OK RETARDS, GLOBAL WARMING ISNT GOING TO MAKE IS SNOW LESS IN YOUR HELL HOLE MINNESOTA YOU FUCKING RETARDS!, IF ANYTHING MORE, BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE IS MORE MOIST, TRY EXPLAIN TO YOUR YOUTUBE AUDIENCE, THE HUGE AMOUNT OF TORNADOES IN MINNESOTA, OCCURING THIS YEAR AND LAST, FAR MORE THAN NORMAL, YEA ILL MAKE YOU NEO-CON SCIENCE DENIERS EAT YOUR WORDS ALL YEAR/ ALL CENTURY YUCKIBILLYS!, LEARN HOW TO SPEAK ENGLISH, DROP THE HICKBONICS!
Yes, the sceptics can try to explain that to the Youtube audience even with scientific proof. But can you proof to us scientifically that Dangerous Human caused global warming (AGW) exists?
You don't need to namecall us that you maybe, possibly or likely could be right about AGW.
@robbieopen yes when you burn gasoline, heat is created, the united states creates 25% of the greenhouses gases(look it up) therefor burns about 25% of the worlds fuel, see the record wildfires, see the record tornadoes? see? open your eyes, look at cryosphere today an use the compare tool, to look at how small the ice cap is this summer, the record low was on sept 6th 2007, we're close to that this year, and in terms of volume, were alot smaller as old ice melts more, ps
I knew global warming was a SCAM when I watched TV and noticed that it was mainly the POLITICIANS, and the so-called wealthy "elite", who were clamoring desperately for a "carbon TAX"...
Once I realised that, I had absolutely no doubt that it was all a fraudulent hoax foisted on us by "gubmint" as a simple cash grab.
CollinMaessen It has nothing to do with captcha screens. Sometimes I get them when I write too many comments and these extra comments always appear. I got no problems with captcha screens. I don't know what is wrong.
I often get "Error! Try Again!" messages or the comment shows up instantly on the page, but when I check later it is gone for some reason. Not only on this page but on other pages as well. Very strange.
Solar irradiance at the earth’s surface: long-term behavior observed
at the South Pole - Frederick & Hodge 2011
"The UV-A and visible portions are the most energetic and significant portions of the solar spectrum heating the Earth. While the authors are uncertain of the origin of this variability at the surface, they note that it is "too large to be of extraterrestrial origin." Climate models assume that
the solar irradiance reaching the Earth's surface only varies 0.1% over solar cycles in accordance with satellite measurements, but as shown by this paper, that may be an incorrect assumption. Another recent study has shown that solar UV activity has increased almost 50% over the past 400 years. The antiquated assumption in climate science that the effect of the Sun upon the Earth's climate is a constant (they even call it "the solar constant") is in dire need of reassessment.
The IPCC, however, is only mandated to assess anthropogenic climate change and only pays lip service to the role of the Sun." - Climate Realists
Ehhh! Very active Sun - Warm PDO - lots of energy put into the ocean - more El Niños - Tropics getting very warm (Do I hear Joe Bastardi somewhere? - LoL).
Well warmists what do you think will happen to the global temperature over time?
@robbieopen Your replies are getting marked as spam. I suspect you are getting captcha screens before you can reply. If you don't correctly input the captcha it's automatically marked as spam.
CollinMaessen In this discussion you used this link watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc (your video) in which you stated that 2010 might be the warmest year on record and in the comment section of this link some 3 weeks ago you asked ME this question: "Not to mention that 2010 was the warmest year, how do you explain that with the graph?"
You may not have said this in this discussion, but why are you trying to hide away your own claim?
@robbieopen Or you could just reply to me so that I get a notification when you are talking to me.
I don't know why I said it as that was 4 weeks ago. But looking at the editing records of my blog post I probably misspoke at the time (as 2010 and 2005 being tied was already on my blog).
And again, I was referring to the video not comments. And for the video you were claiming I said that. Also, how is this hiding what I said? The comment is still there for all to see.
@CollinMaessen your basing them greenman's nonsense he might as well be in Chicken suit too. Have you watched his videos? The demonize people because they worked at a tobacco factory or some place he doesn't like. Look this video is MEANT to be funny and poke fun, his aren't, at least as far as I know. Your justifying exhaling and farts as a 'greenhouse gas' destroying the planet are not relevant... at least to sane people its not.
@kiffter I'm not basing my comments on greenman's videos, I cite them now and then to give something that's a bit more accessible than a bunch of research papers (I also cite potholer or my own videos). Which I do cite on my videos and in comments I make.
Are you actually saying that human breathe out enough CO2 and release enough Methane in significant quantities that it's a factor? Cows produce way more.
Also what has your comment to do to what I was originally responding?
"If you take a look at the temperature anomoly map for 2010 you can see that U.S. was below average, but almost all of the rest of the world had above average temperatures."
Well how about now: coaps. fsu. edu/~maue /jra25/jra25_2011. html
Global temperature difference: -0.134°C
Global temperature is now below average and not only in the U.S.
@robbieopen And continuing without acknowledging my response and using a quote from a different thread in this section...
That's one month of data. You do realise that it's not enough of a time period to draw any conclusions from? And I hope you also realise that my response was towards m4gw who was presenting the argument that it's cold in the u.s. so the world cannot be warming. In short, an example that local phenomenon are not a good indicator what's happening globally.
@CollinMaessen Well I think you are trying to split hairs now over a statement about 2010 being the hottest year or not.
You did not say it in your video and you did not say it in this discussion, but you certainly claimed it to me. And now you are trying to be apologetic for it as well.
Let's accept you are correct about the second part of your comment. How do we know if the recent warming is an anthropogenic or a natural one?
@robbieopen I'm not splitting hairs, I honestly told you I can't remember why I said it, but that I suspect that I misspoke at the time. As I can't trace the claim I made anymore that's all I can say (if you had asked me at the time I could answer all of your questions about it). Do you honestly think I can remember the details of one comment that I left 4 weeks ago?
And I already answered variants of the question you are asking me now multiple times.
@CollinMaessen No you haven't answered this question and no I haven't asked this question multiple times.
I would like to know how we can establish the current warming to be an anthropogenic or a natural one if one is not allowed to look at local phenomenons anymore.
@robbieopen Yes I have answered several variants of that question. Look up our infrared absorption discussion for one example.
And I never said that no one is allowed to look at local phenomenons. Please remember the original comment I made was because someone was projecting a local phenomenon to a global picture while if you took a global look at the data it said something different.
@robbieopen Have you read the latest finding on AO, NAO and PDO on NOAA?
Forensic Meteorology Solves the Mystery of Record Snows - NOAA: "The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms."
It looks like that Maessen person got it all wrong in his video.
Okay kiddies, take out your calculators and divide 390 by 1,000,000, which is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. And the answer is.....0.000390, which is less than 4/10,000's! I agree that is equal to 0.039%, but 0.00039 shows just how small the concentration is. Now, does anyone else want to argue with me about this???
@whistler2255 Now divide 0.00039 by 10 you get.000039 this represents the part per million that are supposed to be responsible for global warming going from 350 ppm to 389 ppm. Now multiply that by .03 and you get 0.00000117 or 1ppm which is man's contribution to the change in CO2 because nature produces most of the CO2.
