring at a rate that does not match natural cycles. Warming that should have occurred on the order of thousands of years with natural processes has occurred in less than 2 centuries.
GRO5002 1 year ago
You quoted the article "Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate" and used figure 6 to show "no increase in solar Irradiance since 1950", this is incorrect, this is a figure that shows the anomalous difference between the CRU data and their research.
The figure you should have used is figure 5. which shows an increasing in solar Irradiance in w/m2 from the 1700's to present day!
People please thumb this for attention of viewers. Only counter made to AGW is a fake graph, impressive
asdasdasdasdasdas98 1 year ago
@asdasdasdasdasdas98
the low solar activity of the maunder minimum and little ice age is not controversial.
All mainstream reconstructions that I know of include solar increases up to about 1950.
Since then it has been flat. This is not in question by any serious researcher.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 like i said in my comment your video is incorrect and miss leading. you have tellingly not addressed this issue raised which is you have used a the wrong graph to justify your own position, hardly scientific. maybe you should read the article in its entirety and get back to me. Oh and change that graph on your video or add an annotation! Cheers.
asdasdasdasdasdas98 1 year ago
@asdasdasdasdasdas98
Sorry, but I get confirmation on my videos from people at the top of the field.
If I wasn't getting it right, they would let me know in short order.
You have misread and misunderstood the graphs. Check them again, and you can apologize later. I'll wait.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Comment removed
asdasdasdasdasdas98 1 year ago
Skeptical science has an excellent series of 6 articles on the phony scandal called climate gate. Starts with article - "The Fake Scandal of Climategate"
sailRichard 1 year ago
oxygen makes ozone fact
iFartedForLongTime 1 year ago
CLIMATEGATE
mookixox 1 year ago
@mookixox
climate nothing burger
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 CLIMATEGATE REDEUX!
> watch?v=ngYTQIiprbA
mookixox 1 year ago
@mookixox
paranoid nonsense!
greenman3610 1 year ago