Oh and just in case someone feels the need to respond to the statements I've been making about being rude, let me be perfectly clear. When someone uses the word moron that usually means the debate is over, and if I call anyone a moron or I insult them that means that I have stopped the debate. I don't believe in insulting people while having a rational discussion, however if I feel that a logical debate with said person is pointless, I will insult them and there ending the debate.
@thesparitan Actualy it does make sense, in a real debate onec someone resorts to personal attacks the debate is ended my the moderator and the one who made the personal attack is considered to have lost the debate, it is a rule in almost every debate. It is just like how bringing up the Nazis and comparing then to your opponent when it is not warented signs defeat becasue of Godwins law.
@dave19941000 Doesn't matter what the moderator does in a debate. A fallacy isn't proper debating guildlines, its a logically invalid argument, which means it is illogical. You don't "lose" a debate by calling someone a moron, that is illogical in of itself. And further more, just because something ruins a debate, and that is debatable, doesn't mean it is irrational. If someone is being a moron I will call them a moron. I do not see the issue with stating a fact as such.
@AppleSouffle Well I disagree that they shouldn't be allowed in polite society, that sounds kind of Nazish to me, but I think you are saying that we should be polite in debate, and I totally agree. However my point is that being an asshole isn't a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how rude you are, you can still be logical and be rude, a fallacy is not a behavior, its a illogical argument.
Emotion and behavior has nothing to do with logic, so yeah your wrong.
@SeedsOfHatred Ok let me rephrase. Emotion and behavior have nothing to do with the validity of logic, or logical arguments. I was not specific enough I guess but I though it clear already.
"Now that does sound ominous, and conspiritorial. "
Yes, you caught me. I am the leader of the pinko commie atheist who's plan it is to dominate the world and force everyone to us PC language and recycle their bags. My plan is to put people like you into re-education camps and if you do not agree that Obama is the best president ever, we kill you eco-friendly bullets.
I am the ominous world leader, you found me out. Only you had the mental stamina to figure it all out. You are a tool.
"scientist uses 1/1,000,000th the available data record"
Where did you get that number? Can you source it? BTW it doesn't even matter because climate theory has predictive powers, therefore they are right. There is above 95% chance of continued heating, its called science don't like go join the creationist. You are in sorry company as a science heater.
@thesparitan Climate models use at most about 1,000 years of data. Geologic data covers about 4 billion years. So 1/4,000,000th. Certain minerals only form within specific environments, and give a record of conditions at the time. Your climate models are easily manipulated to predict whatever they are told to predict. Garbage in, garbage out. Your form of science is garbage. Look up the term "confirmation bias". I don't hate science, you don't seem to understand what science is.
@redventrue1 Thank you for the sourcing, few deniers do that and your about to find out why, because you're wrong. Climate models are not based on the last 1000 years of data, its just plain. They go back millions of years. I know confirmation bias and you fit the definition perfectly. You throw away any information that disagrees with by simply saying "its the bad gummit did it" Sorry that doesn't work. Its no different then creationist saying the devil made evolution. Are we done?
@thesparitan Not quite. Going back for millions of years the the Earth has for the most part been going through many cycles of warming and cooling. Looking at the charts, I see our climate still on the upswing from the last ice age. The climate has been unusually steady over the last 20,000 years or so as compared to before. The whole idea that you can stop climate change seems rediculous to me.
@redventrue1 Look bro, until you show me a peer reviewed science paper explaining the current heating without the need for humans, then you win the argument. Its simple as that. If you don't have that don't bother trying to convince me of a super massive complex conspiracy involving the NWO and evil governments. Save that for a screen play. Until you show that you are actually a rational person, I see no need to continue this conversation. I am not going to teach you science.
@thesparitan Look, bro. I don't have to. The geologic record speaks for itself. The Earth HAS been warmer, and it WILL be again. No need for peer reviewed papers to qualify it. No need for complex computer models to extrapolate anything. It is what it is and the brightest minds in the world can't change the past. Written in stone, as it were.
@redventrue1 The past is indeed written in stone. Material published before the 80s tends to include a medieval warm period, higher than the present, and part of the IPCC 1995 report. Then they chose the hockey stick (from four possible) to represent the situation, junked the others and it was gone. Had they been scientific either they would have kept both or explained the new data fully. One of many examples.
@thesparitan Let's get to the heart of the matter. Say you are absolutely right. What is the plan? What is the end goal of the global warming movement? What do YOU hope to achieve by reaching it?
@redventrue1 "Say you are absolutely right. What is the plan?"
That isn't relevant, and this question kind of shows why your thinking is not rational. It doesn't matter if we have a plan or not(we do) because even if we didn't it would change the reality of the situation. You can tell me that there's nothing we can do about and I will accept that as a reasonable answer. However telling me its all a conspiracy of evil gummit and scientist, well that's where I stop listening and call you a wacko
@thesparitan You have a plan to do something about something that you admit can't be changed, and aren't willing to tell the rest of us? Now that does sound ominous, and conspiritorial. You call me a wacko? :-)
@redventrue1 It doesn't matter what the fuck my plan is, because I am a nobody and no one cares what I think other then you it seems. My plan is to kill all the deniers with fire ants, that is my solution. I never said I believe there is nothing we can do about it ether. I am very willing to tell others what I think we should do, joking aside, however it is not relevant to the truth claim of AGW.
Regardless of what we can do about it, we can all agree it is happening, if we are rational.
@thesparitan The truth is, we should be building infrastructure to manage fresh water, and protecting and expanding agriculture. We should be building new dams and dikes to prevent the flooding that is going to be a bigger problem in the future. Instead we are handing all our resources to global banks through fraud. Does that make sense to you?
@redventrue1 Stop, you lost it long time ago. You sound like a wacko. The only way I can sound ominous and conspiratorial is if I am planning to kill you with a group of gangsters. The fact you even think my policy opinions of geo-engineering and CO2 reduction matters shows how fucking nuts you are.
Why are we still talking? I am going to have a conversation with a rock, maybe it will be more intelligent and enlightening. Bye bye.
@thesparitan So your arguments fell apart with so little examination that you have resorted to name calling and ad-hominem attacks to my character. I don't think I am the one whom has lost this one. Good day to you sir. It's been entertaining.
@redventrue1 My god you don't even understand what an ad hominem is. You are just not competent enough to argue with. There is a minimum level needed and you don't have it. You don't know the evidence, you don't understand the science, you don't understand proper argumentation, you don't understand logic. You're just not competent enough, its that simple. No reason to argue with you. Believe what you want. I don't care.
It is illogical to say that because something was beneficial once it therefore will be again. Life on planet earth was adapted to a different climate, our civilization is adapted to this climate.
And what about ocean acidification? Would that be good?
@thesparitan The ocean has been and always will be acidic, sometimes more, sometimes less, and life has adapted. Life will continue to adapt in the future to a slightly warmer Earth. What will give us MUCH greater trouble are fear mongering Politicos like yourself whom are trying use this to shut down the world economies. You are the greater threat.
@redventrue1 Life will adapt to changing conditions, but not all life. Most life forms will die off, unless you know nothing of evolution. Climate change has been the most common form of extinction in the earths history. The majority of extinction events happened because of climate change. You are so ignorant of science even having a conversation about is kind of pointless. Go read some more about what is going on.
@thesparitan So, scientist uses 1/1,000,000th the available data record as a proof that the world is changing and man is the cause of the change. Okay, when you start with such an infinitesimal core set of data, the only aim I can see is that you are trying to skew the results. It is bad science, and I know an agenda when I see one. Your brand of science belongs in the political science catagory. Not real science.
@thesparitan Here's another question for you. The global warming movement is funneling a large percentage of money from the economy through environmental laws, regulation, and taxes. Where is the money going? Not green infrastructure or business. Something stinks.
@redventrue1 I know I know, the great conspiracy theory. Right see this is the problem with you deniers and its why we call you "deniers" because you don't care about the evidence. Doesn't matter how good the evidence or the arguments are, you will never believe because you don't want to. You can just throw out all good information just by claiming its all some insane conspiracy. This is why this conversation is pointless, you can't think rationally.
@redventrue1 - nobody is claiming that the earth that the earth is going to be destroyed. But you already knew that, didn't you. Having an opinion is one thing, being wilfully stupid is another.
