Awesome video! Awesome job! Thank you for the free education!
This stuff is NOT instantly easy, anymore than a person can pick up a musical instrument for the first time ever and play beautifully just because professional musicians make it look easy. (Mozart had to practice, too.)
This graph is bogus. CO2 did not fall in a smooth curve as shown. It fluctuated wildly from 4000ppm to 7000ppm then up & down in steps to its low 300M yrs ago.
This however avoids the point made in the beginning. CO2 traps heat. NO matter how it got there levels were 14 times higher than now. So why no runaway global warming? The sun was only 5% (maybe) less than now. Dispite CO2 warming, water vapor is the gas that controls our climate.
THANK YOU. I was looking for articles that do some hard scientific investigation into climate change, but ALL of them seem to have an agenda and have made up their mind. At the very least you kept it concentrated to the science rather than some arbitrary political view. You have no idea how much reading through bullsh*t you saved me.
Carbon dioxide makes up .0039% of our atmosphere.. our coal powerplants inject .000000001948% more per year... that accounts for HALF of human C02 pollution. The total amount is .000000003496% . the trees in the continental US ALONE absorb that much and turn it back into oxegen. Dont believe me? watch this- watch?v=A4sg8uwzOVE . I did the math you can do it too. Find the answers on your own. I did, and was surprised at the outcome.
@Tnekkc "lib hitler"? That's funny, I thought he was a fascist, which is on the right side of the political spectrum. You know, like bush started doing with the patriot act. A fascist authoritarian government is not the same as liberal, no matter how many times rush and Glenn tell you it is. You make yourself and ppl with your view look dumb when you confuse facts and history like that.
This is one of the BEST global warming hoaxer videos I have seen.
It starts out with reality, and then gets to the liberal spin.
But we didn't give the keys to that lib Hitler with his "Master race" song and dance, and we are not going to give them to that lib Obama with "The time for debate is over" song and dance.
"The European Climate Exchange (ECX) was launched by CCX in 2005, and is now the leading exchange operating in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Since 2006, CCX and ECX have been owned by Climate Exchange PLC.
More than 65 leading businesses, including global companies such as ABN AMRO, Barclays, BP, Calyon, E.ON UK, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell have signed up for membership to trade ECX products."
Most of the country will see a colder-than-usual winter while summer and spring will be relatively cool and dry, according to the time-honored, complex calculations of the "Old Farmer's Almanac."
The 2011 issue of the almanac, which claims to be the nation's oldest continuously published periodical, was released Tuesday. It predicts that in the coming months, the Earth will continue to see a "gradual cooling of the atmosphere"
I don't get that graph. What the hell happened to the CO2-temperature lag that the ice core data shows? CO2 and temperature are all over the place in that graph, yet they correlate almost perfectly in the ice core data. Does the lag only apply for the last 400,000 years or something? What gives?
@DeadlyV1RU5 Yes. The correlation only really applies to the period of balance, however the other important point to note is that the correlation overlays of the 400,000 year ice core graph are not at the same scale. They've superimposed the graphs over each other in the 400,000 year ice core graph, but they haven't really superimposed them in the 500mya graph.
@DeadlyV1RU5 Another way to think of it: imagine looking at a graph of the height of a bicycle with a badly damaged tire. If you did a graph of it going 100 feet, you'd see the little pattern of up and down with each tire rotation. If you put a graph of 100 miles on your screen, you'd just see the hills. So CO2 & temperature likely did have that pattern of CO2-temperature lag, but it isnt visible in the graph, (and I'm not sure if we have evidence on the right scale going back that far.)
This is a pretty good video. But looks can be deceiving.... We once had CO2 at far higher concentrations during an ice earth 300 ma. The feedback loop didn't turn us into Venus. It's not a simple feedback loop.
@realscience1 Do watch the video, I go over the ice age 460 mya, and the entire graph is somewhat irrelevant, but more of a talking point to say that people can now be informed on the basis of the CO2 temp history, but what's more important is to look at the current trends, not the past.
good job, well done! Especially the enlightening statement that CO2 hasn't always been the major driver of temperature change...just recently due to man-made activities, unparallelled in scope/time pace...
Climate is more then just rising temperatures. Humans are a product of this earth just as CO2, rain, fog, mist etc. A large part of this planet is salty water. The climate change folks always forget that water evaporates when heated and eventually it condenses and forms clouds. If this clouds never turned to rain or snow then I would believe we in trouble. Look up the meaning of the word climate and you will get a surprise.
@MicrosoftsourceCode I've been watching this debate for about 25 years, and the "climate change folks" have been talking about water evaporation all that time, always including it in their models. Wherever you got that information from, it frankly doesn't seem like an honest mistake... is there even one peer reviewed model of the climate in the last 25 years that doesn't attempt to model clouds?
No point in showing this to AGW deniers. They can be shown graphs of ice loss, heat rise, etc but they won't believe anything until their homes are flooded, or droughts create a new "dust bowl". So talking sense makes no sense to them. Sad.
@blarginatorisback Which graph? The 500 MYA one? It was taken from "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and is used in the movie to suggest that because CO2 and temperature never had correlation in the past, their correlation in the present is insignificant. The problem with this logic being that in the past, other climate systems have been significant drivers, and the same could be said of any of those. CO2 however has direct correlation since 40 mya period of balance, with no outside influence.
@Stonegoal Not quite... the information regarding the 500 MYA graph is meant to show that CO2 is not the sole determining factor in climate, and the argument that "CO2 was higher in the past" is fallacious. The many problems with global warming, whether it be man-made or not (though evidence strongly suggests it is), is ocean acidification, the destruction of pine forests in Canada (due to Pine Beetle pop. explosion), and other similar relationships, and too many other factors to mention here.
all well and good except man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accounts for only about 3.23% of the total carbon dioxide, and total CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for only 3.62% of all greenhouse gases. this means that man made CO2 emissions account for only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect
@trenma09ac That doesn't necessarily follow. You can get disproportionate results with relatively small changes driving larger results. Not saying that's what's happening here, but it's something to be aware of.
@Muljinn@Muljinn Agreed. In this video he tells us that the CO2 levels lag about 800 years behind temperature. Does this mean that due to the feedback loop the opposite is true(temperature lags 800 years behind CO2 changes)? whether or not temperature lags behind CO2 changes at all, we do know for sure that CO2 changes DO NOT cause immediate increases in temperature, contrary to the example that is shown in this video.
@trenma09ac Actually, it's basic fact that CO2 produced causes immediate increases in temperature. Granted, they aren't drastic, infinitesimal in fact. And of course, there are reductions as well, photosynthesis being the obvious one, but ocean absorption etc.. are also very active CO2 sinks.
I didn't look through the comments to find the string this conversation follows, but just want to make the message known that the intricate correlation of CO2 and temperature in stable times is intuitive.
"man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accounts for only about 3.23% of the total carbon dioxide, and total CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for only 3.62% of all greenhouse gases."
You are a funny guy, so you say that 3.62% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is greenhouse gas, of which 3.62-3.23=0.39 % is of natural resources.
Thus means 3.23/3.62= 89.2% human generated CO2 which is greenhouse gas.
@x11115 Because this only shows in the past, climate was driven by other factors. Currently, climate change is being instigated by CO2 forcing, as solar forcing has decreased as temperature has increased, and cloud cover is insignificant, and the two TYPES of clouds cancel each other's effects out.