Excellent job pointing out how ridiculous it is to freak out and take drastic, economy destroying and people-starving measures to "combat" the myth of CAGW, though there's still some Cagwites (Cagwinians?) holding out out there. Sad for them, really.
“The last 2,000 years is full of incredible weather events that dwarf what we see today,” said Horn. A New York Times story from the 1970s, which said the planet was getting so cold that humanity was in danger of starving to death.
“First we were told the world was cooling. Then it was getting hotter,” Dan Gainor, “Then cooling again. Then hotter. Now it’s just climate change -- so they can’t be wrong no matter what change occurs.”
@CollinMaessen I've seen his analysis's he tries to discredit intelligent scientists by ignoring their facts and focusing whom they worked for in the past and plays spooky music... kind a lame. Or does character assassination not really focusing on the issues. The 1970s analysis is just about as accurate as anything today it IS cooling.
@kiffter I was specifically pointing to the predctions made by climate scientists. And that is correctly explained in the video. If you want a bit more dry explanation, here it is:
ams.confex. com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf (The Myth of the 1970S Global Cooling Scientific Consensus by Peterson et al 2008)
It explains that 7 research papers predicted cooling, but 42 predicted warming. This is explained in the video, so he does focus on the issues (it's one of the main points in the video).
@CollinMaessen The Myth of the 1970S Global Cooling Scientific Consensus by Peterson et al 2008
"How large must a climate change be to be important?" That's the big question when everything in climate is STILL well within natural variability. "7 research papers predicted cooling, but 42 predicted warming"
Science is not a democracy. It does not work that way.
This video is awesome it merely makes fun of the whole Global Warming occultism that thinks people are a menace to the planet from breathing and being people (not to mention animals that exhale CO2) 50 years ago they'd have either laughed them off or put them in an insane asylum...
Walt Disney's logo is"Capturing your imagination" America was founded on MASONIC FREEMASONRY or Kabbala.Freemasonry is the founding of "America" Freemasons sought "A"merca or the western star
This means the Western Star Venus. Venus is the Red White & Blue star. The statute of LIBERTY is Their LIGHT BEARER COLUMBIA Shes their Goddess.Your Capital Building's are TEMPLES with each having a CORNER STONE from the FREEMASONS. They ORDAIN their CRAFT with WINE CORN & OIL. Vigilantcitizen or freemantv.
This is why Al Whore has the largest beach front mansion ever! He wanted to get away from the 20 foot water surge from all the ice caps melting! LMMFAO !!!Remember he got a Nobel Peace Prize and his stocks went up through the roof on all his companies that are Green! I am sure he didn't profit from this, NOT !!
Wow, you guys really like to point out it snows in WINTER. Not to mention that cold spells happen regardless of any underlying climate trend. Why do you think scientists look at data that's at minimum 15 years to draw conclusions from?
@M4GW I gave this comment thumbs down, but then I realized you are being sarcastic! Global Warming believers have actually been sold this crap that somehow, warm causes cold, more snow, etc. They were saying just a few years ago that Global Warming meant shorter and warmer winters, and a lack of snow! LOL!
@whistler2255 It's kind of a sarcastic logic. They say 2010 is the hottest year ever and yet we are freezing to death, therefore if next year is the coldest year ever will we then burn up?
@M4GW Take a look at the video I posted, it explains perfectly well that what you are arguing is "it's cold locally so it can't be warming globally". If you take a look at the temperature anomoly map for 2010 you can see that U.S. was below average, but almost all of the rest of the world had above average temperatures.
@CollinMaessen I know what your saying, even though we are freezing to death in North America, Europe and Asia, somewhere in the world it is REALLY HOT!!!, I say this in my video. All I'm try to do is show out the reality of living with "Global Warming".
@M4GW You are currently experiencing cold in the U.S., it's above average in Europe. As the NAO is in it's positive phase current so the event that caused the cold you are referring to has ended. When the NAO was in it's positive phase the cold air is pushed out of the arctic, that's why it was so cold and so warm in the arctic.
The recent weather is most likely a consequence from the la nina we currently have.
Station Data Nasa Giss: Ostrov Dikson - Dudinka - Hatanga - Turuhansk - Tarko-Sale - Bajkit - Tura - Marble Point just to name a few. All polar region stations - Where is the unprecedented warming trend?
UAH MSU - RSS MSU - Hadcrut 3 - NCDC global temperaturedatasets all showing 2010 NOT to be the warmest year ever.
Stop propagating your religion and actually start to present us some FACTS or just shut up!
@robbieopen Well hello robbie, the guy that has accused me several times of things I haven't done. And now you also say I don't provide facts, have you forgotten all my citations?
And did I anywhere in this discussion claim that 2010 was the warmest year? So why are you arguing this?
Secondly, not all data sets are created equal. Not all are global, and the global record sets say 2010 is the warmest. But all show a temperature increase over time.
@CollinMaessen "the guy that has accused me several times of things I haven't done. And now you also say I don't provide facts, have you forgotten all my citations?"
And again you don't want to discuss facts. Show me the human signal in the facts I presented. It is just a small fraction of the total amount I can provide, but why bother so much time on someone who does not want to acknowledge the facts.
I already dealt with both sources under another video. They don't prove anything. The last source assumes that Total Greenhouse Effect is 35°C. While another paper by Schmidt et al 2010 (NASA) clearly claims that TGE is 33°C. Which source should I trust?????
You really have to come up with other sources to show the real human signal in the climate system.
@robbieopen Isotopes clearly show it's us. Also you complain on a detail that has nothing to do with a difference point I'm making in the greenhouse forcing (and I do try to accommodate you with publicly accessible papers).
And there are many infrared spectrography papers out there that show similar results:
@CollinMaessen - Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Philipona et al 2004
"Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far"
@robbieopen Are you seriously trying to disprove a paper by one sentence in the abstract?
Might want to read the full paper (or even the last sentence in the abstract):
The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.
As the most important part is how much IR escapes the atmosphere.
@CollinMaessen - Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from ... Harries et al 2001
Some comments on this paper: The `increase' in the greenhouse effect claimed was mostly caused by a real or imagined change in the methane spike at wave 1300, not by CO2. The primary gas at the centre of the greenhouse controversy - CO2 - gives only weak indications in this study, well within the range of instrument error between two very different instruments separated by technologies 27 years apart.
@robbieopen There is a very noticeable spike in the CO2 spectrum. And the methane spike is also not really that surprising with our current emissions of those and the natural release of methane (which is increasing due to warming).
And you do realise that UAH MSU, which you have cited, uses similar techniques to make corrections between different satellites?
@CollinMaessen The third link I was not able to find. May I suggest to present titles, date of publication and author. It is easier for me to find papers.
The human signal I am looking for is in climate warming - Not in CO2 increase. I do agree that we are the cause for that, but it is the amount of warming caused by CO2 I take into question.
@robbieopen I'm showing you papers that show increased absorption of infrared radiation that shows it is the driver behind the changes we are seeing. The papers I cited very clearly state it as such and show this phenomenon. I also provided you with a paper where they show this CO2 was introduced by us.
You asking for the human signal triggered me in giving you these papers.