@david222444 Why does everyone that accepts AGW have to be a eco fascist? Many are not. This shows why no one can have a debate with you because you have already muddied the dialog to far for reasonable discussion. Why would someone use such hateful language if they know that doing so will poison the discussion? Well one reason could be that they don't want a reasonable debate, but rather are trying to attack people they just don't like. Maybe some need of theirs to abuse others, who knows
@thesparitan Well according to Eco loons the debate is over and that seems like a fascist statement to me. How anyone can be stupid enough to think that man can alter the climate let alone control the climate by limiting a harmless trace gas that is heavier than air is beyond me. There is no scientific proof that co2 produced by man affects the climate. If this cult wants discussion then it must stop calling people deniers and a threat to humanity.
@david222444 That is their problem, not yours. But by doing the same thing as the climate realist, you are just as bad as them. And if climate change is happening and we can do something to prevent a major disaster, then it is logical to say deniers are in some part threatening humanity, that is only logic.
"How anyone can be stupid enough to think that man can alter the climate"
Suppose we launched every nuke at every part of earth, would that alter climate, if yes then you are wrong.
@thesparitan No I will not sit back and quietly let science be corrupted and abused by these eco dunces. Co2 is a harmless trace gas , heavier than air , that is essential to life and has no proven effect on the climate.
@david222444 So you aren't even going to answer my question? Yeah you are a joke and a fool. This conversation is over. You know you are wrong and now you are dodging the questions LOL. Pathetic. You are not an intelligent person and you know it. I am willing to bet you didn't even graduate high school. Its so annoying to debate such dishonest people like yourself.
@thesparitan Except that david222444 is right according to the geologic record. The earth has been cooling over geologic time, and losing atmosphere as well. There is a circumstantial corrolation with global cooling and a negative effect to life on this planet.
@redventrue1 You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. A while the earth is cooler now than in the deep past, over the past 10,000 years it has been heating up.
@thesparitan So what is the point? The earth has been much warmer in the past without destroying the planet, actually life thrives in a warmer environment. Look at the Carboniferous Era. Why all the FEARmongering?
@redventrue1 If the climate changes it would have very negative effects on the world. Just because it worked in the past doesn't mean it would work for us now. When the climate heated up in the premian, the greatest extinction in the earths history occurred. You really think that heating up the earth is not a bad idea? Its not just the heating of the earth. The other effects of CO2 could be very dangerous to human civilization.
@redventrue1 Slightly more complex than that, for the benefit of everyone reading. Climate is a concept, based on longer term trends above 30 years. They are used to describe expected local conditions at any time in a year. But those conditions comprise of one thing only, weather. Ergo all fear and panic is based on different weather in different places at some point in the future. That's the practical result of climate change only.
Cooling which is abrupt .deep and longterm is too big to hide. Your propaganda will be exposed. Consensus only matters to politicians while scientists want proof. As the Grand Solar Minimum takes hold, atmospheric co2 enrichment would be recommended. The real myth is man made global warming.
@david222444 Are you wearing an aluminum foil hat right now? If it's tight enough, it will protect you from global cooling, chemtrails, and those pesky death rays which the illuminati produce for eugenic purposes, and which are shooting out of your computer screen as you are reading this.
@ndrthrdr1 How many wind turbines will it take to produce that Aluminium hat? Here I was I thinking it was the Global warming,co2 freaks who were conspiracy nuts. Mind you the Greenhouse Theory can be lumped in with your death rays and chem trails. Warming is dead. Next to go will be the fascist Carbon tax, then the west can get back to growth based on coal and oil consuption. Atmospheric co2 enrichment will benefit all life including your miserable one.
@ndrthrdr1 Nothing is frantic and nothing is denied. The facts are that the past warming was caused by our Sun and co2 is a mere product of that warming. If you bother to keep up with the facts then you will be surprised to find that our Planet is cooling as the Sun becomes les active. The Sun has been almost clear of sunspots sinse 2009 and this cooling is now starting to feed into our climate. Get ready for a massive winter in the northern hemisphere, not the mild ones forcast by models.
@zzyzx0788 I am glad you are irritated. You and your eco dunces live in a world of faulty climate models and you have lost touch with reality. What the people need is to get back to the future and toss the eco fascist windmills and solar panels onto the scap heap of history. Atmospheric Co2 enhancement benefits all life on our cooling Planet.
@david222444 I'll be honest, I have no clue what comment of mine you're responding to, I cannot find it which means its probably something I posted a LONG time ago and really makes me wonder why you spent the effort flipping through these pages just to make that comment to me. But judging by some of your comments I'm not really finding that terribly suprising that you'd go to those lengths.
@zzyzx0788 What exactly is wrong with my comments? Is it because I am not insane enough to think that a trace gas heavier than air can have ant effect on the climate , never mind drive it?
I have been researching a documentary I'm doing for school and watching your series. I was wondering if you could post links to the scientific papers in the comment box. I have not bothered to look for the links til now. Also when you spoke the cloud seeding in the previous videos are you referring specifically to the CERN CLOUD research or did those findings come after your video. I thought their findings were published within the past year. I could be wrong though.
Acharmye has replied to your comment on 8. Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling?: I doubt it's not man made in anyway. Humans caused more extinctions of many species and polluted the world, terribly. Our oil based plastics that aren't biodegradable choke and destroy animals. Acid rain is our invention.
I made no such statement. You can't read. You need to focus more definitively on what I really said.
What I would like people to do honestly is too think what job or area are you an expert at. Think have you ever argued with someone at a bar, or party or whatever who knew nothing about your field of work.. IF so was it not so fucking stupid you thought for this ignorant dumb ass who never spent any real time studying it, but listen or watch a show on it and think ooo I am now a expert cause I spent 30 minutes learning about it.. If so, grasp if your not a scientist you doing that to them!
The issue, is you have many interest groups as a scientist, not I the maker of the video I am sure wants to scream half the time, because, None Scientist, have tried to create this evil conspiracy, you have the same people, networks, do this for two major areas, Global Warming and Creationism, which should not be linked, because evolution, and climate science are not exactly.. Whats piss poor, is to deny scientist...
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
"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 these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." Club of Rome
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Ottmar Edenhoffer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.
Potholer, you just inspired me to check the sources of someone claiming arctic sea ice has been expanding. Debunking it was surprisingly easy. I shall employ your method to everything from now on
Some good points, but who really trusts these so called "reputable sources" like peer reviewed papers? All of these so peer reviewed papers are funded by grants given by the same people pushing the agenda. So where are the reputable sources?!
So when you don't have an actual argument against the science, you resort to ad hominem reasoning? If these papers are all being skewed by some bias as you claim, then you should be able to tell us where the errors are in those papers as a result.
Further, governments don't fund ALL climate research. The Berkeley BEST project, run by Richard Muller, was largely funded by Koch Industries; it STILL showed the same temperature trend as everyone else.
@Catamount1412 Ad hominem yes, fallacy no. When the government has been caught lying so many times in the past, the ad hominem argument becomes valid. Stop it slave, you are making me laugh! Koch Industries?! You mean the Koch brothers right? HAHA! You use such big words for such a stupid child. Now that's ad hominem.
I think you missed the part where all ad hominem reasoning is logically fallacious.
If you want to demonstrate a lack of credibility by climate scientists, then you'd need to demonstrate a long-running history of problems with the science, and even then, it would only apply to the specific scientists publishing that specific research.
So do you have an actual argument against the science, or don't you?
@Catamount1412 Ad hominem literally means "to the man", so making an argument against the credibility of "science" or the "state" is not really ad hominem. And no, in this instance it is not a fallacy. Because the government and corporations lie and mislead the public constantly, everything they say is automatically greeted with distrust. And since ALL climate science is funded by gov and corps with vested interests (except by those who are skeptical - go figure), it cannot be trusted.
So far, all you've done is get facts wrong. The Berkeley BEST project was not funded by government. Much of its money came from Koch Industries, and it still backed mainstream science.
On the other hand, Eigle Friis-Christensen was working for the Danish National Space Center when he did his "skeptical" work, concerning temperature and TSI. Neither of these facts are consistent with your claims.
But, again, either you have a scientific argument, or you don't, so which is it?
@Catamount1412 So we are talking less about philosophy and the scientific method, and more about criminology. When a party's past actions form a pattern, that pattern can be used to predict current and future behavior. And make no mistake, these white coat priests you worship who have taken huge grants and funding from war mongers and baby killers are fucking criminals, and not you or any one of your brainwashed pseudo environmental, eco fascist goons will make me change my mind.