There is no such thing as "common sense" (:33) The phrase is just a silly arrogant attempt to sound confident. Confidence doesn't always mean that you are correct.
Exactly so why is he the poster child for this scam? Because no credible objective scientist could be found to say the "earth's core is millions of degrees", "the polar ice will be gone in five years" etc etc.
You mean they don't get paid to do their work? They don't benefit from all the "research money" ? Guys like al gore don't make millions? Get a brain your not being objective.
The last ten year trend is cooling and this winter is evidence just look at the headlines on Drudge.
They get paid to do their work, who doesn't? But they don't benefit from all the "research money". You don't see climate scientists driving around in ferraris.
Gore isnt' a scientist. The last 10 year trend is not cooling. Rather than look at Drudge go and download the temperature records and you'll see "cooling" makes not one bit of sense.
Gore is your supreme leader of scientists on your side. He won an emmy ...or was that a peace prize. You must recognize he is the most intelligent "scientist/ politician/director/propagandist" on your side of the issue. Bow down and worship because the earth's core is millions of degrees (quote from al gore). He is your leader why deny it ...denier.
A lot of guess work and myopic tunnel vision. The evidence of "man made global warming" is contrary to the theory. Global temperatures are falling evidenced by the new name "climate change" and many science and weather experts. Oh it's true science for the naive and the global marxists new world order types who want to carbon tax us out of existence. I put my money on solar activity and water vapor which was ignored here (of course).
the last two letters of the acronymn IPCC are "climate change" and that body was formed 20 years ago. So what game are you playing claiming that some vague people are using a different name?
The name "climate change" is vague not the people. global warming is a lie just look at the recent temperatures, coldest winter on record in many places. These fools are just after money they haven't a clue how to predict temperature trends. I think its so funny how they are still clinging to the lies and now proven false theory's.
Scientists don't personally get grant money, the money has to be spent on the research only. A lot of the money designated for climate goes on satellites and other hardware.
Recent temperatures are weather not climate. For example this November was the warmest November on record. Again weather.
Problems. .hmmm... Where do I start??? (They are actually quite numerous.)
Your very basic premise is flawed.
CO2 only absorbs infrared energy, and this on a very narrow band in the infrared, which is but a tiny portion of the energy which enters from the sun.
IE, if we have 3 watts/meter of energy from the sun at any given point in time, only a very tiny amount of this CAN be absorbed by CO2. It is not like CO2 can absorb the 3 Watts per square meter.
CO2 energy absorption is not linear. It has already by scientific estimate already reached close to saturation.
This means more CO2 in atmosphere, no more real excessive heating. Logarithmic increase, not linear increase, with the amount of increase dropping rapidly after saturation.
By the way, potholer54 is putting out disinformation. He does not 'explain' so much as 'explain away'.
I have already found some major whitewashing in his estimation of the 'trick' e-mail he addressed.
That's only at the surface. Higher up in the atmosphere there is hardly any water vapor and co2 makes a big difference to blocking IR from reaching space.
Absorption and subsequent release of energy is omnidirectional. What this means is simply that a molecule of CO2 that absorbs infrared, doe not release the energy in only one direction, but in a full 360 degrees.
Say for instance you had 1 watt of infrared absorbed by a give amount of gas, if the top side of the container was viewed as space, the energy released back downwards would eventually be approx. a maximum of half the energy it absorbed.
As far as the CO2 level somehow "bloacking" the infrared from reaching space?
Even the densest CO2 in the lowest atmospheric layers do not block all infrared.
The higher you go, the more density of atmosphere is lost. The ppm of CO2 has been shown to be fairly consistent, but that makes little distance when you space ALL molecules and atoms further apart.
There is less probability of any given infrared packet ever contacting a CO2 molecule in the upper atmosphere.
You would make an excellent climate scientist at East Angliea Univeristy. Now maybe I am not very good at reading graphs but doesn't it strike you the least bit fishy that your C02 graph essentially zero's out and that it has been 20 times higher in the past?
'Why are so many chemists writing angry letters to their professional journal saying that AGW alarmism is pseudoscience?'
It's patently clear if you use the almost unheard of analytical technique of READING, that:
those that dispute the editorial are using tired and widely debunked denialist pseudo-scientific arguments. It's obvious that the point of this exercise was for idiots to unveil in the run-up to Copenhagen.
Have you READ the editorial? Did you UNDERSTAND it?
I've read the editorial and the letters, and the editor's response. The letters are justly angry, because the editorial is dogmatic, alarmist, and full of ad hominem. It is also incorrect. The world has been warming since the 18th century, and most of that is not CO2 (but some is). We cannot predict natural forcings 100 years ahead. CO2 output could cause up to 2°C further warming under plausible assumptions. Sea levels could rise 40cm. Higher forecasts are silly, as is the alarmism..
Where is the ad hominem? Vested interest groups have been buying bogus science and deceitful Op-Eds for decades. Now they're doing it about AGW. It's a fact.
The science that supports the Denialists ranges from the heavily flawed bogus drivel to fraud. Not in any particular order: e.g. Baliunas & Soon 2003; Douglass et al. 2007; OISM; Miskolczi 2007; Gerlich & Tscheuschner - and you can add Plimer's drivel too!
There are vested interest groups involved on both sides. A lot of the backing for AGW alarmism that comes from alternative energy vendors (including oil companies) and financial speculators (including big banks). AGW actually gets much more money from vested interests than anti-AGW does. Being funded by an interested party does not invalidate one's research. The only things that invalidates research are flawed data and flawed methods.
My above post contains no lies. You lied about the funding of anti-AGW versus pro-AGW science and activism, and you used that lie as an ad hominem argument.
What matters is data and methods, not stupid ad hominems based on falsehood.
Yeahhh.. The oil industry is not an "alternative energy vendor."
Exxon Mobile even admitted they've funded AGW deniers. They came out a few years ago and claimed they would cut the funding so that they could "be a part of the solution."
Exxon's backing for AGW denial was always tiny compared to other corporate and govt backing for AGW alarmism. They stopped a couple of years ago under pressure from the Rockefellers. Last year, they invested $600m+ in alternative energy. Meanwhile, in the five years up to 2009, Shell invested $1.7 billion on alternative energy, particularly wind and solar power. Big oil also has the potential to make big profits from cap-and-trade. So it is quite natural for them to support AGW alarmism.
Phil Jones at CRU received over $22m research grants, including from WWF, oil and energy companies (which back cap-and-trade), and the UK govt (which has been pushing AGW for many years, and even has renamed the Department of Energy to "Department of Energy and Climate Change", as well as funding AGW propaganda and callling skeptics "flat earthers" - Gordon Brown's words). By contrast, John Christy receives no Big Oil money *at all*, not a cent, on principle, to avoid accusations of bias.
Google and read that you dumb piece of shit, you want specifics, that journal shows the general cooling trend over the past 8 years. There is another graph in there showing Co2 and temperature are not correlated.
As for not being able to see the bias in the news, once again no need for specifics, I don`t have to disprove ignorance.
'The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."'
Is that the best you can do. A non-peer-reviewed letter with a disclaimer that basically makes it perfectly clear it's a pile of steaming bovine excrement!
You didn`t prove shit, the disclaimer merely means that they officially take the other side. Didn`t you know reputable journals print both sides of the debate.
You proved shit all right. That your argument is full of it! This article is full of it. Baron Munchausen is one dangerous idiot.
The Baron's maths are screwy, that's how he 'claims' that the sensitivity is wrong. But sadly for him paleoclimate confirms many peer-reviewed studies that the sensitivity is rather higher. Which is bad for us.