@CollinMaessen "And did I anywhere in this discussion claim that 2010 was the warmest year."
What about 4:49 in watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc? You used this link in this discussion.
You see that is the problem debating with you. You already lost this debate.
If the case for global warming is so strong you can clearly point out the human signal in the climate system. JUST DO IT or stop propagating your religion!
"And despite the current cold weather in certain areas of the northern hemisphere there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year on record. In the very least it will be a tie with 2005 for the warmest year."
I said "a good chance" aka might be. And on my blog I updated my script so that I say that it has tied with 2010. And this is a minor detail from a video where the main point is not dependent on it.
@robbieopen Dude seriously. I'm responding to your accusation that I said 2010 was the hottest year. And when I show you that I never said that you don't even apologize and continue with a misrepresentation.
If you check the date when the video was posted it should be obvious I was writing the script when the full 2010 data wasn't available. You are splitting hairs on a word I used correctly. The sentence has nothing to do with climate models and their projections.
@robbieopen I think I know where you are going with this one (SB03?).
There is no conspiracy to block certain papers. They only care if the research is done correctly. I went over this with you in detail in regards with the SB03 paper.
Not directly (they can get fired for example if scientist discover the editor subverted the peer review process, and then the editor gets fired by the magazine)
And you are the one who claims bullshit on Climategate! You should really "een beetje verder kijken dan je neus lang is" before drawing any quick conclusions.
The reasons for rejecting a submitted paper are very important. If the reasons are just some unfounded arguments and the magazine decides to publish the paper anyway the editors did the right thing. And now I am referring to SB03.
@robbieopen You little... When I suspect you are going towards SB03 with your questioning, and ask you if this is the case, you deny this is what you are doing, but as soon as I answer the questions you blatantly start talking about SB03. That's lying.
I told you why the editors got fired. They ignored comments of the peer reviewers, that's what caused the uproar, that's why they were fired. We already went over that.
Learn how to honestly discuss, or you will never convince anyone.
@CollinMaessen "Learn how to honestly discuss, or you will never convince anyone."
Will that be really possible to convince someone who has adopted a religion or refuses to do some more background research on how corrupt climate science really has become?
Communicating Climate Science and thoughts on Climategate - Trenberth 2011
For a scientist he uses six times the word DENIER and not once the word sceptic. He lost all credibility and so does climate science.
@robbieopen Nice to ignore the main point of my comment that you lied to me when I asked you where you were going with your questions. And the very next thing you do is an ad hominem.
And I've done research on the cases you are referring to. I told you I claim bullshit on them because of it.
This is exactly the reason why I'm telling you to learn to discuss honestly.
@CollinMaessen In this discussion you used this link watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc (your video) in which you stated that 2010 might be the warmest year on record and in the comment section of this link some 3 weeks ago you asked ME this question: "Not to mention that 2010 was the warmest year, how do you explain that with the graph?"
You may not have said it in this discussion, but why are you trying to hide away your own claim?
@CollinMaessen why on earth do you think man is causing global warming we weren't put on this earth to destroy it by exhaling and farting, that is just idiotic.
@kiffter I don't claim that we were "put on this earth to destroy it by exhaling and farting". That much should be obvious by the other comments I made here.
@CollinMaessen Right! - because America has an abundance of modern instruments and data isn't fudged to cover hundreds of miles where there are no thermometers, like in mountainous Bolivia, where the temperature is taken on a beach in Peru or some other hot place, or the Arctic, where temperature stations are so sparse the temps are extrapolated from places as far as 1200 km away.
@whistler2255 I get the suspicion you are a WUWT reader.
They don't fudge data, there might be low coverage in certain areas, but that doesn't indicate that they measurements are wrong. Please watch the video of greenman I cited, it explains perfectly well that even if we completely ignore the temperature records that nature still, in almost all cases, shows signs of warming. Even in the regions where we have low coverage of stations.
@CollinMaessen "even if we completely ignore the temperature records that nature still, in almost all cases, shows signs of warming. Even in the regions where we have low coverage of stations."
Can you show me the stations please? I pointed out some in the Arctic region where due to "Polar amplification" the warming should have been unusual, but I cannot find anything unusual that hasn't happened before.
Nature shows signs of warming does not mean CO2 is the cause for it. It proves nothing
@robbieopen I take it you are referring to the few station mixed between the warming nature shows?
If you want examples for very warm measurements in the arctic region look up greenland and east canada during the NAO.
And I'm not mentioning this as proof for CO2 caused warming. I'm mentioning it in a response where someone casts doubt on the warming trend. I didn't mention CO2 at all, so you are inferring that I claimed something when I didn't.
@CollinMaessen I watched Paul Nutball and they don't understand science, they understand consensus which is the Opposite of science where skepticism is left out. the question why is ignored. They don't seem to realize the earths temp follows the sun and CO2 follows that. it also saturates at a point and its affect is minimal. I know they don't teach that in Global warming brainwash school but test it out for yourself...
@kiffter This one keeps cropping up... There is a reason in a lot of cases CO2 follows temperature. But even in the geological record we see temperature increases that are caused by CO2. A very clear indication of this we can see during the permian extinction.
There is a saturation point of an increase in CO2 warming but it isn't as low as you might think it is (it would require a low climate sensitivity).
@CollinMaessen I will hold on the accuracy of the time period we cannot verify that at ALL. were you there? how can you possibly state this " in the geological record we see temperature increases that are caused by CO2" you have NO IDEA what caused it.
@CollinMaessen I watched your video. Your graph of increasing temperatures is faulty, mainly due to improper adjustment for Urban Heat Islands, and selective station dropout. CO2 caused Global Warming has never been proven and is not even bad science, it's faith-based religion promoted by politicians and government and special interest paid, gravy train scientists and mainstream media always looking for a story that will sell.
@whistler2255 And we went of the deep end into a conspiracy...
CO2 caused global warming is proven. You might want to look up infrared spectrography of the atmosphere and the changes CO2 has caused and carbon isotopes in the atmosphere and where these isotopes comes from. They show that our planet is absorbing more heat due to increased CO2 and that this CO2 comes predominantly from the burning of fossil fuels.
@CollinMaessen CO2 at 390ppmv, (not even 0.0004 concentraition), is not heating up the planet. At much larger quantities,maybe. The Urban Heat Islands are not being properly adjusted for, which is why in greenman's video, the cities are not showing the proper warming. Greenman, Peter Sinclair, is himself a "crock". You and Greenman can help the planet, by not exhaling your 40,000 ppmv CO2.
@CollinMaessen 1% = 0.01, so 0.039% as a decimal is 0.000390, or a little less than 0.0004. As far as the UHI adjustments...you have to put in the 3 w's, dot and omit the space heliogenic. net/2011/01/17/noaa-adjusting-a-decline-into-an-increase/
@whistler2255 The only answer I can give you to that comment is: you are flat out wrong.
Please take a few minutes to search the internet with your favourite search engine. And if you take a look at recent articles you will notice that 390ppm is 0.039 percent.
@whistler2255 Seriously, put this in a search engine. It shows you are trying to justify something that is wrong. Even the site WUWT mentions these numbers.. The "sceptics" even agree with me on this...