@Catamount1412 You and your kind masquerade as environmentalists, because you have been manipulated into feeling guilt that you somehow have destroyed the earth. But where are you on REAL environmental issues??? How about open air GMO crop trials? How about GM Salmon being released into the wild and interbreeding with real salmon permanently corrupting the DNA of that animal. What about the massive chemicals being dumped all over our food and water? What about nuclear meltdowns?
@Catamount1412 No matter how definitive you believe your thinking is, at the end of the day the "science" you are so emotionally invested in is merely written words based on falsified and manipulated data collected by government (or government funded) institutions. There is another document in which people place the same level of faith in, its called the bible. Again just words written down on paper by men, with the same intentions - to manipulate the masses. I'm done arguing with trolls.
Can you not make the simple connection that it is the same institutions, steered by the same agenda, who are destroying our environment and raping the earth, and at the same time making the rest of the world feel guilty for taking a hot shower or driving a car. This all just leads to a tax, and anyone who is calling for a tax on the very element humans EXHALE, needs to take a step back and think past their own propaganda induced enviro-guilt complex and see the bigger picture.
So in other words, the answer is no. You can run around on giant tirades about mass conspiracy theories in which you claim the science SHOULD be corrupted and flawed...
but you can't actually give specific factual examples showing where mainstream climate science IS flawed.
@Catamount1412 The Club of Rome : The first global revolution and climate gate spring to mind. But of course the alarmists will say they were cleared of wrongdoing (BY THEMSLEVES AND THEIR CRONIES). But those are just filler. Following the money is all the evidence any intelligent person requires to see that this is a scam.
By intelligent person, I take it you mean someone who has no understanding of actual science.
As someone who actually understands science, I don't have to take it on faith. I can follow the claims, and see if it's consistent with the evidence at hand, and I can see if those who oppose those findings offer substantive arguments.
On the other hand, if I were to accept your inane babbling, which is backing by NOTHING, that WOULD be faith. Why would I do any such thing?
You can run around spewing claims all day long, but at the end of the day, you haven't offered a single shred of evidence to corroborate your central thesis that climate science is flawed.
To do that, you would have to understand climate science, and then be able to show those flaws, and since you're capable of doing neither, you're left with nothing of substance, whatsoever.
Have fun, though. I'll respond again when you say something of substance that backs your claim here.
@Catamount1412 The onus is on you to prove that CO2 is driving the climate, since you are making these claims. It is my job to attempt to disprove it. So far you have said "science" a whole lot, but show me the science! Start with the greenhouse signature? The supposed "hot spots". Show me the evidence!
Actually, I haven't directly claimed any such thing. For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care to. In fact, I don't care to make any claim in this discussion about what is and isn't right about climate science.
I am simply asking YOU to back YOUR claim that the science if flawed and corrupt.
If your claim is that the "tropospheric hot spot" isn't present, then can you show me its complete absence in the radiosonde and satellite data?
@Catamount1412 Ok, so you aren't making any claims then. So we agree, CO2 is not driving the climate and the science is bunk. Case closed. Just to make the point, the IPCC's own measurements have failed to find any hotspot. To dismiss that the IPCC "scientists" say that "they must have missed it" and that the hundreds of radiosonde readings must be false. Convenient!
No, I'm not claiming that it is, or that it isn't. Stop strawmanning.
I'm simply asking you to back your claim that it isn't. Thus far, you've demonstrated no such thing. Yes, the climate models do predict the "tropospheric hot spot", but a lack of finding it in one instance is not the same as evidence that it isn't there.
Older versions of Raobcore don't show it, but version 1.4 does show it, with limited certainty.
@Catamount1412 Santer didn't find any hotspot. He found that the data didn't fit his agenda. So what you are saying here is that when the data fits the model its GOOD data, when it doesn't fit the model, its BAD data and must be somehow wrong! With that reasoning, the same could be said for every other piece of data collected from any instrument.
That's a wonderful skewing of his conclusions. If you had actually read the paper, and actually looked at what was being said, you'd find that there is no clear, distinct discrepancy between models and radiosonde data. The data is limited in accuracy, so I won't claim that it definitively backs the models' exact predictions, but it certainly doesn't contradict them.
Hence, you can't claim that the models are wrong on this point, based on the evidence provided.
In fact, it says right in the paper's abstract: "We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates".
So now that we've established that you can't read and accurately represent the findings of a scientific paper, do you actually have an argument of substance?
I'd also like to quote another part of the paper:
Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’
So since your argument is clearly a bust, are you going to dig up some other tired claim that's long-since been put to rest, or can you simply concede that you clearly know nothing about the science, and are in no position to factually evaluate it, regardless of whether it's ultimately right or wrong?
@Catamount1412 This proves nothing fool, the only thing it proves is that your definition of scientific evaluation is copying and pasting nonsensical paragraphs from an alarmist paper. It is the pinnacle of intellectual bankruptcy to say that your argument is proven just because ONE ALARMIST SAYS SO IN HIS OWN PAPER. There is no hotspot, and no amount of wishing and quoting bunk papers will make it so. I'm done arguing with sheep. Im out.
The uncertainties in the radiosonde data are too great to say exactly what the tropical troposphere is doing. In short, we don't yet know.
But since we don't know, that means that you can't say that the hotspot predicted in models isn't there, and since that's only a tiny piece of what models address, you hence have no argument against the science (I'd say "again", but you never really did).
So have fun running around spewing your grand conspiracy theory. It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Maybe when you collect some actual evidence of these flaws in the climate science, rather than claiming that things aren't present in data that lacks the precision to show them in the first place, as if that's some kind of argument, you'll actually have something of substance.
and, for the record, I would have to make an argument for my argument to be proven.
Thus far, all I've is show that your argument is nonsense. You can't show the discrepancy between models and observations that you think is there, so you have nothing... once again, I might say "you have nothing, again", but you never actually had anything to begin with.
It's clear by your out-of-hand rejection of any paper that disagrees with you, without even having a shred of evidence, that you're not here to actually offer evidence or substantiation.
So you can run around having fun with your Chief Bromden complex, and ramble on about The Combine all you want unabated. There's no point in my trying to argue with someone who can't even present tangible evidence of what they claim.
I do have one question though: if Santer is just a lying "alarmist", and not representing real empirical data, then why did his conclusion center around the uncertainties in radiosonde data?
Why, if all he was setting out to do was lie, did he not distort the radiosonde data massively, and show a big graph supposedly definitely proving the hot spot?
Your circular reasoning of "he's an alarmist because he's lying, and he's lying because he's an alarmist" yet again fails to fit facts
If you'd like to see it in the data yourself, you can read the paper, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, by Santer et al.
If you don't want to read a peer-reviewed article, or don't have access to it for free, you can see a similar comparison, done by Gavin Schmidt on the Real Climate site. The article is titled "Tropical tropospheric trends again".
It shows that present data presents no problems for the GCMs.
If you do actually read up on the science for a change, I suggest you pay special attention to mention of the fact that the radiosonde data is limited by absolutely huge uncertainties right now. It doesn't mean that it's wrong, merely that it makes statements with limited certainty.
If you're trying to measure a small effect in the atmosphere, small enough that it starts fitting inside of error bars, then it becomes difficult to make definitive judgements.
@Catamount1412 We are on the front lines here in Australia fighting our corrupt government's carbon tax. More than 82% of Australian's in recent polls are against this tax scam, so fortunately most people aren't as dependent on the "science" as you are and still have a few braincells rolling around in their heads. The whole scam is crumbling under the weight of the lies, and your trolling won't ever stop that :)
Can you show these "lies" in the science that you're claiming exist? Of course you can't.
Your nation's tax schemes also have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Whether or not your government is seeking wise policies has nothing to do with whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or whether humans can be traced as the primary cause of warming for the past 30 years.
Either the claims of the science are true or aren't, and you can't show the latter.
So I ask you again; why should I accept your claims?
Let's forget for a moment whether or not the scientists are being accepted. What direct evidence do you personally offer, right now, that there are flaws in modern day mainstream climate science? What are these flaws? Where are they published? What evidence do you have that the particular claims being made there are false?
I think the real problem with scientific sources is that they are largely inaccessible to the public (unless you pay for them) or if you have access to a university e-resources website.
Without these two I fail to see how the general populace will be able to "check" any scientific data unless forking out hundreds just for the privilege to look at the article, let alone understand it.
@3Target33 The dust storms themselves would absorb light and therefore warm the atmosphere if you were to look it in that way. It would be both the dust absorbing light and the darker soils.
Climate change happens over a long period of time. Dust storms, on the other hand, are short lived. But the dark areas exposed from them aren't. So the dark areas will have a greater effect, because they function over a long time span - which is what is required to tilt the average temperature of a whole planet.