If Lord Bogus is so smart, he would have published a p-r article in the Journal rather than a letter which wasn't.
A large part of the video where you explain a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature is wrong. Plant life does not reduce CO2 simply because once the plant dies it decomposes back to CO2 and even more harmful methane.
@oomblikkies Plants don't decompose as easily as you may think. Much of the dead plant life discussed here is converted to oil. That's how plants take carbon out of the atmosphere. When they die, the carbon they absorbed in their lifetime is buried with them.
ThinkAboutit ..Plants do indeed decompose easily and rapidly in conditions where there is oxygen around. The only way to persevere the carbon in them is to bury them to exclude oxygen - so called anaerobic conditions. With enough pressure (more layers on top) and it will over time turn into peat and eventually into coal, but never oil - that comes only from living organisms (fish etc). But I agree with the fundamental message of your post, namely that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming.
You can't just look at it in terms of one plant. Plant life doesn't grow and die together, an I apologise if that's stating the obvious. Plant life flourishing reduces CO2 levels because the carbon is locked up in the living plant tissue.
I'm interested in the accuracy of the graphs for the past 500 my. I assume it is some computer model using proxy data--since no hard data of CO2 levels exists prior to the Pliestocene, or for temperature prior to 1850. What model, which proxies, and how far apart are the data points? Does accuracy vary 400 mya vs 10 mya? To explain the relative timing & turning points between the two measurements--presumes a high degree of confidence in the data.
Sorry for the army talk. I am in a war right now against the anthopogenic global warming (AGW) deniers and conspiracy theorists about how gov't wants to take away all your freedoms to protect the environment - even though some of those freedoms - unlimited polluting and refusal to change one's lifestyle - SHOULD be taken away and will be taken away even WORSE in the future if nothing is done NOW about AGW.
We synthesize Vitamin D indirectly due to the absorption of UV B rays (just a subset of UV rays, kind of like ROYGBIV in visible light).
And it's simply put, the absorption spectrum in photosynthesis depends solely on photosystem absorption spectrums, which don't particularily include UV at all.
You can post as much drivel as you like regarding the climate, that will neither make the existing science go away, nor will it make your lies become true.
35 Inconvenient Truths "The errors in Al Gores movie" scienceandpublicpolicy (dot) org/monckton/goreerrors (dot) html - - - A 4-part lecture by Australian scientist, Professor Bob Carter (scienceandpublicpolicy (dot) org/images/stories/media/rmc_youtube (dot) pdf) "Climate change - Is CO2 the Cause?" watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8 watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
Professor Bob Carter is a well known source of climate verbiage. It's strange that Carter hasn't submitted his 'science' that undermines climate science to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Instead he writes op-eds in the papers and appears on chat shows.
Perhaps Carter's theories aren't quite as scientifically sound as would have everyone believe. They are deceptive pseudo-scientific drivel.
Al Gore's movie is not an authority, nor even a scientific reference for climate change.
However, the reality of the situation is that CO2 molecules are observed to absorb short wave radiation and give off long wave radiation.
The problem is not solely CO2, however, the reason CO2 is talked about so much, is because it is/can be the trigger for setting off multitudes of climate feedback loops, which will result in catastrophic climate change.
Did you read the Telegraph article? Doesn't seem like it.
'Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors'
The Telegraph is not known for its objective reporting of climate science. This is revealed by the fact the article ends with a quote from David Bellamy, who is a Botanist and who is not a credible source regarding the climate.
Solanki is old news, most studies indicate the exact opposite of what this study says. i.e. that the Sun has had a declining output since ~1975 and in 2009 hit a new low in output.
The trouble with the solar hypothesis is that with falling solar output, the temperature has been rising, which indicates the solar effect was minor. Now solar output is rising, it will be added to the primary cause rising GHGs
For you to rely on a single study indicates your POV demands cherry-picking!
There are very few papers that are impartial in the reporting of climate science. The majority are dogmatic lackeys of the AGW mafia, a minority are equally dogmatic in their opposition. A few are open-minded and publish a range of views.
Take a look. Why are so many chemists writing angry letters to their professional journal saying that AGW alarmism is pseudoscience? Are all these people ignorant of science?
This is very good. I was worried that the 500 mill year graph was going to be the main argument and that you were acting as an apologist for the lack of correlation but you quite rightly point out that other, greater, factors than CO2 can cause temperature change and that once the earth "stabalised" that it DID become a major factor. However, how have we been able to measure CO2 millions of years ago as ice core rings only go back 10 of thousands of years?
Up to as of 2003[update], the longest core drilled was at Vostok station. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles. Drilling stopped just above Lake Vostok. The Vostok core was not drilled at a summit, hence ice from deeper down has flowed from upslope; this slightly complicates dating and interpretation. Vostok core data are available.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All thesedangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The fact is temperature change natural and the norm as it keeps our environment healthy and is the driving force behind evolution. Without it you would not be here.
Warmer temperatures do not mean the end of the world. If you take a look at the GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) ice core the temp was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago then the Anasazis Indians thrived in Americas southwest from 850 ad to 1250 ad as the southwest was much wetter and the Vikings were able to plant crops, then 2000 years ago it was 2 degree C higher where the roman empire was doing pretty good. Last it was 3 degree C higher 3300 years ago but this did not stop the Jewish exodus
Also note the polar bears survived all these warming periods as well. It is true in the last 800 years the northern hemisphere temperature has been relatively flat with an upward turn the last 100 years but the last 800 years have been the exception as the other 9000 years of records show 100s of temperature changes varying as much a 3 degrees C in a couple 100 years
Note the data from the southern hemisphere (Vostok) shows something different as it shows 3 major temp changes by 2.5 degree C over the same last 800 years but for some reason the global warming folks ignore this never explaining how CO2 only effects the northern hemisphere. Note after 10,000 years the earth returns to an elliptical orbit where the temp drops 9 degrees C lasting for about 80,000 years.
I am wondering what convinces you a 100 ppm or or even 1000ppm as any effect on temp? The typical answer 99% of the time is well all scientists say it is true but for one this not true like RM Carter who is one of many that disagrees and has published an excellent paper in an easy to read format going through all the science and issues. Search for R M Carter paper entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate.
PROBLEM There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm to see a 3 degree C change. Global warming nuts then say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove
Swell, please tell us the diffences when it comes to measuring CO2 effect on temp in the lab, I cant find anything so maybe you can enlighten us how this directly effects a 100 ppm increase of CO2 in the lab, Ill take a link.
You missed the point. A controlled in vitro experiment that takes away the variables of an in vivo study can yield different results. But please provide the link to a peer reviewed paper that talks about increasing CO2 temps in the lab and the effects. I have access to most journals, so a citation will be fine.
a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temperature a few tenths of one degree F. This is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the global warming nuts say well CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do this but note flawed models are not proof much less science.
Since the start of industrial times we have observed an increase in temp of about 0.7C which is roughly 1.3F. CO2 has increased by 31% and CH4 by 151%. It is projected that temps could increase to 3-4F by 2100. Let me ask you this, what is the difference between 1 degree F?