@AngryWomble No, I did not fail math, but maybe you did!. Take 0.039, and multply by 1/100, (which is what the word percent means), and you will come out with 0.00039, or less than 4/10,000, which is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, a very small amount!
@whistler2255 Oh jeez that's what you were doing. With how you wrote those sentences it looked like you were doing something different. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
But a low count of particles does not mean it has no or very little effect. Concentrations of for example CFCs are measured in the per mile compared to the total atmosphere. Yet it is responsible for the ozone hole.
Low particle counts doesn't say anything about the effect it will have.
@CollinMaessen "CO2 caused global warming is proven. You might want to look up infrared spectrography of the atmosphere and the changes CO2 has caused.."
If this is true. Explain to me: Why is global temperature at the moment reaching NORMAL level? It should never have reached that anymore.
And why is sea surface temperature at the moment BELOW normal? It can't be explained when CO2 causes global warming.
@robbieopen Not if, that is true. Take a look at the specific paper I cited (there are many more that have done the same/similar experiments and confirmed this.
And what do you mean with below and normal levels?
@CollinMaessen "And what do you mean with below and normal levels?"
Finally the first sensible question coming from Mr. Maessen: What is normal for Earth's standard climate when we know that most of the time climate was much warmer than current climate is during the last several millions of years?
What the hell... I though you were referring to some strange base period or a certain starting point that would show that. But this is just twisting your argument...
@CollinMaessen I am not twisting anything. Just take a look at the UAH satellite graph on Dr. Spencer's site and look at the current global temperature and Sea Surface (AMS R-E) temperature.
I spot a little bit of fail here, why yes I do....but what is this fail exactly? Why it's the FAIL of not understanding how much the climate of this planet has varied over geological time. Lets look at the last few million years shall we? Guess what, they weren't warm really, want to know how we can tell GLACIATION! Thats right, huge fucking bits of ice kicking about the place. And not the piss ant tiddly bits of ice we have now, I'm talking 2km of ice squashing NW (cont)
Europe during the last glaciation, which has resulted in that area being depressed and is now rising up due to isostatic rebound. Do you really have no idea of the massive changes changes that have taken place over geological time? Seriously, there is no real standard. Yes, we've got some climate issues at the moment because we are fucking over the normal rate of climate chance but you need to get yourself educated, like, yesterday.
@CollinMaessen "scientists look at data that's at minimum 15 years to draw conclusions" HaHa! That's why every time there's a heat wave, a drought, a flood, a hurricane, and now even freezing cold, it's always tied to global warming or climate change, like it never happened before! What a joke!
@whistler2255 Most of the time that is what is reported by the media. And they are far more willing to link a single weather event to global warming than scientists are.
And if you had checked the sources on my video you would have noticed these were published _before_ the cold winter of 2009/2010. They were discussing what we saw earlier as a possibility, it's not that they proposed the link after it happened.
@CollinMaessen because thats damn near all the data they have... satellites have only been there since the 1970s and 40 years or less isn't much data gathering time if you believe the Earth is thousands or Billions of years...
@kiffter How does this even relate to the original comment and my response to it? As they are not dependent on satellites for reconstructions of temperatures.
@CollinMaessen !? the ridiculous claims that 2010 is the so called hottest year is based on satellite data no longer then 40 years... yes that is what they used in their calculations. in the upper atmosphere. there was NO GLOBAL calculations before weather satellites. Before that it was pure guess work now its just guess work with a whole lot more data.
@kiffter Our records go back further than 40 years. As we have temperature measurement data that goes back further, which are corroborated and combined with temperature proxies. So we have global calculations of temperature. And they go back a very long time.
And again, how does this even remotely relate your original response to me?
Michael Mann plays banjo. Does he play it better than he plays the media?
SomeLittleShoe 1 month ago
Cool song, but remember that Stephen Foster didn't write the song. He stole most of his songs from his slaves.
rusty1491 2 months ago
OK RETARDS, GLOBAL WARMING ISNT GOING TO MAKE IS SNOW LESS IN YOUR HELL HOLE MINNESOTA YOU FUCKING RETARDS!, IF ANYTHING MORE, BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE IS MORE MOIST, TRY EXPLAIN TO YOUR YOUTUBE AUDIENCE, THE HUGE AMOUNT OF TORNADOES IN MINNESOTA, OCCURING THIS YEAR AND LAST, FAR MORE THAN NORMAL, YEA ILL MAKE YOU NEO-CON SCIENCE DENIERS EAT YOUR WORDS ALL YEAR/ ALL CENTURY YUCKIBILLYS!, LEARN HOW TO SPEAK ENGLISH, DROP THE HICKBONICS!
livingproofof 8 months ago
@livingproofof You don't need to shout. We can hear you anyway!
Have you read this one from NOAA on the recent Tornado outbreaks:
esrl noaa gov/psd/csi/events/2011/tornadoes/climatechange.html
Yes, the sceptics can try to explain that to the Youtube audience even with scientific proof. But can you proof to us scientifically that Dangerous Human caused global warming (AGW) exists?
You don't need to namecall us that you maybe, possibly or likely could be right about AGW.
robbieopen 7 months ago
@robbieopen yes when you burn gasoline, heat is created, the united states creates 25% of the greenhouses gases(look it up) therefor burns about 25% of the worlds fuel, see the record wildfires, see the record tornadoes? see? open your eyes, look at cryosphere today an use the compare tool, to look at how small the ice cap is this summer, the record low was on sept 6th 2007, we're close to that this year, and in terms of volume, were alot smaller as old ice melts more, ps
look up heat island!!!
livingproofof 7 months ago
Jct: Especially funny when you think there was a global temperature decline they had to use a trick to hide.
kingofthepaupers 8 months ago
Hilarious!
EarthaKit2 8 months ago
I knew global warming was a SCAM when I watched TV and noticed that it was mainly the POLITICIANS, and the so-called wealthy "elite", who were clamoring desperately for a "carbon TAX"...
Once I realised that, I had absolutely no doubt that it was all a fraudulent hoax foisted on us by "gubmint" as a simple cash grab.
TheColonelsKitchen 8 months ago 5
hahahahahahahahha! Great job.
Rockholm66 8 months ago
I love this scam!
rusty1491 8 months ago
Fuck the Socialists!!!
MsTsarbomba 9 months ago 2
wonderfull !!!!!!!!!!!
svcselso 9 months ago
Love you guys, you're the best! Write a song to help out Aussies will you? We've been hijacked by tree-huggers trying to tax the crap out of us.
StopJuliasCarbonTax 11 months ago
has everyone seen this one v=Vx-t9k7epIk&feature=related
kiffter 1 year ago
CollinMaessen It has nothing to do with captcha screens. Sometimes I get them when I write too many comments and these extra comments always appear. I got no problems with captcha screens. I don't know what is wrong.
I often get "Error! Try Again!" messages or the comment shows up instantly on the page, but when I check later it is gone for some reason. Not only on this page but on other pages as well. Very strange.
robbieopen 1 year ago
Part 1.
Hahaha! It's the SUN (again).