I realize that the earth is truly warming. This is evident in nature all around us. But is it really man made CO2 causing it and is it really unprecedented? I prefer to wait a little longer to see what effects the on stage global cooling players have- negative PDO, Landscheidt minimum and the others. These effects should override global warming if they are real, Time will tell.
@wayne487msc I doubt it's not man made in anyway. Humans caused more extinctions of many species and polluted the world, terribly. Our oil based plastics that aren't biodegradable choke and destroy animals. Acid rain is our invention.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
I have a question about peer review and publication. I was discussing this with someone here at work, and he said that the peer review process is bogged down, and it's not a good way to verify accuracy because there's far more papers than scientists to check them.
I thought the peer review process runs it's course BEFORE a paper is published, is that not the case? And is this a valid criticism of the peer review process?
"I thought the peer review process runs it's course BEFORE a paper is published"
You mean the process of submitting research testing,verification, and a official hypothesis to a journal of Science facing a peer review before Publication as part of the Scientific Procedure?
No the so called "peer review" is on papers in University periodicals, and on work for submission to a government panel summary for a consensus of opinion on the Hypothesis of "AGW"
@squirreljester2 =there's far more papers than scientists to check them.= First rule when confronted with a puzzling claim is to ask "What's your source." My bet is your friend won't know, or he won't have any credible source except internet chatter. Papers are peer-reviewed before they're published, and If we're talking about respected journals I don't know of any shortage of peer-reviewers.
@potholer54 He used to work at a University, and he said the scientists he talked to there had said that it was one of the things they regretted.
I recently had another discussion with him where I rebutted that argument with "what system should we replace it with then?" to which he really didn't have an answer. It's the concept of a theory, we can't get rid of a theory until there's a better theory to replace it.
@squirreljester2 =He used to work at a University= Well all I can say is that in 14 years as a science journalist I never heard of any complaint about a shortage of peer reviewers. Re accuracy, peer review isn't supposed to be like marking an exam, it can only act as a stop-gap against badly written and researched papers. The real test of a paper comes after publication when the scientific community gets to comment on it or try to replicate the results.
Ofcourse there are other influences such as the pacific ten tear cycle, volcanoes and to put it simply the major greenhouse gas ( water vapour ) will provide a negative feedback to warming.
"the major greenhouse gas ( water vapour ) will provide a negative feedback to warming."
Lol
"Greenhouse gases" and "feedback" are University Academic Egghead nonsense
Thermal heat only moves from hot to cold, which in both the ocean and air is generally from sea floor to sea surface & in air from above planet surface to upper Troposphere
Infrared light is a byproduct of heat and not it's cause so even if infrared light could bounce off thin air like a microwave of metal it wouldn't do anything
@TheRealArchAngel ""Greenhouse gases" and "feedback" are University Academic Egghead nonsense" LOL what's really funny is the internet where some cashier in Hawaii can spout off like some kind of authority and preen themselves on actually being taken seriously while clogging comments with their pathetic nonsense based on their watching pop science TV.
"what's really funny is the internet where some cashier in Hawaii can spout off like some kind of authority and preen themselves on actually being taken seriously while clogging comments with their pathetic nonsense based on their watching pop science TV."
1) Yes the Internet has allowed for a lot of people to express themselves whether or not they know what they speak of
2) It's my Current semi-retirement extra money gig
3) I really don't care if anyone takes me seriously, Im killing time
p.s. Water vapor via the evaporation/percipitation cycle IS the major conductor of heat from the surface to the Air with the air rising in general as hot air rises cool air falls(giving us "wind")and as it cools as it gets higher the water vapor cools and forms clouds (not university academic eggheads' "Cosmic rays") in the constant 32f upper Troposphere
Which reminds me,there is no co2 up there as Co2 is 1.5x heavier then air and is only detected in air as it rides evaporation/precipitation
@david222444 Fluctuations in insolation can't explain the recent decades-long uptick in global warming. Therefore, while it's true that the sun is the reason why the surface of the earth is warm, it is not the primary reason why that surface is warmer now than it was in 1980.
"The Sun is the major influence in climate change"
No, the sun effects local daily evaporation/precipitation cycle from added heat, but the main heat that keeps the earth warm or make it fall into a ice age is from earth's core which fluxes causing global warming or wanes causing Ice Ages
Regional swngs in tempature variability is from the core's heat varying from both it;s molten churning nature and vent points.....mainly the tectonic plate zones and change in rock/core density
I belive this is the reason , I,m 16 years old swedish. I believe that the earth is getting colder even doh the CO2 it makes the light from the sun not bounch back to space right? but! what if we dont get enough light thanks to the CO2 to earth so that the heat/light is getting cooled not heated becuase the earth isent getting enough of it.
I'm no expert, but a cursory look at wikipedia makes me think this might answer your question:
The earth is somewhat reflective,but the stuff that enters the atmosphere has more energy than the stuff that leaves. Everything absorbs and reflects its own sections of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it so happens that the greenhouse gasses let visible light through, but absorb the lower-energy IR rays. So they basically act as a high-pass filter. Check out "Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity."
What astounds me is that Inhofe admits that we WERE going through a warming so now when the "cooling" of the last decade has been debunked, he's caught with his pants down! :)
And yes, "true" believers never check their sources. They just automatically believe anything another "true" believer says.
@potholer54 Hi mate. I really appreciate the effort you've gone to produce these videos. They are very fair and quite scientifically sound. I've been a bit of a skeptic, because all i hear are people who dont know very much yelling about how its all CO2's fault, which I know is over-simplifying what;s going on in our very complicated system.
What I wanted to ask you was why you keep saying that the Sun has not been unusually active in recent decades.
My very limited research seems to show that there are people out there saying there HAS been unusual solar activity of 'recent"
check out:
Solanki, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M., Beer, J., 2004. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
This paper says that "the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago."
@DrJohnstone -- I'm very familiar with the paper. Do you mind if I ask whether you read the whole paper, or did you just get this quote from the Internet? The paper goes into some detail about the relationship between recent warming and solar activity and is worth reading.
Abreu, J.A., Beer, J., Steinhilber, F., Tobias, S.M., Weiss, N.O., 2008. For how long will the current grand maximum of solar activity persist? Geophysical Research Letters 36, Citation No. L20109.
suggests this: "Recent activity has been abnormally high for at least 8 cycles"
@DrJohnstone -- "Recent activity has been abnormally high for at least 8 cycles"
That seems to be the case on a historical basis. The maximum peaked in the 1950s and has been in decline ever since (and has dropped even further with the recent solar minimum.)
@potholer54 Has been in decline from its abnormally high level during this last century. It would therefore stand to reason that as it declines back to 'normal' levels (normal being with reference to say a 10,000 year average or something) we should expect the earth to cool down again, regardless of CO2 content in the atmosphere. Granted CO2 surely must have some effect, but the magnitude of that effect seems to be in great contention.
However I do appreciate your honest scientific approach.
@DrJohnstone =we should expect the earth to cool down again=
That's what climate scientists say also. So the obvious question is, why hasn't it been cooling for the last 30 years? And why are temperatures at record highs when we should be experiencing record lows? You conclude that it can't be CO2, but you don't say why. Even before temperatures started climbing, the link between CO2 and warming was postulated, and the rise in temperatures predicted.
@potholer54 other planets in our solar system are warming up and are even further from the sun like mars. how are people causing that. new more presice studies are showing co2 levels go up after the heat goes up. the suns activity has increased over the last century. more sunspots are being recorded=warmer temps. co2 is a very weak green house gas. clouds trap 10 times the heat. they say they wanna stop it yet they just charge us more? they are crippling 3rd world countries even more. get a clue
@iamdk007 =other planets in our solar system are warming up ... how are people causing that?=
You'll find this Internet myth debunked in this series. A word of advice: If you read something in a blog but can't find it in the scientific literature, be a little bit skeptical and check the source.