What is projecting these temp changes, I know the answer it is incomplete positive loopback heavy models the IPCC refers too. In the lab an increase from 250 ppm CO2 to 350 ppm has NO effect. Now the arguement is that is not fair because C02 is in 50,000 feet of atmoshephere, so there is a theory layers cause a reflection giving us a couple tenths of 1 degee F increase,
ok maybe true but what the IPCC models do is say there is an Amplyfiying effect from this small change, for example they claim a couple of tenths F increase in temp melts more ice which creates more darker surfice on the earth, causing even more worming and so on giving you an amplyfing effect. The problem is the models ignore neg loopbacks, for example as the earth warms more storms are created removing, storms remove energy from the athmosphere in the form of waves and wind.
Well if you read the excecuative summery of the models thay admit they ignore many neg loopbacks that drive temp down because they simply cannot predict storms, note the poor track recorded of trying to predict hurricanes the last 40 years. There are many more of these neg loopbacks ignored, little understood or not even descovered. These mdels are still in grade school. Not to mention outside force we cant predict like gamma rays and sunspots,
Of course, it's the major contributor, but it's self-regulating. When it becomes too dense, it forms precipitation, and when it's not dense enough, it draws liquid water to evaporate. Water vapour is something we can't particularily change, CO2 we can.
Thats got me thinking. Is there any data to show the levels of relative global humidity plotted against the co2 and temp for the same period as the vostok icecore graph covers?
I don't know of any, and I think it would be pretty difficult to discern anyways. We can know CO2 and temp through ice cores, water... well... when water freezes, it is the ice. So to try and get atmospheric H2O from an ice core would be impossible (probably).
Geologically... well... it can just dry out or get rained on...
I don't think a detailed graph of water vapour concentration exists farther back than our recent recordings.
I hear goverments telling me that i am responsable with my "carbon footprint", meanwhile my government wastes billions on wars to secure oil fields so they can perpetuate the problem further. If they really believed that we are causing the changes they would be more proactive about alternative fuels and technology. (they wouldn't for example bail out the car industry). Thankyou for these vids btw, the data is authentic and you provide a concise narrative, 5stars.
Awesome video! Awesome job! Thank you for the free education!
This stuff is NOT instantly easy, anymore than a person can pick up a musical instrument for the first time ever and play beautifully just because professional musicians make it look easy. (Mozart had to practice, too.)
nahaymath 3 months ago
Great Video bro, really informative
shandcunt 4 months ago
This graph is bogus. CO2 did not fall in a smooth curve as shown. It fluctuated wildly from 4000ppm to 7000ppm then up & down in steps to its low 300M yrs ago.
This however avoids the point made in the beginning. CO2 traps heat. NO matter how it got there levels were 14 times higher than now. So why no runaway global warming? The sun was only 5% (maybe) less than now. Dispite CO2 warming, water vapor is the gas that controls our climate.
The temp has been warming since the last ice age.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
THANK YOU. I was looking for articles that do some hard scientific investigation into climate change, but ALL of them seem to have an agenda and have made up their mind. At the very least you kept it concentrated to the science rather than some arbitrary political view. You have no idea how much reading through bullsh*t you saved me.
lol960 5 months ago
Carbon dioxide makes up .0039% of our atmosphere.. our coal powerplants inject .000000001948% more per year... that accounts for HALF of human C02 pollution. The total amount is .000000003496% . the trees in the continental US ALONE absorb that much and turn it back into oxegen. Dont believe me? watch this- watch?v=A4sg8uwzOVE . I did the math you can do it too. Find the answers on your own. I did, and was surprised at the outcome.
Ravalat 6 months ago
@Tnekkc "lib hitler"? That's funny, I thought he was a fascist, which is on the right side of the political spectrum. You know, like bush started doing with the patriot act. A fascist authoritarian government is not the same as liberal, no matter how many times rush and Glenn tell you it is. You make yourself and ppl with your view look dumb when you confuse facts and history like that.
youngonewun 11 months ago
This is one of the BEST global warming hoaxer videos I have seen.
It starts out with reality, and then gets to the liberal spin.
But we didn't give the keys to that lib Hitler with his "Master race" song and dance, and we are not going to give them to that lib Obama with "The time for debate is over" song and dance.
tnekkc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oil funded Global Warming facts:
"The European Climate Exchange (ECX) was launched by CCX in 2005, and is now the leading exchange operating in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Since 2006, CCX and ECX have been owned by Climate Exchange PLC.
More than 65 leading businesses, including global companies such as ABN AMRO, Barclays, BP, Calyon, E.ON UK, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Shell have signed up for membership to trade ECX products."
Dayversion 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Farmer's Almanac: Global cooling to continue
Most of the country will see a colder-than-usual winter while summer and spring will be relatively cool and dry, according to the time-honored, complex calculations of the "Old Farmer's Almanac."
The 2011 issue of the almanac, which claims to be the nation's oldest continuously published periodical, was released Tuesday. It predicts that in the coming months, the Earth will continue to see a "gradual cooling of the atmosphere"
Dayversion 1 year ago
Excellent stuff. Keep it up.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago 2
I don't get that graph. What the hell happened to the CO2-temperature lag that the ice core data shows? CO2 and temperature are all over the place in that graph, yet they correlate almost perfectly in the ice core data. Does the lag only apply for the last 400,000 years or something? What gives?
DeadlyV1RU5 1 year ago
@DeadlyV1RU5 Yes. The correlation only really applies to the period of balance, however the other important point to note is that the correlation overlays of the 400,000 year ice core graph are not at the same scale. They've superimposed the graphs over each other in the 400,000 year ice core graph, but they haven't really superimposed them in the 500mya graph.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@DeadlyV1RU5 Another way to think of it: imagine looking at a graph of the height of a bicycle with a badly damaged tire. If you did a graph of it going 100 feet, you'd see the little pattern of up and down with each tire rotation. If you put a graph of 100 miles on your screen, you'd just see the hills. So CO2 & temperature likely did have that pattern of CO2-temperature lag, but it isnt visible in the graph, (and I'm not sure if we have evidence on the right scale going back that far.)
spaceshare 1 year ago
@spaceshare That is a very good analogy. I'm gonna use that from now on. Cheers :)
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
This is a pretty good video. But looks can be deceiving.... We once had CO2 at far higher concentrations during an ice earth 300 ma. The feedback loop didn't turn us into Venus. It's not a simple feedback loop.
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1 Do watch the video, I go over the ice age 460 mya, and the entire graph is somewhat irrelevant, but more of a talking point to say that people can now be informed on the basis of the CO2 temp history, but what's more important is to look at the current trends, not the past.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago 3
good job, well done! Especially the enlightening statement that CO2 hasn't always been the major driver of temperature change...just recently due to man-made activities, unparallelled in scope/time pace...
shake118118 1 year ago
Well done!!! 5/5
RogerRoids 1 year ago
Climate is more then just rising temperatures. Humans are a product of this earth just as CO2, rain, fog, mist etc. A large part of this planet is salty water. The climate change folks always forget that water evaporates when heated and eventually it condenses and forms clouds. If this clouds never turned to rain or snow then I would believe we in trouble. Look up the meaning of the word climate and you will get a surprise.
MicrosoftsourceCode 1 year ago
@MicrosoftsourceCode I've been watching this debate for about 25 years, and the "climate change folks" have been talking about water evaporation all that time, always including it in their models. Wherever you got that information from, it frankly doesn't seem like an honest mistake... is there even one peer reviewed model of the climate in the last 25 years that doesn't attempt to model clouds?
spaceshare 1 year ago 2
No point in showing this to AGW deniers. They can be shown graphs of ice loss, heat rise, etc but they won't believe anything until their homes are flooded, or droughts create a new "dust bowl". So talking sense makes no sense to them. Sad.
indulis1 1 year ago 2
Nice work.