Solar irradiance at the earth’s surface: long-term behavior observed
at the South Pole - Frederick & Hodge 2011
"The UV-A and visible portions are the most energetic and significant portions of the solar spectrum heating the Earth. While the authors are uncertain of the origin of this variability at the surface, they note that it is "too large to be of extraterrestrial origin." Climate models assume that
robbieopen 1 year ago
Part 2.
the solar irradiance reaching the Earth's surface only varies 0.1% over solar cycles in accordance with satellite measurements, but as shown by this paper, that may be an incorrect assumption. Another recent study has shown that solar UV activity has increased almost 50% over the past 400 years. The antiquated assumption in climate science that the effect of the Sun upon the Earth's climate is a constant (they even call it "the solar constant") is in dire need of reassessment.
robbieopen 1 year ago
Part 3 (End).
The IPCC, however, is only mandated to assess anthropogenic climate change and only pays lip service to the role of the Sun." - Climate Realists
Ehhh! Very active Sun - Warm PDO - lots of energy put into the ocean - more El Niños - Tropics getting very warm (Do I hear Joe Bastardi somewhere? - LoL).
Well warmists what do you think will happen to the global temperature over time?
robbieopen 1 year ago
CollinMaessen Sorry, but I can not reply to you anymore, because somehow my replies are getting blocked and don't appear.
I tried to notify you on your personal page as well, but apparently that comment didn't appear either.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen were not blocking you I checked w/elmer keep trying
kiffter 1 year ago
@robbieopen Your replies are getting marked as spam. I suspect you are getting captcha screens before you can reply. If you don't correctly input the captcha it's automatically marked as spam.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
CollinMaessen In this discussion you used this link watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc (your video) in which you stated that 2010 might be the warmest year on record and in the comment section of this link some 3 weeks ago you asked ME this question: "Not to mention that 2010 was the warmest year, how do you explain that with the graph?"
You may not have said this in this discussion, but why are you trying to hide away your own claim?
Who needs to learn to discuss honestly?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Or you could just reply to me so that I get a notification when you are talking to me.
I don't know why I said it as that was 4 weeks ago. But looking at the editing records of my blog post I probably misspoke at the time (as 2010 and 2005 being tied was already on my blog).
And again, I was referring to the video not comments. And for the video you were claiming I said that. Also, how is this hiding what I said? The comment is still there for all to see.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I dont see how your comments are relevant here?
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter How is me responding to a comment that's directed at me not relevant?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen your basing them greenman's nonsense he might as well be in Chicken suit too. Have you watched his videos? The demonize people because they worked at a tobacco factory or some place he doesn't like. Look this video is MEANT to be funny and poke fun, his aren't, at least as far as I know. Your justifying exhaling and farts as a 'greenhouse gas' destroying the planet are not relevant... at least to sane people its not.
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter I'm not basing my comments on greenman's videos, I cite them now and then to give something that's a bit more accessible than a bunch of research papers (I also cite potholer or my own videos). Which I do cite on my videos and in comments I make.
Are you actually saying that human breathe out enough CO2 and release enough Methane in significant quantities that it's a factor? Cows produce way more.
Also what has your comment to do to what I was originally responding?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Let's see if responding works again.
"If you take a look at the temperature anomoly map for 2010 you can see that U.S. was below average, but almost all of the rest of the world had above average temperatures."
Well how about now: coaps. fsu. edu/~maue /jra25/jra25_2011. html
Global temperature difference: -0.134°C
Global temperature is now below average and not only in the U.S.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen And continuing without acknowledging my response and using a quote from a different thread in this section...
That's one month of data. You do realise that it's not enough of a time period to draw any conclusions from? And I hope you also realise that my response was towards m4gw who was presenting the argument that it's cold in the u.s. so the world cannot be warming. In short, an example that local phenomenon are not a good indicator what's happening globally.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Well I think you are trying to split hairs now over a statement about 2010 being the hottest year or not.
You did not say it in your video and you did not say it in this discussion, but you certainly claimed it to me. And now you are trying to be apologetic for it as well.
Let's accept you are correct about the second part of your comment. How do we know if the recent warming is an anthropogenic or a natural one?
Your response please!
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I'm not splitting hairs, I honestly told you I can't remember why I said it, but that I suspect that I misspoke at the time. As I can't trace the claim I made anymore that's all I can say (if you had asked me at the time I could answer all of your questions about it). Do you honestly think I can remember the details of one comment that I left 4 weeks ago?
And I already answered variants of the question you are asking me now multiple times.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen No you haven't answered this question and no I haven't asked this question multiple times.
I would like to know how we can establish the current warming to be an anthropogenic or a natural one if one is not allowed to look at local phenomenons anymore.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Yes I have answered several variants of that question. Look up our infrared absorption discussion for one example.
And I never said that no one is allowed to look at local phenomenons. Please remember the original comment I made was because someone was projecting a local phenomenon to a global picture while if you took a global look at the data it said something different.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Have you read the latest finding on AO, NAO and PDO on NOAA?
Forensic Meteorology Solves the Mystery of Record Snows - NOAA: "The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms."
It looks like that Maessen person got it all wrong in his video.
aquagoose 11 months ago
@aquagoose Yes I know the story and read it. But don't tell me! Tell Mr. Maessen. Again you don't need to convince me.
robbieopen 11 months ago
@robbieopen I won't debate that Maessen guy. Complete waste of my time.
aquagoose 11 months ago
@aquagoose Well you won't hear me argue about that. I found out as well.
robbieopen 11 months ago
And here is another one on the flawed peer-review process of climate science:
Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science by Steve McIntyre.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen What about the book: Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory!
Perfect summary of Corrupt Climate Science.
aquagoose 1 year ago
@aquagoose Yeah! I know the book, but I still don't possess it. But thanks anyway for the recommendation!
robbieopen 1 year ago
Or try this one Mr. Maessen:
More Data Refusal - Nothing Changes by Steve McIntyre
robbieopen 1 year ago
Okay kiddies, take out your calculators and divide 390 by 1,000,000, which is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. And the answer is.....0.000390, which is less than 4/10,000's! I agree that is equal to 0.039%, but 0.00039 shows just how small the concentration is. Now, does anyone else want to argue with me about this???
whistler2255 1 year ago 4
@whistler2255 Now divide 0.00039 by 10 you get.000039 this represents the part per million that are supposed to be responsible for global warming going from 350 ppm to 389 ppm. Now multiply that by .03 and you get 0.00000117 or 1ppm which is man's contribution to the change in CO2 because nature produces most of the CO2.
M4GW 1 year ago 8
@M4GW Good points! Any CO2 regulation and subsequent costly energy and loss of jobs will not make even a small change in golbal temperatures!
whistler2255 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whistler2255 A congressman just stated on CSPAN that the co2 level's are higher then they where 15,000,000 million years
ago, and that at that time we lost almost all the ice. They state 75 to120 feet of water was added to the ocean.
This is at the door beloved right now. add holes in the Ozone, nuclear fallout in the ice cores. on and on. we
got big problems kids. hugs LUVBUG
Read my blog on Global Warming: globalwarmingtimes.blogspot.com
livingproofof 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Excellent job pointing out how ridiculous it is to freak out and take drastic, economy destroying and people-starving measures to "combat" the myth of CAGW, though there's still some Cagwites (Cagwinians?) holding out out there. Sad for them, really.
oTANSTAAFLo 1 year ago
Comment removed
robbieopen 1 year ago
I'm loving this video! And I'm really interested to see if we're headed towards global cooling instead of global warming. Wouldn't that be ironic!
connerburnham 1 year ago
Global Warming is more fascism than socialism.