Are you a friend of John Cook? Or John Cook himself? Who funds this site?
satguru 4 days ago
Oh and just in case someone feels the need to respond to the statements I've been making about being rude, let me be perfectly clear. When someone uses the word moron that usually means the debate is over, and if I call anyone a moron or I insult them that means that I have stopped the debate. I don't believe in insulting people while having a rational discussion, however if I feel that a logical debate with said person is pointless, I will insult them and there ending the debate.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
The dieniers are perfect examples of Thick People ;) v=rYFQZFL0yoo
r0galik 3 weeks ago
I lost the debate because I called a moron a moron? Yeah sure that makes perfect sense.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan Actualy it does make sense, in a real debate onec someone resorts to personal attacks the debate is ended my the moderator and the one who made the personal attack is considered to have lost the debate, it is a rule in almost every debate. It is just like how bringing up the Nazis and comparing then to your opponent when it is not warented signs defeat becasue of Godwins law.
dave19941000 3 weeks ago
@dave19941000 Doesn't matter what the moderator does in a debate. A fallacy isn't proper debating guildlines, its a logically invalid argument, which means it is illogical. You don't "lose" a debate by calling someone a moron, that is illogical in of itself. And further more, just because something ruins a debate, and that is debatable, doesn't mean it is irrational. If someone is being a moron I will call them a moron. I do not see the issue with stating a fact as such.
thesparitan 3 weeks ago
Thesparitan, yes, that does make perfect sense. Rude people should not be allowed in polite, adult society.
AppleSouffle 2 weeks ago
@AppleSouffle Well I disagree that they shouldn't be allowed in polite society, that sounds kind of Nazish to me, but I think you are saying that we should be polite in debate, and I totally agree. However my point is that being an asshole isn't a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how rude you are, you can still be logical and be rude, a fallacy is not a behavior, its a illogical argument.
Emotion and behavior has nothing to do with logic, so yeah your wrong.
thesparitan 2 weeks ago
@thesparitan Well....actually, one's emotions and behavior will have something to do with how they reason; what logic they use.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Ok, but what is your point?
thesparitan 3 days ago
@thesparitan You said that emotion and behavior have nothing to do with logic.
I countered this assertion.
SeedsOfHatred 3 days ago
@SeedsOfHatred Ok let me rephrase. Emotion and behavior have nothing to do with the validity of logic, or logical arguments. I was not specific enough I guess but I though it clear already.
thesparitan 2 days ago
@thesparitan Ahh, very good. In that case, you are quite correct.
SeedsOfHatred 2 days ago
"Now that does sound ominous, and conspiritorial. "
Yes, you caught me. I am the leader of the pinko commie atheist who's plan it is to dominate the world and force everyone to us PC language and recycle their bags. My plan is to put people like you into re-education camps and if you do not agree that Obama is the best president ever, we kill you eco-friendly bullets.
I am the ominous world leader, you found me out. Only you had the mental stamina to figure it all out. You are a tool.
thesparitan 1 month ago
"scientist uses 1/1,000,000th the available data record"
Where did you get that number? Can you source it? BTW it doesn't even matter because climate theory has predictive powers, therefore they are right. There is above 95% chance of continued heating, its called science don't like go join the creationist. You are in sorry company as a science heater.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan Climate models use at most about 1,000 years of data. Geologic data covers about 4 billion years. So 1/4,000,000th. Certain minerals only form within specific environments, and give a record of conditions at the time. Your climate models are easily manipulated to predict whatever they are told to predict. Garbage in, garbage out. Your form of science is garbage. Look up the term "confirmation bias". I don't hate science, you don't seem to understand what science is.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 Thank you for the sourcing, few deniers do that and your about to find out why, because you're wrong. Climate models are not based on the last 1000 years of data, its just plain. They go back millions of years. I know confirmation bias and you fit the definition perfectly. You throw away any information that disagrees with by simply saying "its the bad gummit did it" Sorry that doesn't work. Its no different then creationist saying the devil made evolution. Are we done?
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan Not quite. Going back for millions of years the the Earth has for the most part been going through many cycles of warming and cooling. Looking at the charts, I see our climate still on the upswing from the last ice age. The climate has been unusually steady over the last 20,000 years or so as compared to before. The whole idea that you can stop climate change seems rediculous to me.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 Look bro, until you show me a peer reviewed science paper explaining the current heating without the need for humans, then you win the argument. Its simple as that. If you don't have that don't bother trying to convince me of a super massive complex conspiracy involving the NWO and evil governments. Save that for a screen play. Until you show that you are actually a rational person, I see no need to continue this conversation. I am not going to teach you science.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan Look, bro. I don't have to. The geologic record speaks for itself. The Earth HAS been warmer, and it WILL be again. No need for peer reviewed papers to qualify it. No need for complex computer models to extrapolate anything. It is what it is and the brightest minds in the world can't change the past. Written in stone, as it were.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 The past is indeed written in stone. Material published before the 80s tends to include a medieval warm period, higher than the present, and part of the IPCC 1995 report. Then they chose the hockey stick (from four possible) to represent the situation, junked the others and it was gone. Had they been scientific either they would have kept both or explained the new data fully. One of many examples.
satguru 4 days ago
@thesparitan Let's get to the heart of the matter. Say you are absolutely right. What is the plan? What is the end goal of the global warming movement? What do YOU hope to achieve by reaching it?
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 "Say you are absolutely right. What is the plan?"
That isn't relevant, and this question kind of shows why your thinking is not rational. It doesn't matter if we have a plan or not(we do) because even if we didn't it would change the reality of the situation. You can tell me that there's nothing we can do about and I will accept that as a reasonable answer. However telling me its all a conspiracy of evil gummit and scientist, well that's where I stop listening and call you a wacko
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan You have a plan to do something about something that you admit can't be changed, and aren't willing to tell the rest of us? Now that does sound ominous, and conspiritorial. You call me a wacko? :-)
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 It doesn't matter what the fuck my plan is, because I am a nobody and no one cares what I think other then you it seems. My plan is to kill all the deniers with fire ants, that is my solution. I never said I believe there is nothing we can do about it ether. I am very willing to tell others what I think we should do, joking aside, however it is not relevant to the truth claim of AGW.
Regardless of what we can do about it, we can all agree it is happening, if we are rational.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan The truth is, we should be building infrastructure to manage fresh water, and protecting and expanding agriculture. We should be building new dams and dikes to prevent the flooding that is going to be a bigger problem in the future. Instead we are handing all our resources to global banks through fraud. Does that make sense to you?
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 Stop, you lost it long time ago. You sound like a wacko. The only way I can sound ominous and conspiratorial is if I am planning to kill you with a group of gangsters. The fact you even think my policy opinions of geo-engineering and CO2 reduction matters shows how fucking nuts you are.
Why are we still talking? I am going to have a conversation with a rock, maybe it will be more intelligent and enlightening. Bye bye.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan So your arguments fell apart with so little examination that you have resorted to name calling and ad-hominem attacks to my character. I don't think I am the one whom has lost this one. Good day to you sir. It's been entertaining.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 My god you don't even understand what an ad hominem is. You are just not competent enough to argue with. There is a minimum level needed and you don't have it. You don't know the evidence, you don't understand the science, you don't understand proper argumentation, you don't understand logic. You're just not competent enough, its that simple. No reason to argue with you. Believe what you want. I don't care.
thesparitan 1 month ago
It is illogical to say that because something was beneficial once it therefore will be again. Life on planet earth was adapted to a different climate, our civilization is adapted to this climate.
And what about ocean acidification? Would that be good?
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan The ocean has been and always will be acidic, sometimes more, sometimes less, and life has adapted. Life will continue to adapt in the future to a slightly warmer Earth. What will give us MUCH greater trouble are fear mongering Politicos like yourself whom are trying use this to shut down the world economies. You are the greater threat.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 Life will adapt to changing conditions, but not all life. Most life forms will die off, unless you know nothing of evolution. Climate change has been the most common form of extinction in the earths history. The majority of extinction events happened because of climate change. You are so ignorant of science even having a conversation about is kind of pointless. Go read some more about what is going on.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan So, scientist uses 1/1,000,000th the available data record as a proof that the world is changing and man is the cause of the change. Okay, when you start with such an infinitesimal core set of data, the only aim I can see is that you are trying to skew the results. It is bad science, and I know an agenda when I see one. Your brand of science belongs in the political science catagory. Not real science.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@thesparitan Here's another question for you. The global warming movement is funneling a large percentage of money from the economy through environmental laws, regulation, and taxes. Where is the money going? Not green infrastructure or business. Something stinks.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 I know I know, the great conspiracy theory. Right see this is the problem with you deniers and its why we call you "deniers" because you don't care about the evidence. Doesn't matter how good the evidence or the arguments are, you will never believe because you don't want to. You can just throw out all good information just by claiming its all some insane conspiracy. This is why this conversation is pointless, you can't think rationally.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@redventrue1 - nobody is claiming that the earth that the earth is going to be destroyed. But you already knew that, didn't you. Having an opinion is one thing, being wilfully stupid is another.
odigonX 1 month ago
@odigonX Of course they are. I see it all the time on the Webs. I hear it in political speaches as well. Al Gore is a good one for that.
redventrue1 1 month ago
There is a solution to Global warming. it's aerosols check out 1. Climate Change watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo.
wwhit2001 2 months ago
@david222444 And we have had one of the longest, hottest, driest summers in recorded history because... ?