Newitt888 1 year ago
Could you send a link to this graph or file somewhere?
blarginatorisback 1 year ago
@blarginatorisback Which graph? The 500 MYA one? It was taken from "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and is used in the movie to suggest that because CO2 and temperature never had correlation in the past, their correlation in the present is insignificant. The problem with this logic being that in the past, other climate systems have been significant drivers, and the same could be said of any of those. CO2 however has direct correlation since 40 mya period of balance, with no outside influence.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
Well done!!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
nice work mate
fuckingghey 1 year ago
The information you provided in this video only addressed bad effects of global cooling. Ice ages = death of plants and animals
So what is the problem with global warming?
Stonegoal 1 year ago
@Stonegoal Not quite... the information regarding the 500 MYA graph is meant to show that CO2 is not the sole determining factor in climate, and the argument that "CO2 was higher in the past" is fallacious. The many problems with global warming, whether it be man-made or not (though evidence strongly suggests it is), is ocean acidification, the destruction of pine forests in Canada (due to Pine Beetle pop. explosion), and other similar relationships, and too many other factors to mention here.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago 4
@Stonegoal it's not that global warming is a bad thing, it is perfectly natural, it is the rate of change which is the problem.
Prozac5647 1 year ago
all well and good except man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accounts for only about 3.23% of the total carbon dioxide, and total CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for only 3.62% of all greenhouse gases. this means that man made CO2 emissions account for only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect
trenma09ac 1 year ago
@trenma09ac That doesn't necessarily follow. You can get disproportionate results with relatively small changes driving larger results. Not saying that's what's happening here, but it's something to be aware of.
Muljinn 1 year ago
@Muljinn @Muljinn Agreed. In this video he tells us that the CO2 levels lag about 800 years behind temperature. Does this mean that due to the feedback loop the opposite is true(temperature lags 800 years behind CO2 changes)? whether or not temperature lags behind CO2 changes at all, we do know for sure that CO2 changes DO NOT cause immediate increases in temperature, contrary to the example that is shown in this video.
trenma09ac 1 year ago
@trenma09ac Actually, it's basic fact that CO2 produced causes immediate increases in temperature. Granted, they aren't drastic, infinitesimal in fact. And of course, there are reductions as well, photosynthesis being the obvious one, but ocean absorption etc.. are also very active CO2 sinks.
I didn't look through the comments to find the string this conversation follows, but just want to make the message known that the intricate correlation of CO2 and temperature in stable times is intuitive.
ThinkAbout1t 1 year ago
@trenma09ac
"man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accounts for only about 3.23% of the total carbon dioxide, and total CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for only 3.62% of all greenhouse gases."
You are a funny guy, so you say that 3.62% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is greenhouse gas, of which 3.62-3.23=0.39 % is of natural resources.
Thus means 3.23/3.62= 89.2% human generated CO2 which is greenhouse gas.
obaeyens 1 year ago
great video
aerobique 2 years ago
why aren't these charts presented as facts/evidence in copenhagen? it's not even considered.
x11115 2 years ago
@x11115 Because this only shows in the past, climate was driven by other factors. Currently, climate change is being instigated by CO2 forcing, as solar forcing has decreased as temperature has increased, and cloud cover is insignificant, and the two TYPES of clouds cancel each other's effects out.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
There is no such thing as "common sense" (:33) The phrase is just a silly arrogant attempt to sound confident. Confidence doesn't always mean that you are correct.
schubird43 2 years ago 2
@gunnermac70
The willfully ignorant believe the crap he is preaching.
1965ace 2 years ago
@gunnermac70
Exactly so why is he the poster child for this scam? Because no credible objective scientist could be found to say the "earth's core is millions of degrees", "the polar ice will be gone in five years" etc etc.
1965ace 2 years ago
You mean they don't get paid to do their work? They don't benefit from all the "research money" ? Guys like al gore don't make millions? Get a brain your not being objective.
The last ten year trend is cooling and this winter is evidence just look at the headlines on Drudge.
1965ace 2 years ago
They get paid to do their work, who doesn't? But they don't benefit from all the "research money". You don't see climate scientists driving around in ferraris.
Gore isnt' a scientist. The last 10 year trend is not cooling. Rather than look at Drudge go and download the temperature records and you'll see "cooling" makes not one bit of sense.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago 2
@chillyhut11111
Gore is your supreme leader of scientists on your side. He won an emmy ...or was that a peace prize. You must recognize he is the most intelligent "scientist/ politician/director/propagandist" on your side of the issue. Bow down and worship because the earth's core is millions of degrees (quote from al gore). He is your leader why deny it ...denier.
1965ace 2 years ago
@1965ace
Gore is your red herring, your bluff.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
@chillyhut11111
He's the smartest among you (which isn't saying much). He's your global warming King!!! Al Gore King of Carbon, your leader.
1965ace 2 years ago
A lot of guess work and myopic tunnel vision. The evidence of "man made global warming" is contrary to the theory. Global temperatures are falling evidenced by the new name "climate change" and many science and weather experts. Oh it's true science for the naive and the global marxists new world order types who want to carbon tax us out of existence. I put my money on solar activity and water vapor which was ignored here (of course).
1965ace 2 years ago
the last two letters of the acronymn IPCC are "climate change" and that body was formed 20 years ago. So what game are you playing claiming that some vague people are using a different name?
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
The name "climate change" is vague not the people. global warming is a lie just look at the recent temperatures, coldest winter on record in many places. These fools are just after money they haven't a clue how to predict temperature trends. I think its so funny how they are still clinging to the lies and now proven false theory's.
1965ace 2 years ago
Scientists don't personally get grant money, the money has to be spent on the research only. A lot of the money designated for climate goes on satellites and other hardware.
Recent temperatures are weather not climate. For example this November was the warmest November on record. Again weather.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
Good vid. Looking forward to the next.
Schamsie 2 years ago
Good Vid
Artifactorfiction 2 years ago
What credentials do the authors of this video have?
This is very assumption based and poorly written.
thesciencepirates 2 years ago
Problems. .hmmm... Where do I start??? (They are actually quite numerous.)
Your very basic premise is flawed.
CO2 only absorbs infrared energy, and this on a very narrow band in the infrared, which is but a tiny portion of the energy which enters from the sun.
IE, if we have 3 watts/meter of energy from the sun at any given point in time, only a very tiny amount of this CAN be absorbed by CO2. It is not like CO2 can absorb the 3 Watts per square meter.
pauldude000 2 years ago 2
the whole mechanism of the greenhouse effect works by co2 absorbing infrared emitted by the Earth, not by the Sun.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
The emission of infrared they speak of is due to absorption/reflection of sunlight by the earth.
pauldude000 2 years ago
CO2 energy absorption is not linear. It has already by scientific estimate already reached close to saturation.
This means more CO2 in atmosphere, no more real excessive heating. Logarithmic increase, not linear increase, with the amount of increase dropping rapidly after saturation.
By the way, potholer54 is putting out disinformation. He does not 'explain' so much as 'explain away'.