Damnaam 1 year ago 6
@Damnaam heavy handed taxing AND crony capitalism rolled into a ball. Its a real beauty. The worst of both worlds.
fucknuaf 1 year ago
“The last 2,000 years is full of incredible weather events that dwarf what we see today,” said Horn. A New York Times story from the 1970s, which said the planet was getting so cold that humanity was in danger of starving to death.
“First we were told the world was cooling. Then it was getting hotter,” Dan Gainor, “Then cooling again. Then hotter. Now it’s just climate change -- so they can’t be wrong no matter what change occurs.”
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter That was predominantly the media in the seventies. Again greenman has an analyses on it, and so do a lot of websites on the internet.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I've seen his analysis's he tries to discredit intelligent scientists by ignoring their facts and focusing whom they worked for in the past and plays spooky music... kind a lame. Or does character assassination not really focusing on the issues. The 1970s analysis is just about as accurate as anything today it IS cooling.
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter I was specifically pointing to the predctions made by climate scientists. And that is correctly explained in the video. If you want a bit more dry explanation, here it is:
ams.confex. com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf (The Myth of the 1970S Global Cooling Scientific Consensus by Peterson et al 2008)
It explains that 7 research papers predicted cooling, but 42 predicted warming. This is explained in the video, so he does focus on the issues (it's one of the main points in the video).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen The Myth of the 1970S Global Cooling Scientific Consensus by Peterson et al 2008
"How large must a climate change be to be important?" That's the big question when everything in climate is STILL well within natural variability. "7 research papers predicted cooling, but 42 predicted warming"
Science is not a democracy. It does not work that way.
robbieopen 1 year ago
This video is awesome it merely makes fun of the whole Global Warming occultism that thinks people are a menace to the planet from breathing and being people (not to mention animals that exhale CO2) 50 years ago they'd have either laughed them off or put them in an insane asylum...
kiffter 1 year ago
Wait till they unseal the indictments of Michael Mann.
Jerricho68 1 year ago
Comment removed
whistler2255 1 year ago
Walt Disney's logo is"Capturing your imagination" America was founded on MASONIC FREEMASONRY or Kabbala.Freemasonry is the founding of "America" Freemasons sought "A"merca or the western star
This means the Western Star Venus. Venus is the Red White & Blue star. The statute of LIBERTY is Their LIGHT BEARER COLUMBIA Shes their Goddess.Your Capital Building's are TEMPLES with each having a CORNER STONE from the FREEMASONS. They ORDAIN their CRAFT with WINE CORN & OIL. Vigilantcitizen or freemantv.
WarDogLRS 1 year ago
That's the big question: What would global cooling really look like?
A lot of cold records were broken in the winter of 2010/2011 around the planet in the hottest year ever.
Another great video by M4GW starring Michael Mann as the banjo player.
"Scary"
robbieopen 1 year ago
This is why Al Whore has the largest beach front mansion ever! He wanted to get away from the 20 foot water surge from all the ice caps melting! LMMFAO !!!Remember he got a Nobel Peace Prize and his stocks went up through the roof on all his companies that are Green! I am sure he didn't profit from this, NOT !!
fuckyouobama1 1 year ago 8
@fuckyouobama1 don't worry, the chicago carbon exchange shut down last october, no carbon will be traded, algore will make squat!
mrbadx19 1 year ago
Wow, you guys really like to point out it snows in WINTER. Not to mention that cold spells happen regardless of any underlying climate trend. Why do you think scientists look at data that's at minimum 15 years to draw conclusions from?
I have more detailed information on this video:
watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I'm just pointing out that global warming is now causing colder and snowier winters.
M4GW 1 year ago 5
@M4GW I gave this comment thumbs down, but then I realized you are being sarcastic! Global Warming believers have actually been sold this crap that somehow, warm causes cold, more snow, etc. They were saying just a few years ago that Global Warming meant shorter and warmer winters, and a lack of snow! LOL!
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 It's kind of a sarcastic logic. They say 2010 is the hottest year ever and yet we are freezing to death, therefore if next year is the coldest year ever will we then burn up?
M4GW 1 year ago
@M4GW Take a look at the video I posted, it explains perfectly well that what you are arguing is "it's cold locally so it can't be warming globally". If you take a look at the temperature anomoly map for 2010 you can see that U.S. was below average, but almost all of the rest of the world had above average temperatures.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I know what your saying, even though we are freezing to death in North America, Europe and Asia, somewhere in the world it is REALLY HOT!!!, I say this in my video. All I'm try to do is show out the reality of living with "Global Warming".
M4GW 1 year ago
@M4GW You are currently experiencing cold in the U.S., it's above average in Europe. As the NAO is in it's positive phase current so the event that caused the cold you are referring to has ended. When the NAO was in it's positive phase the cold air is pushed out of the arctic, that's why it was so cold and so warm in the arctic.
The recent weather is most likely a consequence from the la nina we currently have.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Feel free to post your video as a Video Response
M4GW 1 year ago
@M4GW Thanks for the offer, but it's already posted as a video response to another video where I would like to keep it. :)
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen eklima. met.no/ metno/trend/TAMA_ G0_11_1000_NO. jpg
Station Data Nasa Giss: Ostrov Dikson - Dudinka - Hatanga - Turuhansk - Tarko-Sale - Bajkit - Tura - Marble Point just to name a few. All polar region stations - Where is the unprecedented warming trend?
UAH MSU - RSS MSU - Hadcrut 3 - NCDC global temperaturedatasets all showing 2010 NOT to be the warmest year ever.
Stop propagating your religion and actually start to present us some FACTS or just shut up!
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Well hello robbie, the guy that has accused me several times of things I haven't done. And now you also say I don't provide facts, have you forgotten all my citations?
And did I anywhere in this discussion claim that 2010 was the warmest year? So why are you arguing this?
Secondly, not all data sets are created equal. Not all are global, and the global record sets say 2010 is the warmest. But all show a temperature increase over time.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CollinMaessen "the guy that has accused me several times of things I haven't done. And now you also say I don't provide facts, have you forgotten all my citations?"
And again you don't want to discuss facts. Show me the human signal in the facts I presented. It is just a small fraction of the total amount I can provide, but why bother so much time on someone who does not want to acknowledge the facts.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen What do you mean again? When asked I always cite research papers, what I did constantly in our previous encounters.
And I showed you the human signal in the comments section of that video:
bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
ams.confex. com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
ams.confex. com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
I already dealt with both sources under another video. They don't prove anything. The last source assumes that Total Greenhouse Effect is 35°C. While another paper by Schmidt et al 2010 (NASA) clearly claims that TGE is 33°C. Which source should I trust?????
You really have to come up with other sources to show the real human signal in the climate system.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Isotopes clearly show it's us. Also you complain on a detail that has nothing to do with a difference point I'm making in the greenhouse forcing (and I do try to accommodate you with publicly accessible papers).