Antamar123 3 months ago
@Antamar123 On record my arse, your cherry picked eco fascist record, the Eco propaganda is failing.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 Why does everyone that accepts AGW have to be a eco fascist? Many are not. This shows why no one can have a debate with you because you have already muddied the dialog to far for reasonable discussion. Why would someone use such hateful language if they know that doing so will poison the discussion? Well one reason could be that they don't want a reasonable debate, but rather are trying to attack people they just don't like. Maybe some need of theirs to abuse others, who knows
thesparitan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@thesparitan Well according to Eco loons the debate is over and that seems like a fascist statement to me. How anyone can be stupid enough to think that man can alter the climate let alone control the climate by limiting a harmless trace gas that is heavier than air is beyond me. There is no scientific proof that co2 produced by man affects the climate. If this cult wants discussion then it must stop calling people deniers and a threat to humanity.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 That is their problem, not yours. But by doing the same thing as the climate realist, you are just as bad as them. And if climate change is happening and we can do something to prevent a major disaster, then it is logical to say deniers are in some part threatening humanity, that is only logic.
"How anyone can be stupid enough to think that man can alter the climate"
Suppose we launched every nuke at every part of earth, would that alter climate, if yes then you are wrong.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan No I will not sit back and quietly let science be corrupted and abused by these eco dunces. Co2 is a harmless trace gas , heavier than air , that is essential to life and has no proven effect on the climate.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 So you aren't even going to answer my question? Yeah you are a joke and a fool. This conversation is over. You know you are wrong and now you are dodging the questions LOL. Pathetic. You are not an intelligent person and you know it. I am willing to bet you didn't even graduate high school. Its so annoying to debate such dishonest people like yourself.
Now fuck off, time waster.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan Except that david222444 is right according to the geologic record. The earth has been cooling over geologic time, and losing atmosphere as well. There is a circumstantial corrolation with global cooling and a negative effect to life on this planet.
You sir are either a paid schill, or an idiot.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 You are a paranoid conspiracy theorist. A while the earth is cooler now than in the deep past, over the past 10,000 years it has been heating up.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan So what is the point? The earth has been much warmer in the past without destroying the planet, actually life thrives in a warmer environment. Look at the Carboniferous Era. Why all the FEARmongering?
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 If the climate changes it would have very negative effects on the world. Just because it worked in the past doesn't mean it would work for us now. When the climate heated up in the premian, the greatest extinction in the earths history occurred. You really think that heating up the earth is not a bad idea? Its not just the heating of the earth. The other effects of CO2 could be very dangerous to human civilization.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@Antamar123 Weather over a LONG time makes climate, but climate is not weather.
redventrue1 1 month ago
@redventrue1 Slightly more complex than that, for the benefit of everyone reading. Climate is a concept, based on longer term trends above 30 years. They are used to describe expected local conditions at any time in a year. But those conditions comprise of one thing only, weather. Ergo all fear and panic is based on different weather in different places at some point in the future. That's the practical result of climate change only.
satguru 4 days ago
Cooling which is abrupt .deep and longterm is too big to hide. Your propaganda will be exposed. Consensus only matters to politicians while scientists want proof. As the Grand Solar Minimum takes hold, atmospheric co2 enrichment would be recommended. The real myth is man made global warming.
david222444 5 months ago
@david222444 Sources please.
BigLundi 4 months ago
@david222444 Are you wearing an aluminum foil hat right now? If it's tight enough, it will protect you from global cooling, chemtrails, and those pesky death rays which the illuminati produce for eugenic purposes, and which are shooting out of your computer screen as you are reading this.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 How many wind turbines will it take to produce that Aluminium hat? Here I was I thinking it was the Global warming,co2 freaks who were conspiracy nuts. Mind you the Greenhouse Theory can be lumped in with your death rays and chem trails. Warming is dead. Next to go will be the fascist Carbon tax, then the west can get back to growth based on coal and oil consuption. Atmospheric co2 enrichment will benefit all life including your miserable one.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Google
record global high themperature years
and continue your frantic denial of the facts.
Those chemtrails and death rays are not mine. They belong to you scientifically challenged idiots.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Nothing is frantic and nothing is denied. The facts are that the past warming was caused by our Sun and co2 is a mere product of that warming. If you bother to keep up with the facts then you will be surprised to find that our Planet is cooling as the Sun becomes les active. The Sun has been almost clear of sunspots sinse 2009 and this cooling is now starting to feed into our climate. Get ready for a massive winter in the northern hemisphere, not the mild ones forcast by models.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Your oversimplification that the planet's warming trends can attributed solely to the sun frankly irritates me
zzyzx0788 3 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Guess what is even more irritating? The assumption that co2 solely causes the warming trends! Now go take some pills- temper,temper.
david222444 3 months ago
@zzyzx0788 I am glad you are irritated. You and your eco dunces live in a world of faulty climate models and you have lost touch with reality. What the people need is to get back to the future and toss the eco fascist windmills and solar panels onto the scap heap of history. Atmospheric Co2 enhancement benefits all life on our cooling Planet.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 I'll be honest, I have no clue what comment of mine you're responding to, I cannot find it which means its probably something I posted a LONG time ago and really makes me wonder why you spent the effort flipping through these pages just to make that comment to me. But judging by some of your comments I'm not really finding that terribly suprising that you'd go to those lengths.
zzyzx0788 2 months ago
@zzyzx0788 What exactly is wrong with my comments? Is it because I am not insane enough to think that a trace gas heavier than air can have ant effect on the climate , never mind drive it?
david222444 2 months ago
I have been researching a documentary I'm doing for school and watching your series. I was wondering if you could post links to the scientific papers in the comment box. I have not bothered to look for the links til now. Also when you spoke the cloud seeding in the previous videos are you referring specifically to the CERN CLOUD research or did those findings come after your video. I thought their findings were published within the past year. I could be wrong though.
verlouria 5 months ago
Acharmye has replied to your comment on 8. Climate Change -- Has the Earth been cooling?: I doubt it's not man made in anyway. Humans caused more extinctions of many species and polluted the world, terribly. Our oil based plastics that aren't biodegradable choke and destroy animals. Acid rain is our invention.
I made no such statement. You can't read. You need to focus more definitively on what I really said.
wayne487msc 5 months ago
I heard that global warming in the late 20th century was caused mainly by Maynard Ferguson launching into his patently casual double high C's.
noontimespender 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"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." --- Club of Rome, "The First Global Revolution"
Stillwater900 6 months ago
What I would like people to do honestly is too think what job or area are you an expert at. Think have you ever argued with someone at a bar, or party or whatever who knew nothing about your field of work.. IF so was it not so fucking stupid you thought for this ignorant dumb ass who never spent any real time studying it, but listen or watch a show on it and think ooo I am now a expert cause I spent 30 minutes learning about it.. If so, grasp if your not a scientist you doing that to them!
ASexyChef 6 months ago
The issue, is you have many interest groups as a scientist, not I the maker of the video I am sure wants to scream half the time, because, None Scientist, have tried to create this evil conspiracy, you have the same people, networks, do this for two major areas, Global Warming and Creationism, which should not be linked, because evolution, and climate science are not exactly.. Whats piss poor, is to deny scientist...
ASexyChef 6 months ago
As we all know if anything is ever on Fox News, it is fair and balanced, and true. There is no argument here move along.
Typhoonbladefist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
"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 these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." Club of Rome
atomitron 7 months ago
Comment removed
atomitron 7 months ago
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Ottmar Edenhoffer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.
atomitron 7 months ago
Potholer, you just inspired me to check the sources of someone claiming arctic sea ice has been expanding. Debunking it was surprisingly easy. I shall employ your method to everything from now on
thieflord555 7 months ago
Some good points, but who really trusts these so called "reputable sources" like peer reviewed papers? All of these so peer reviewed papers are funded by grants given by the same people pushing the agenda. So where are the reputable sources?!
atomitron 8 months ago
@atomitron
Well if your in that boat, become comfortable with not knowing.
PICLex 8 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@atomitron You are a moron! Educate yourself!