I have already found some major whitewashing in his estimation of the 'trick' e-mail he addressed.
pauldude000 2 years ago
Logarithmic increase yes, but co2 absorption in the atmosphere is not close to saturation.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
piss-poor presentation
comments mostly from those of far-below average intelligence
'nuff said assclowns
roguescientist 2 years ago 2
CO2 is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Yet water vapor is over 4% of the atmosphere and it has the very same greenhouse gas properties as CO2.
kja5 2 years ago
That's only at the surface. Higher up in the atmosphere there is hardly any water vapor and co2 makes a big difference to blocking IR from reaching space.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
Absorption and subsequent release of energy is omnidirectional. What this means is simply that a molecule of CO2 that absorbs infrared, doe not release the energy in only one direction, but in a full 360 degrees.
Say for instance you had 1 watt of infrared absorbed by a give amount of gas, if the top side of the container was viewed as space, the energy released back downwards would eventually be approx. a maximum of half the energy it absorbed.
pauldude000 2 years ago
As far as the CO2 level somehow "bloacking" the infrared from reaching space?
Even the densest CO2 in the lowest atmospheric layers do not block all infrared.
The higher you go, the more density of atmosphere is lost. The ppm of CO2 has been shown to be fairly consistent, but that makes little distance when you space ALL molecules and atoms further apart.
There is less probability of any given infrared packet ever contacting a CO2 molecule in the upper atmosphere.
Atmosphere is a gas.
pauldude000 2 years ago
co2 doesn't have to block it all in order to significantly reduce IR into space.
cthulhu11111111 2 years ago
You would make an excellent climate scientist at East Angliea Univeristy. Now maybe I am not very good at reading graphs but doesn't it strike you the least bit fishy that your C02 graph essentially zero's out and that it has been 20 times higher in the past?
aluckyshot 2 years ago
Is the carbon dioxide level in the first graph about 1.5 % of atmosphere, if that is the case why no run away green house effect.
watgaanhieraan 2 years ago
73elephants
'Why are so many chemists writing angry letters to their professional journal saying that AGW alarmism is pseudoscience?'
It's patently clear if you use the almost unheard of analytical technique of READING, that:
those that dispute the editorial are using tired and widely debunked denialist pseudo-scientific arguments. It's obvious that the point of this exercise was for idiots to unveil in the run-up to Copenhagen.
Have you READ the editorial? Did you UNDERSTAND it?
pseudotruth 2 years ago
I've read the editorial and the letters, and the editor's response. The letters are justly angry, because the editorial is dogmatic, alarmist, and full of ad hominem. It is also incorrect. The world has been warming since the 18th century, and most of that is not CO2 (but some is). We cannot predict natural forcings 100 years ahead. CO2 output could cause up to 2°C further warming under plausible assumptions. Sea levels could rise 40cm. Higher forecasts are silly, as is the alarmism..
73elephants 2 years ago
73elephants
Where is the ad hominem? Vested interest groups have been buying bogus science and deceitful Op-Eds for decades. Now they're doing it about AGW. It's a fact.
The science that supports the Denialists ranges from the heavily flawed bogus drivel to fraud. Not in any particular order: e.g. Baliunas & Soon 2003; Douglass et al. 2007; OISM; Miskolczi 2007; Gerlich & Tscheuschner - and you can add Plimer's drivel too!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
There are vested interest groups involved on both sides. A lot of the backing for AGW alarmism that comes from alternative energy vendors (including oil companies) and financial speculators (including big banks). AGW actually gets much more money from vested interests than anti-AGW does. Being funded by an interested party does not invalidate one's research. The only things that invalidates research are flawed data and flawed methods.
73elephants 2 years ago
Hmm. That post was badly edited. Never mind.
73elephants 2 years ago
73elephants
You just keep on repeating the lies.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
You're the one who is repeating lies.
My above post contains no lies. You lied about the funding of anti-AGW versus pro-AGW science and activism, and you used that lie as an ad hominem argument.
What matters is data and methods, not stupid ad hominems based on falsehood.
73elephants 2 years ago
Yeahhh.. The oil industry is not an "alternative energy vendor."
Exxon Mobile even admitted they've funded AGW deniers. They came out a few years ago and claimed they would cut the funding so that they could "be a part of the solution."
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
Exxon's backing for AGW denial was always tiny compared to other corporate and govt backing for AGW alarmism. They stopped a couple of years ago under pressure from the Rockefellers. Last year, they invested $600m+ in alternative energy. Meanwhile, in the five years up to 2009, Shell invested $1.7 billion on alternative energy, particularly wind and solar power. Big oil also has the potential to make big profits from cap-and-trade. So it is quite natural for them to support AGW alarmism.
73elephants 2 years ago
73elephants
'AGW actually gets much more money from vested interests than anti-AGW does'
Prove it!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Phil Jones at CRU received over $22m research grants, including from WWF, oil and energy companies (which back cap-and-trade), and the UK govt (which has been pushing AGW for many years, and even has renamed the Department of Energy to "Department of Energy and Climate Change", as well as funding AGW propaganda and callling skeptics "flat earthers" - Gordon Brown's words). By contrast, John Christy receives no Big Oil money *at all*, not a cent, on principle, to avoid accusations of bias.
73elephants 2 years ago
73elephants
John Christy has been associated with the following Exxon funded think tanks and they pay!
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cato Institute
Independent Institute
George C. Marshall Institute
Heartland Institute
pseudotruth 2 years ago
You're kidding right? AGW gets all the MSM and monetary support, those whose question it are likened to holocaust deniers and ridiculed.
Get your head out of your ass.
aluckyshot 2 years ago
aluckyshot
It appears it is you that has your head up your ass.
Scientists have to get funding which has to be justified. Whereas deniers like Ball etc. are not doing any research, they're writing op-eds.
Make specific, detailed claims.
Vague claims like you've made are always bogus. Otherwise STFU!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
No need for specific claims if you are too ignorant to see it all around you in the news and media.
aluckyshot 2 years ago
aluckyshot
So you made it up!
I thought so! Liar!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
aluckyshot
Make specific detailed claims. Who; what; where; when & etc.
Vague claims like what you've just made are always bogus.
Otherwise STFU!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
No I will not STFU.
"vol. 37, no.3 Physics and society july 2008"
Google and read that you dumb piece of shit, you want specifics, that journal shows the general cooling trend over the past 8 years. There is another graph in there showing Co2 and temperature are not correlated.
As for not being able to see the bias in the news, once again no need for specifics, I don`t have to disprove ignorance.
aluckyshot 2 years ago
aluckyshot
So you made it up!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
aluckyshot
Lord bunkum! You obviously can't read!
Note beneath the title
'The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."'
pseudotruth 2 years ago
aluckyshot
Is that the best you can do. A non-peer-reviewed letter with a disclaimer that basically makes it perfectly clear it's a pile of steaming bovine excrement!
You are desperate!
pseudotruth 2 years ago 2
aluckyshot
OWNED!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
aluckyshot
'I don`t have to disprove ignorance.'
But you did! Yours!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
You didn`t prove shit, the disclaimer merely means that they officially take the other side. Didn`t you know reputable journals print both sides of the debate.
aluckyshot 2 years ago
aluckyshot
You proved shit all right. That your argument is full of it! This article is full of it. Baron Munchausen is one dangerous idiot.
The Baron's maths are screwy, that's how he 'claims' that the sensitivity is wrong. But sadly for him paleoclimate confirms many peer-reviewed studies that the sensitivity is rather higher. Which is bad for us.
If Lord Bogus is so smart, he would have published a p-r article in the Journal rather than a letter which wasn't.
That fact peaks volumes!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
aluckyshot
Have you heard this saying?
When you're in a hole, STOP digging!