And there are many infrared spectrography papers out there that show similar results:
agu. org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
nature. com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
spiedigitallibrary. org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen - Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Philipona et al 2004
"Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far"
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Are you seriously trying to disprove a paper by one sentence in the abstract?
Might want to read the full paper (or even the last sentence in the abstract):
The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by increased greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the ‘‘theory’’ of greenhouse warming with direct observations.
As the most important part is how much IR escapes the atmosphere.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen - Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from ... Harries et al 2001
Some comments on this paper: The `increase' in the greenhouse effect claimed was mostly caused by a real or imagined change in the methane spike at wave 1300, not by CO2. The primary gas at the centre of the greenhouse controversy - CO2 - gives only weak indications in this study, well within the range of instrument error between two very different instruments separated by technologies 27 years apart.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen There is a very noticeable spike in the CO2 spectrum. And the methane spike is also not really that surprising with our current emissions of those and the natural release of methane (which is increasing due to warming).
And you do realise that UAH MSU, which you have cited, uses similar techniques to make corrections between different satellites?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen The third link I was not able to find. May I suggest to present titles, date of publication and author. It is easier for me to find papers.
The human signal I am looking for is in climate warming - Not in CO2 increase. I do agree that we are the cause for that, but it is the amount of warming caused by CO2 I take into question.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I'm showing you papers that show increased absorption of infrared radiation that shows it is the driver behind the changes we are seeing. The papers I cited very clearly state it as such and show this phenomenon. I also provided you with a paper where they show this CO2 was introduced by us.
You asking for the human signal triggered me in giving you these papers.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "And did I anywhere in this discussion claim that 2010 was the warmest year."
What about 4:49 in watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc? You used this link in this discussion.
You see that is the problem debating with you. You already lost this debate.
If the case for global warming is so strong you can clearly point out the human signal in the climate system. JUST DO IT or stop propagating your religion!
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Let me quote myself from the video:
"And despite the current cold weather in certain areas of the northern hemisphere there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year on record. In the very least it will be a tie with 2005 for the warmest year."
I said "a good chance" aka might be. And on my blog I updated my script so that I say that it has tied with 2010. And this is a minor detail from a video where the main point is not dependent on it.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen So we should base our policies on scientific claims like PROBABLY, LIKELY, MIGHT BE, MAYBE.
Sorry, but no can and will do.
Either scientists show us the human signal in the climate system or I suggest they keep looking for it.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Dude seriously. I'm responding to your accusation that I said 2010 was the hottest year. And when I show you that I never said that you don't even apologize and continue with a misrepresentation.
If you check the date when the video was posted it should be obvious I was writing the script when the full 2010 data wasn't available. You are splitting hairs on a word I used correctly. The sentence has nothing to do with climate models and their projections.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen And I would like to ask you three simple questions:
Are scientists in the position to determine which paper is allowed to be published in a peer-reviewed magazine?
Or is that the complete and utter responsibility of the editors of the magazine?
And are scientists in the position to determine which editors should leave the magazine and which ones can stay?
Your answer please!
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I think I know where you are going with this one (SB03?).
There is no conspiracy to block certain papers. They only care if the research is done correctly. I went over this with you in detail in regards with the SB03 paper.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "I think I know where you are going with this one (SB03?)."
Ehhh. Not really and you haven't answered my questions.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen To answer your questions:
Yes (it's called peer review)
No
Not directly (they can get fired for example if scientist discover the editor subverted the peer review process, and then the editor gets fired by the magazine)
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "Yes (it's called peer review)
No
Not directly"
And you are the one who claims bullshit on Climategate! You should really "een beetje verder kijken dan je neus lang is" before drawing any quick conclusions.
The reasons for rejecting a submitted paper are very important. If the reasons are just some unfounded arguments and the magazine decides to publish the paper anyway the editors did the right thing. And now I am referring to SB03.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen You little... When I suspect you are going towards SB03 with your questioning, and ask you if this is the case, you deny this is what you are doing, but as soon as I answer the questions you blatantly start talking about SB03. That's lying.
I told you why the editors got fired. They ignored comments of the peer reviewers, that's what caused the uproar, that's why they were fired. We already went over that.
Learn how to honestly discuss, or you will never convince anyone.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "Learn how to honestly discuss, or you will never convince anyone."
Will that be really possible to convince someone who has adopted a religion or refuses to do some more background research on how corrupt climate science really has become?
Communicating Climate Science and thoughts on Climategate - Trenberth 2011
For a scientist he uses six times the word DENIER and not once the word sceptic. He lost all credibility and so does climate science.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Nice to ignore the main point of my comment that you lied to me when I asked you where you were going with your questions. And the very next thing you do is an ad hominem.
And I've done research on the cases you are referring to. I told you I claim bullshit on them because of it.
This is exactly the reason why I'm telling you to learn to discuss honestly.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CollinMaessen In this discussion you used this link watch?v=7aiI8_mSDpc (your video) in which you stated that 2010 might be the warmest year on record and in the comment section of this link some 3 weeks ago you asked ME this question: "Not to mention that 2010 was the warmest year, how do you explain that with the graph?"
You may not have said it in this discussion, but why are you trying to hide away your own claim?
Who needs to learn to discuss honestly?
You started this charade, not me.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen why on earth do you think man is causing global warming we weren't put on this earth to destroy it by exhaling and farting, that is just idiotic.
kiffter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiffter I don't claim that we were "put on this earth to destroy it by exhaling and farting". That much should be obvious by the other comments I made here.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen Right! - because America has an abundance of modern instruments and data isn't fudged to cover hundreds of miles where there are no thermometers, like in mountainous Bolivia, where the temperature is taken on a beach in Peru or some other hot place, or the Arctic, where temperature stations are so sparse the temps are extrapolated from places as far as 1200 km away.
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 I get the suspicion you are a WUWT reader.
They don't fudge data, there might be low coverage in certain areas, but that doesn't indicate that they measurements are wrong. Please watch the video of greenman I cited, it explains perfectly well that even if we completely ignore the temperature records that nature still, in almost all cases, shows signs of warming. Even in the regions where we have low coverage of stations.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "even if we completely ignore the temperature records that nature still, in almost all cases, shows signs of warming. Even in the regions where we have low coverage of stations."
Can you show me the stations please? I pointed out some in the Arctic region where due to "Polar amplification" the warming should have been unusual, but I cannot find anything unusual that hasn't happened before.
Nature shows signs of warming does not mean CO2 is the cause for it. It proves nothing
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen I take it you are referring to the few station mixed between the warming nature shows?
If you want examples for very warm measurements in the arctic region look up greenland and east canada during the NAO.
And I'm not mentioning this as proof for CO2 caused warming. I'm mentioning it in a response where someone casts doubt on the warming trend. I didn't mention CO2 at all, so you are inferring that I claimed something when I didn't.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I watched Paul Nutball and they don't understand science, they understand consensus which is the Opposite of science where skepticism is left out. the question why is ignored. They don't seem to realize the earths temp follows the sun and CO2 follows that. it also saturates at a point and its affect is minimal. I know they don't teach that in Global warming brainwash school but test it out for yourself...