LilFaerl 8 months ago
@atomitron
So when you don't have an actual argument against the science, you resort to ad hominem reasoning? If these papers are all being skewed by some bias as you claim, then you should be able to tell us where the errors are in those papers as a result.
Further, governments don't fund ALL climate research. The Berkeley BEST project, run by Richard Muller, was largely funded by Koch Industries; it STILL showed the same temperature trend as everyone else.
Please go find a real argument.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 Ad hominem yes, fallacy no. When the government has been caught lying so many times in the past, the ad hominem argument becomes valid. Stop it slave, you are making me laugh! Koch Industries?! You mean the Koch brothers right? HAHA! You use such big words for such a stupid child. Now that's ad hominem.
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
I think you missed the part where all ad hominem reasoning is logically fallacious.
If you want to demonstrate a lack of credibility by climate scientists, then you'd need to demonstrate a long-running history of problems with the science, and even then, it would only apply to the specific scientists publishing that specific research.
So do you have an actual argument against the science, or don't you?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 Ad hominem literally means "to the man", so making an argument against the credibility of "science" or the "state" is not really ad hominem. And no, in this instance it is not a fallacy. Because the government and corporations lie and mislead the public constantly, everything they say is automatically greeted with distrust. And since ALL climate science is funded by gov and corps with vested interests (except by those who are skeptical - go figure), it cannot be trusted.
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
I know what an ad hominem argument is; That still does not answer me question.
You can throw wild claims around about the government until you're blue in the face, but your tangental generalizations are irrelevant.
Do you have an actual factual argument, based on verifiable information, that addresses actual climate science, or don't you?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
So far, all you've done is get facts wrong. The Berkeley BEST project was not funded by government. Much of its money came from Koch Industries, and it still backed mainstream science.
On the other hand, Eigle Friis-Christensen was working for the Danish National Space Center when he did his "skeptical" work, concerning temperature and TSI. Neither of these facts are consistent with your claims.
But, again, either you have a scientific argument, or you don't, so which is it?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 So we are talking less about philosophy and the scientific method, and more about criminology. When a party's past actions form a pattern, that pattern can be used to predict current and future behavior. And make no mistake, these white coat priests you worship who have taken huge grants and funding from war mongers and baby killers are fucking criminals, and not you or any one of your brainwashed pseudo environmental, eco fascist goons will make me change my mind.
atomitron 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 You and your kind masquerade as environmentalists, because you have been manipulated into feeling guilt that you somehow have destroyed the earth. But where are you on REAL environmental issues??? How about open air GMO crop trials? How about GM Salmon being released into the wild and interbreeding with real salmon permanently corrupting the DNA of that animal. What about the massive chemicals being dumped all over our food and water? What about nuclear meltdowns?
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
So, are you done painting with your hilariously broad brush?
Can you actually give me a specific argument concerning the actual science now, or is that beyond your understanding?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 No matter how definitive you believe your thinking is, at the end of the day the "science" you are so emotionally invested in is merely written words based on falsified and manipulated data collected by government (or government funded) institutions. There is another document in which people place the same level of faith in, its called the bible. Again just words written down on paper by men, with the same intentions - to manipulate the masses. I'm done arguing with trolls.
atomitron 7 months ago
Can you not make the simple connection that it is the same institutions, steered by the same agenda, who are destroying our environment and raping the earth, and at the same time making the rest of the world feel guilty for taking a hot shower or driving a car. This all just leads to a tax, and anyone who is calling for a tax on the very element humans EXHALE, needs to take a step back and think past their own propaganda induced enviro-guilt complex and see the bigger picture.
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
So in other words, the answer is no. You can run around on giant tirades about mass conspiracy theories in which you claim the science SHOULD be corrupted and flawed...
but you can't actually give specific factual examples showing where mainstream climate science IS flawed.
Thanks, that's all I needed to know.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 The Club of Rome : The first global revolution and climate gate spring to mind. But of course the alarmists will say they were cleared of wrongdoing (BY THEMSLEVES AND THEIR CRONIES). But those are just filler. Following the money is all the evidence any intelligent person requires to see that this is a scam.
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
By intelligent person, I take it you mean someone who has no understanding of actual science.
As someone who actually understands science, I don't have to take it on faith. I can follow the claims, and see if it's consistent with the evidence at hand, and I can see if those who oppose those findings offer substantive arguments.
On the other hand, if I were to accept your inane babbling, which is backing by NOTHING, that WOULD be faith. Why would I do any such thing?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
You can run around spewing claims all day long, but at the end of the day, you haven't offered a single shred of evidence to corroborate your central thesis that climate science is flawed.
To do that, you would have to understand climate science, and then be able to show those flaws, and since you're capable of doing neither, you're left with nothing of substance, whatsoever.
Have fun, though. I'll respond again when you say something of substance that backs your claim here.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 The onus is on you to prove that CO2 is driving the climate, since you are making these claims. It is my job to attempt to disprove it. So far you have said "science" a whole lot, but show me the science! Start with the greenhouse signature? The supposed "hot spots". Show me the evidence!
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
Actually, I haven't directly claimed any such thing. For the purpose of this discussion, I don't care to. In fact, I don't care to make any claim in this discussion about what is and isn't right about climate science.
I am simply asking YOU to back YOUR claim that the science if flawed and corrupt.
If your claim is that the "tropospheric hot spot" isn't present, then can you show me its complete absence in the radiosonde and satellite data?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 Ok, so you aren't making any claims then. So we agree, CO2 is not driving the climate and the science is bunk. Case closed. Just to make the point, the IPCC's own measurements have failed to find any hotspot. To dismiss that the IPCC "scientists" say that "they must have missed it" and that the hundreds of radiosonde readings must be false. Convenient!
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
No, I'm not claiming that it is, or that it isn't. Stop strawmanning.
I'm simply asking you to back your claim that it isn't. Thus far, you've demonstrated no such thing. Yes, the climate models do predict the "tropospheric hot spot", but a lack of finding it in one instance is not the same as evidence that it isn't there.
Older versions of Raobcore don't show it, but version 1.4 does show it, with limited certainty.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 Santer didn't find any hotspot. He found that the data didn't fit his agenda. So what you are saying here is that when the data fits the model its GOOD data, when it doesn't fit the model, its BAD data and must be somehow wrong! With that reasoning, the same could be said for every other piece of data collected from any instrument.
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
That's a wonderful skewing of his conclusions. If you had actually read the paper, and actually looked at what was being said, you'd find that there is no clear, distinct discrepancy between models and radiosonde data. The data is limited in accuracy, so I won't claim that it definitively backs the models' exact predictions, but it certainly doesn't contradict them.
Hence, you can't claim that the models are wrong on this point, based on the evidence provided.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
In fact, it says right in the paper's abstract: "We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates".
So now that we've established that you can't read and accurately represent the findings of a scientific paper, do you actually have an argument of substance?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
I'd also like to quote another part of the paper:
Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
So since your argument is clearly a bust, are you going to dig up some other tired claim that's long-since been put to rest, or can you simply concede that you clearly know nothing about the science, and are in no position to factually evaluate it, regardless of whether it's ultimately right or wrong?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 This proves nothing fool, the only thing it proves is that your definition of scientific evaluation is copying and pasting nonsensical paragraphs from an alarmist paper. It is the pinnacle of intellectual bankruptcy to say that your argument is proven just because ONE ALARMIST SAYS SO IN HIS OWN PAPER. There is no hotspot, and no amount of wishing and quoting bunk papers will make it so. I'm done arguing with sheep. Im out.
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
You're not, nothing is proven; that's the point.
The uncertainties in the radiosonde data are too great to say exactly what the tropical troposphere is doing. In short, we don't yet know.
But since we don't know, that means that you can't say that the hotspot predicted in models isn't there, and since that's only a tiny piece of what models address, you hence have no argument against the science (I'd say "again", but you never really did).
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
So have fun running around spewing your grand conspiracy theory. It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Maybe when you collect some actual evidence of these flaws in the climate science, rather than claiming that things aren't present in data that lacks the precision to show them in the first place, as if that's some kind of argument, you'll actually have something of substance.
I won't hold my breath waiting for that moment.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
and, for the record, I would have to make an argument for my argument to be proven.
Thus far, all I've is show that your argument is nonsense. You can't show the discrepancy between models and observations that you think is there, so you have nothing... once again, I might say "you have nothing, again", but you never actually had anything to begin with.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
It's clear by your out-of-hand rejection of any paper that disagrees with you, without even having a shred of evidence, that you're not here to actually offer evidence or substantiation.