The hole you've dug is getting deeper all the time!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
aluckyshot
Why you are wrong:
/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Also some of your graphs are already debunked and misleading.
Tool.
schizrade 2 years ago
Uh-huh... too bad this is overly-simplified and you draw conclusions from your simplified understanding and baseless assumptions.
Good for a 3rd grade report. Unfortunately you left the important things out. Try again.
schizrade 2 years ago
A large part of the video where you explain a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature is wrong. Plant life does not reduce CO2 simply because once the plant dies it decomposes back to CO2 and even more harmful methane.
oomblikkies 2 years ago
@oomblikkies Plants don't decompose as easily as you may think. Much of the dead plant life discussed here is converted to oil. That's how plants take carbon out of the atmosphere. When they die, the carbon they absorbed in their lifetime is buried with them.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
ThinkAboutit ..Plants do indeed decompose easily and rapidly in conditions where there is oxygen around. The only way to persevere the carbon in them is to bury them to exclude oxygen - so called anaerobic conditions. With enough pressure (more layers on top) and it will over time turn into peat and eventually into coal, but never oil - that comes only from living organisms (fish etc). But I agree with the fundamental message of your post, namely that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming.
oomblikkies 2 years ago
You can't just look at it in terms of one plant. Plant life doesn't grow and die together, an I apologise if that's stating the obvious. Plant life flourishing reduces CO2 levels because the carbon is locked up in the living plant tissue.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Fake! Global Warming hoax unfolding upcomming weeks!
larsiemannen 2 years ago
Iarsiemannen - I also wish this hoax will just go away, but unfortunately it has turned into a religion and all religions just ignore science.
oomblikkies 2 years ago
It will just take some time. sad that so much resources are wasted untill its uncovered.
larsiemannen 2 years ago
I'm interested in the accuracy of the graphs for the past 500 my. I assume it is some computer model using proxy data--since no hard data of CO2 levels exists prior to the Pliestocene, or for temperature prior to 1850. What model, which proxies, and how far apart are the data points? Does accuracy vary 400 mya vs 10 mya? To explain the relative timing & turning points between the two measurements--presumes a high degree of confidence in the data.
JuanVoyce 2 years ago
FUCKING AWESOME VIDEO!!
Even *I* had to brush up on the basics!
Sorry for the army talk. I am in a war right now against the anthopogenic global warming (AGW) deniers and conspiracy theorists about how gov't wants to take away all your freedoms to protect the environment - even though some of those freedoms - unlimited polluting and refusal to change one's lifestyle - SHOULD be taken away and will be taken away even WORSE in the future if nothing is done NOW about AGW.
ecordy75 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
goodoldtimes19 2 years ago
More CO2 means:
* More Plant Growth
* Plants need less water
* More food per acre
* More robust habitats and ecosystems
plantsneedco2 (dot) org
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
Your lying drivel is boring.
Do you have a brain? It doesn't seem like it!
It is clear that your bullet points are in conflict.
Since a growing plant is increasing in size, it needs more water, if only for the increased quantity of cytoplasm.
Therefore a growing plant cannot need less water.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Clubdj14
Whatever you're being paid to repeat your drivel, it's too much!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
... -.-"
plant growth has it's limit, and plants would need MORE water if they're growing faster, it's basic photosynthesis.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
"CO2 molecules are observed to absorb short wave radiation and give off long wave radiation"
By what degree? Plant life would have problems? We sinthethize some organic molecules thanks to UV rays, right?
7omnia7 2 years ago
We synthesize Vitamin D indirectly due to the absorption of UV B rays (just a subset of UV rays, kind of like ROYGBIV in visible light).
And it's simply put, the absorption spectrum in photosynthesis depends solely on photosystem absorption spectrums, which don't particularily include UV at all.
Sorry what is the question?
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
I mean the frequency (or wave length) of the radiation absorbed by CO2 molecules.
When you say short wave you mean ionizing radiation?
It's a stupid question, I'm just curious :)
7omnia7 2 years ago
I mean waves of light in the... I think it's 230-350 nm band? I can't remember, have to look it up.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
Wake up to the NWO weather modification programme. Google chemtrails.
Lookup2Wakeup 2 years ago
Clubdj14
You can post as much drivel as you like regarding the climate, that will neither make the existing science go away, nor will it make your lies become true.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Sure the existing science / propaganda/ brainwashing is promoted and funded by the NWO bankers, to tax the people.
There's no my "lie".
Clubdj14 2 years ago
"Proved: There is No Climate Crisis"
tiny (dot) cc/pW3ko
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?
tiny (dot) cc/YFZde
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Man made climate change is propaganda.
watch?v=JrRusZOx3l4
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
'Man made climate change is propaganda'
Is everything you post a lie?
google:
IPCC AR4 report
pseudotruth 2 years ago
"The only place where CO2 is causing temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models"
canadafreepress (dot) com/index (dot) php/article/7116
cobourgskeptic (dot) com/archives/432
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
"The only place where CO2 is causing temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models"
Why do you refer to a newspaper when talking about climate modelling? Is that the best 'science' you can find?
I would like to learn more about these 'IPCC computer models'.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Clubdj14
"The only place where CO2 is causing temperature increase is in the IPCC computer models"
Did you not realise that there is NO SUCH THING as an IPCC computer model?
So any claims about WHAT IPCC computer models say are lies and fabrications!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
tiny (dot) cc/Z4lFs
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
Professor Bob Carter is a well known source of climate verbiage. It's strange that Carter hasn't submitted his 'science' that undermines climate science to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Instead he writes op-eds in the papers and appears on chat shows.
Perhaps Carter's theories aren't quite as scientifically sound as would have everyone believe. They are deceptive pseudo-scientific drivel.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Al Gore's movie is not an authority, nor even a scientific reference for climate change.
However, the reality of the situation is that CO2 molecules are observed to absorb short wave radiation and give off long wave radiation.
The problem is not solely CO2, however, the reason CO2 is talked about so much, is because it is/can be the trigger for setting off multitudes of climate feedback loops, which will result in catastrophic climate change.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
this is a very good video.
GalacticWarzz 2 years ago
"World's Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-made Climate Fears"
newswithviews (dot) com/Morano/marc104.htm
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
Nice to see a troll using vested-interests as sources.
Have you read any science? Doesn't seem like it!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Here's a video for you to start with:
"Al Gore is a dickhead"
watch?v=JrRusZOx3l4
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
"Al Gore is a dickhead"
That's your mature, well considered argument against overwhelming science.?
I'm most impressed!
/irony
pseudotruth 2 years ago
A Cooling Trend Toward Global Warming"
thenewamerican (dot) com/index (dot) php/
tech-mainmenu-30/environment/942
"The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame"
telegraph (dot) co (dot) uk/science/science-news/3325679/
The-truth-about-global-warming
---its-the-Sun-thats-to-blame (dot) html
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
Did you read the Telegraph article? Doesn't seem like it.
'Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors'
The Telegraph is not known for its objective reporting of climate science. This is revealed by the fact the article ends with a quote from David Bellamy, who is a Botanist and who is not a credible source regarding the climate.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Clubdj14
Solanki is old news, most studies indicate the exact opposite of what this study says. i.e. that the Sun has had a declining output since ~1975 and in 2009 hit a new low in output.
The trouble with the solar hypothesis is that with falling solar output, the temperature has been rising, which indicates the solar effect was minor. Now solar output is rising, it will be added to the primary cause rising GHGs
For you to rely on a single study indicates your POV demands cherry-picking!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Clubdj14
The important question, is why you accept as valid only science that supports your predetermined conclusions, and reject the majority?