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter This one keeps cropping up... There is a reason in a lot of cases CO2 follows temperature. But even in the geological record we see temperature increases that are caused by CO2. A very clear indication of this we can see during the permian extinction.
There is a saturation point of an increase in CO2 warming but it isn't as low as you might think it is (it would require a low climate sensitivity).
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CollinMaessen I will hold on the accuracy of the time period we cannot verify that at ALL. were you there? how can you possibly state this " in the geological record we see temperature increases that are caused by CO2" you have NO IDEA what caused it.
kiffter 1 year ago
@M4GW Congrats guys! perhaps not quit your usual production standards but another good one.
Congrats also on the Packers, If the Vikings couldn't get it, I imagine the Packers would be the next best thing for you guys, but I don't know.
Frumibandersnatch 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I watched your video. Your graph of increasing temperatures is faulty, mainly due to improper adjustment for Urban Heat Islands, and selective station dropout. CO2 caused Global Warming has never been proven and is not even bad science, it's faith-based religion promoted by politicians and government and special interest paid, gravy train scientists and mainstream media always looking for a story that will sell.
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 And we went of the deep end into a conspiracy...
CO2 caused global warming is proven. You might want to look up infrared spectrography of the atmosphere and the changes CO2 has caused and carbon isotopes in the atmosphere and where these isotopes comes from. They show that our planet is absorbing more heat due to increased CO2 and that this CO2 comes predominantly from the burning of fossil fuels.
And about the urban heat island effect:
watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen CO2 at 390ppmv, (not even 0.0004 concentraition), is not heating up the planet. At much larger quantities,maybe. The Urban Heat Islands are not being properly adjusted for, which is why in greenman's video, the cities are not showing the proper warming. Greenman, Peter Sinclair, is himself a "crock". You and Greenman can help the planet, by not exhaling your 40,000 ppmv CO2.
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 That's a percentage of 0.039, not 0.0004. And I just gave you a paper that shows CO2 is absorbing more heat in our atmosphere.
And if you insist on saying that they don't properly adjust please provide me with something that I can take a look at.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
Comment removed
whistler2255 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen 1% = 0.01, so 0.039% as a decimal is 0.000390, or a little less than 0.0004. As far as the UHI adjustments...you have to put in the 3 w's, dot and omit the space heliogenic. net/2011/01/17/noaa-adjusting-a-decline-into-an-increase/
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 The only answer I can give you to that comment is: you are flat out wrong.
Please take a few minutes to search the internet with your favourite search engine. And if you take a look at recent articles you will notice that 390ppm is 0.039 percent.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen 0.039 percent is 0.00039, in other words, less than 4/10,000ths!
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 Seriously, put this in a search engine. It shows you are trying to justify something that is wrong. Even the site WUWT mentions these numbers.. The "sceptics" even agree with me on this...
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@whistler2255
Did you fail maths? Get your arse on google.
AngryWomble 1 year ago
@AngryWomble No, I did not fail math, but maybe you did!. Take 0.039, and multply by 1/100, (which is what the word percent means), and you will come out with 0.00039, or less than 4/10,000, which is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, a very small amount!
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 Oh jeez that's what you were doing. With how you wrote those sentences it looked like you were doing something different. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
But a low count of particles does not mean it has no or very little effect. Concentrations of for example CFCs are measured in the per mile compared to the total atmosphere. Yet it is responsible for the ozone hole.
Low particle counts doesn't say anything about the effect it will have.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whistler2255 "0.039 percent is 0.00039, in other words, less than 4/10,000ths."
You are correct! Let's help Mr. Maessen with his math, shall we?
1.000.000*0.00039= 390 ppm. whistler2255 did not mention this factor to be a percentage. At least I cannot find this in this discussion.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "CO2 caused global warming is proven. You might want to look up infrared spectrography of the atmosphere and the changes CO2 has caused.."
If this is true. Explain to me: Why is global temperature at the moment reaching NORMAL level? It should never have reached that anymore.
And why is sea surface temperature at the moment BELOW normal? It can't be explained when CO2 causes global warming.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen Not if, that is true. Take a look at the specific paper I cited (there are many more that have done the same/similar experiments and confirmed this.
And what do you mean with below and normal levels?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CollinMaessen "And what do you mean with below and normal levels?"
Finally the first sensible question coming from Mr. Maessen: What is normal for Earth's standard climate when we know that most of the time climate was much warmer than current climate is during the last several millions of years?
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen ....
What the hell... I though you were referring to some strange base period or a certain starting point that would show that. But this is just twisting your argument...
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen I am not twisting anything. Just take a look at the UAH satellite graph on Dr. Spencer's site and look at the current global temperature and Sea Surface (AMS R-E) temperature.
robbieopen 1 year ago
@robbieopen
I spot a little bit of fail here, why yes I do....but what is this fail exactly? Why it's the FAIL of not understanding how much the climate of this planet has varied over geological time. Lets look at the last few million years shall we? Guess what, they weren't warm really, want to know how we can tell GLACIATION! Thats right, huge fucking bits of ice kicking about the place. And not the piss ant tiddly bits of ice we have now, I'm talking 2km of ice squashing NW (cont)
AngryWomble 1 year ago
@AngryWomble
Europe during the last glaciation, which has resulted in that area being depressed and is now rising up due to isostatic rebound. Do you really have no idea of the massive changes changes that have taken place over geological time? Seriously, there is no real standard. Yes, we've got some climate issues at the moment because we are fucking over the normal rate of climate chance but you need to get yourself educated, like, yesterday.
AngryWomble 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen "scientists look at data that's at minimum 15 years to draw conclusions" HaHa! That's why every time there's a heat wave, a drought, a flood, a hurricane, and now even freezing cold, it's always tied to global warming or climate change, like it never happened before! What a joke!
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 Most of the time that is what is reported by the media. And they are far more willing to link a single weather event to global warming than scientists are.
And if you had checked the sources on my video you would have noticed these were published _before_ the cold winter of 2009/2010. They were discussing what we saw earlier as a possibility, it's not that they proposed the link after it happened.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen because thats damn near all the data they have... satellites have only been there since the 1970s and 40 years or less isn't much data gathering time if you believe the Earth is thousands or Billions of years...
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter How does this even relate to the original comment and my response to it? As they are not dependent on satellites for reconstructions of temperatures.
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
@CollinMaessen !? the ridiculous claims that 2010 is the so called hottest year is based on satellite data no longer then 40 years... yes that is what they used in their calculations. in the upper atmosphere. there was NO GLOBAL calculations before weather satellites. Before that it was pure guess work now its just guess work with a whole lot more data.
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter Our records go back further than 40 years. As we have temperature measurement data that goes back further, which are corroborated and combined with temperature proxies. So we have global calculations of temperature. And they go back a very long time.
And again, how does this even remotely relate your original response to me?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
Global warming = socialism
KnightOwl2006 1 year ago 13
@KnightOwl2006 I'll bite, why does global warming equal, or is the same as, socialism?
CollinMaessen 1 year ago
You guys get better with every video! Very funny.
fletcher3913 1 year ago
tanks ya, I'll do dat.
M4GW 1 year ago
lol, throw log on the fire for me guys and gals:)
thirteendreams 1 year ago
Nicely done, like always.
terskip 1 year ago 2