The fact is that you have to root through a mountain of science that contradicts your view for a crumb of science that you like.
This shows a peculiar approach to climate science. I'm pretty certain that you don't apply it to other aspects of your life.
The answer, is why?
Because you've made-up your mind and inconvenient facts only confuse.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
There are very few papers that are impartial in the reporting of climate science. The majority are dogmatic lackeys of the AGW mafia, a minority are equally dogmatic in their opposition. A few are open-minded and publish a range of views.
73elephants 2 years ago
The Met Office is not a credible source regarding the climate.
73elephants 2 years ago
73elephants
You don't know what you're talking about.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Chemical and Engineering News letters page:
tinyurl (dot) com /lye72x
Take a look. Why are so many chemists writing angry letters to their professional journal saying that AGW alarmism is pseudoscience? Are all these people ignorant of science?
73elephants 2 years ago
Comment removed
Clubdj14 2 years ago
Clubdj14
'How about using your mind, and looking at this:'
watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Total NONSENSE. Answer this question. What percentage of green house gasses in the atmosphere are caused by humans?
gordonbloyershow 2 years ago
Great. All the facts in a nutshell. Five stars, faved, subscribed.
thefutureisvegan 2 years ago
This is very good. I was worried that the 500 mill year graph was going to be the main argument and that you were acting as an apologist for the lack of correlation but you quite rightly point out that other, greater, factors than CO2 can cause temperature change and that once the earth "stabalised" that it DID become a major factor. However, how have we been able to measure CO2 millions of years ago as ice core rings only go back 10 of thousands of years?
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
Great video!
mrboldpatriot 2 years ago
Up to as of 2003[update], the longest core drilled was at Vostok station. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles. Drilling stopped just above Lake Vostok. The Vostok core was not drilled at a summit, hence ice from deeper down has flowed from upslope; this slightly complicates dating and interpretation. Vostok core data are available.
wiki - vostok
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
where exactly did you get a graph going back 500 million years?
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
Ice cores are not the only source of proxy data.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Your evidence proves nothing!
Very informative video, I had been wondering about the previous correlation between temperature and CO2 now I think I will actually read into it.
DavinCreed 2 years ago
vostock is really vostok - misleading?
vengencefrom1979 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Propaganda Fail.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
This video, or the video it comments on (where the graph came from)
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All thesedangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
First Global Revolution 1991 - Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
1NoNamesLeft 2 years ago
I have to say that you are very underrated and you deserve more recognition.
dudas91 2 years ago
The fact is temperature change natural and the norm as it keeps our environment healthy and is the driving force behind evolution. Without it you would not be here.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Warmer temperatures do not mean the end of the world. If you take a look at the GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) ice core the temp was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago then the Anasazis Indians thrived in Americas southwest from 850 ad to 1250 ad as the southwest was much wetter and the Vikings were able to plant crops, then 2000 years ago it was 2 degree C higher where the roman empire was doing pretty good. Last it was 3 degree C higher 3300 years ago but this did not stop the Jewish exodus
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also note the polar bears survived all these warming periods as well. It is true in the last 800 years the northern hemisphere temperature has been relatively flat with an upward turn the last 100 years but the last 800 years have been the exception as the other 9000 years of records show 100s of temperature changes varying as much a 3 degrees C in a couple 100 years
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Note the data from the southern hemisphere (Vostok) shows something different as it shows 3 major temp changes by 2.5 degree C over the same last 800 years but for some reason the global warming folks ignore this never explaining how CO2 only effects the northern hemisphere. Note after 10,000 years the earth returns to an elliptical orbit where the temp drops 9 degrees C lasting for about 80,000 years.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I am wondering what convinces you a 100 ppm or or even 1000ppm as any effect on temp? The typical answer 99% of the time is well all scientists say it is true but for one this not true like RM Carter who is one of many that disagrees and has published an excellent paper in an easy to read format going through all the science and issues. Search for R M Carter paper entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
PROBLEM There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm to see a 3 degree C change. Global warming nuts then say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
In vitro and in vivo experiments can result in widely different results. Step into a lab and try it
johnnyphd 2 years ago
Swell, please tell us the diffences when it comes to measuring CO2 effect on temp in the lab, I cant find anything so maybe you can enlighten us how this directly effects a 100 ppm increase of CO2 in the lab, Ill take a link.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
You missed the point. A controlled in vitro experiment that takes away the variables of an in vivo study can yield different results. But please provide the link to a peer reviewed paper that talks about increasing CO2 temps in the lab and the effects. I have access to most journals, so a citation will be fine.
johnnyphd 2 years ago
a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temperature a few tenths of one degree F. This is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the global warming nuts say well CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do this but note flawed models are not proof much less science.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Since the start of industrial times we have observed an increase in temp of about 0.7C which is roughly 1.3F. CO2 has increased by 31% and CH4 by 151%. It is projected that temps could increase to 3-4F by 2100. Let me ask you this, what is the difference between 1 degree F?
johnnyphd 2 years ago
What is projecting these temp changes, I know the answer it is incomplete positive loopback heavy models the IPCC refers too. In the lab an increase from 250 ppm CO2 to 350 ppm has NO effect. Now the arguement is that is not fair because C02 is in 50,000 feet of atmoshephere, so there is a theory layers cause a reflection giving us a couple tenths of 1 degee F increase,
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
ok maybe true but what the IPCC models do is say there is an Amplyfiying effect from this small change, for example they claim a couple of tenths F increase in temp melts more ice which creates more darker surfice on the earth, causing even more worming and so on giving you an amplyfing effect. The problem is the models ignore neg loopbacks, for example as the earth warms more storms are created removing, storms remove energy from the athmosphere in the form of waves and wind.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Well if you read the excecuative summery of the models thay admit they ignore many neg loopbacks that drive temp down because they simply cannot predict storms, note the poor track recorded of trying to predict hurricanes the last 40 years. There are many more of these neg loopbacks ignored, little understood or not even descovered. These mdels are still in grade school. Not to mention outside force we cant predict like gamma rays and sunspots,
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Will you be covering the effects of water vapour as a greenhouse factor?
clarkiesyeah 2 years ago
Of course, it's the major contributor, but it's self-regulating. When it becomes too dense, it forms precipitation, and when it's not dense enough, it draws liquid water to evaporate. Water vapour is something we can't particularily change, CO2 we can.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
Thats got me thinking. Is there any data to show the levels of relative global humidity plotted against the co2 and temp for the same period as the vostok icecore graph covers?
clarkiesyeah 2 years ago
I don't know of any, and I think it would be pretty difficult to discern anyways. We can know CO2 and temp through ice cores, water... well... when water freezes, it is the ice. So to try and get atmospheric H2O from an ice core would be impossible (probably).
Geologically... well... it can just dry out or get rained on...
I don't think a detailed graph of water vapour concentration exists farther back than our recent recordings.
ThinkAbout1t 2 years ago
I hear goverments telling me that i am responsable with my "carbon footprint", meanwhile my government wastes billions on wars to secure oil fields so they can perpetuate the problem further. If they really believed that we are causing the changes they would be more proactive about alternative fuels and technology. (they wouldn't for example bail out the car industry). Thankyou for these vids btw, the data is authentic and you provide a concise narrative, 5stars.
clarkiesyeah 2 years ago