So you can run around having fun with your Chief Bromden complex, and ramble on about The Combine all you want unabated. There's no point in my trying to argue with someone who can't even present tangible evidence of what they claim.
I, meanwhile, will go back to the science.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
I do have one question though: if Santer is just a lying "alarmist", and not representing real empirical data, then why did his conclusion center around the uncertainties in radiosonde data?
Why, if all he was setting out to do was lie, did he not distort the radiosonde data massively, and show a big graph supposedly definitely proving the hot spot?
Your circular reasoning of "he's an alarmist because he's lying, and he's lying because he's an alarmist" yet again fails to fit facts
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
If you'd like to see it in the data yourself, you can read the paper, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, by Santer et al.
If you don't want to read a peer-reviewed article, or don't have access to it for free, you can see a similar comparison, done by Gavin Schmidt on the Real Climate site. The article is titled "Tropical tropospheric trends again".
It shows that present data presents no problems for the GCMs.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
If you do actually read up on the science for a change, I suggest you pay special attention to mention of the fact that the radiosonde data is limited by absolutely huge uncertainties right now. It doesn't mean that it's wrong, merely that it makes statements with limited certainty.
If you're trying to measure a small effect in the atmosphere, small enough that it starts fitting inside of error bars, then it becomes difficult to make definitive judgements.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@Catamount1412 We are on the front lines here in Australia fighting our corrupt government's carbon tax. More than 82% of Australian's in recent polls are against this tax scam, so fortunately most people aren't as dependent on the "science" as you are and still have a few braincells rolling around in their heads. The whole scam is crumbling under the weight of the lies, and your trolling won't ever stop that :)
atomitron 7 months ago
@atomitron
Really? What lies?
Can you show these "lies" in the science that you're claiming exist? Of course you can't.
Your nation's tax schemes also have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Whether or not your government is seeking wise policies has nothing to do with whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or whether humans can be traced as the primary cause of warming for the past 30 years.
Either the claims of the science are true or aren't, and you can't show the latter.
Catamount1412 7 months ago
@atomitron
So I ask you again; why should I accept your claims?
Let's forget for a moment whether or not the scientists are being accepted. What direct evidence do you personally offer, right now, that there are flaws in modern day mainstream climate science? What are these flaws? Where are they published? What evidence do you have that the particular claims being made there are false?
Catamount1412 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
man-made global warming is a farce
DREwestcoast 8 months ago
dosnt matter what anyone says the antarctic is melting and iceland too really fast , not good
smiles1969able 8 months ago
James Cook's sauce is heroin by the looks of it
roadkill1001 9 months ago
Next winter will be harsh ( no computer or graphs used). sorry this video is boring.
david222444 9 months ago
I think the real problem with scientific sources is that they are largely inaccessible to the public (unless you pay for them) or if you have access to a university e-resources website.
Without these two I fail to see how the general populace will be able to "check" any scientific data unless forking out hundreds just for the privilege to look at the article, let alone understand it.
Hunt2shoot 10 months ago
@Hunt2shoot
Actually many sites offer them for free
thieflord555 7 months ago
if anything, mars should be cooling down because the sun can't get though the mars' dust storms therefore cooling it down..
3Target33 10 months ago
@3Target33 The dust storms themselves would absorb light and therefore warm the atmosphere if you were to look it in that way. It would be both the dust absorbing light and the darker soils.
Freshbott2 10 months ago
@3Target33
Climate change happens over a long period of time. Dust storms, on the other hand, are short lived. But the dark areas exposed from them aren't. So the dark areas will have a greater effect, because they function over a long time span - which is what is required to tilt the average temperature of a whole planet.
Thetarget1 8 months ago
I realize that the earth is truly warming. This is evident in nature all around us. But is it really man made CO2 causing it and is it really unprecedented? I prefer to wait a little longer to see what effects the on stage global cooling players have- negative PDO, Landscheidt minimum and the others. These effects should override global warming if they are real, Time will tell.
wayne487msc 11 months ago
@wayne487msc I doubt it's not man made in anyway. Humans caused more extinctions of many species and polluted the world, terribly. Our oil based plastics that aren't biodegradable choke and destroy animals. Acid rain is our invention.
Acharmye 5 months ago
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
9:14 is missing! Oh my god! Conspiracy!
Potholer obviously wanted to "hide the time" there!
Gnometower 1 year ago
I have a question about peer review and publication. I was discussing this with someone here at work, and he said that the peer review process is bogged down, and it's not a good way to verify accuracy because there's far more papers than scientists to check them.
I thought the peer review process runs it's course BEFORE a paper is published, is that not the case? And is this a valid criticism of the peer review process?
squirreljester2 1 year ago
"I thought the peer review process runs it's course BEFORE a paper is published"
You mean the process of submitting research testing,verification, and a official hypothesis to a journal of Science facing a peer review before Publication as part of the Scientific Procedure?
No the so called "peer review" is on papers in University periodicals, and on work for submission to a government panel summary for a consensus of opinion on the Hypothesis of "AGW"
They are just verifying/testing now
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@squirreljester2 =there's far more papers than scientists to check them.= First rule when confronted with a puzzling claim is to ask "What's your source." My bet is your friend won't know, or he won't have any credible source except internet chatter. Papers are peer-reviewed before they're published, and If we're talking about respected journals I don't know of any shortage of peer-reviewers.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 He used to work at a University, and he said the scientists he talked to there had said that it was one of the things they regretted.
I recently had another discussion with him where I rebutted that argument with "what system should we replace it with then?" to which he really didn't have an answer. It's the concept of a theory, we can't get rid of a theory until there's a better theory to replace it.
squirreljester2 1 year ago
@squirreljester2 =He used to work at a University= Well all I can say is that in 14 years as a science journalist I never heard of any complaint about a shortage of peer reviewers. Re accuracy, peer review isn't supposed to be like marking an exam, it can only act as a stop-gap against badly written and researched papers. The real test of a paper comes after publication when the scientific community gets to comment on it or try to replicate the results.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 That's exactly what I was trying to tell him... thanks for confirming.
squirreljester2 11 months ago
Ofcourse there are other influences such as the pacific ten tear cycle, volcanoes and to put it simply the major greenhouse gas ( water vapour ) will provide a negative feedback to warming.
david222444 1 year ago
"the major greenhouse gas ( water vapour ) will provide a negative feedback to warming."
Lol
"Greenhouse gases" and "feedback" are University Academic Egghead nonsense
Thermal heat only moves from hot to cold, which in both the ocean and air is generally from sea floor to sea surface & in air from above planet surface to upper Troposphere
Infrared light is a byproduct of heat and not it's cause so even if infrared light could bounce off thin air like a microwave of metal it wouldn't do anything
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel ""Greenhouse gases" and "feedback" are University Academic Egghead nonsense" LOL what's really funny is the internet where some cashier in Hawaii can spout off like some kind of authority and preen themselves on actually being taken seriously while clogging comments with their pathetic nonsense based on their watching pop science TV.
kbs1138 1 year ago
"what's really funny is the internet where some cashier in Hawaii can spout off like some kind of authority and preen themselves on actually being taken seriously while clogging comments with their pathetic nonsense based on their watching pop science TV."
1) Yes the Internet has allowed for a lot of people to express themselves whether or not they know what they speak of
2) It's my Current semi-retirement extra money gig
3) I really don't care if anyone takes me seriously, Im killing time
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
p.s. Water vapor via the evaporation/percipitation cycle IS the major conductor of heat from the surface to the Air with the air rising in general as hot air rises cool air falls(giving us "wind")and as it cools as it gets higher the water vapor cools and forms clouds (not university academic eggheads' "Cosmic rays") in the constant 32f upper Troposphere
Which reminds me,there is no co2 up there as Co2 is 1.5x heavier then air and is only detected in air as it rides evaporation/precipitation
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
The Sun is the major influence in climate change no one with any sense of perspective can dispute this.
david222444 1 year ago
@david222444 weren't you paying attention?
PlateauEast 1 year ago
@david222444 Fluctuations in insolation can't explain the recent decades-long uptick in global warming. Therefore, while it's true that the sun is the reason why the surface of the earth is warm, it is not the primary reason why that surface is warmer now than it was in 1980.
ChollieD 1 year ago
"The Sun is the major influence in climate change"
No, the sun effects local daily evaporation/precipitation cycle from added heat, but the main heat that keeps the earth warm or make it fall into a ice age is from earth's core which fluxes causing global warming or wanes causing Ice Ages
Regional swngs in tempature variability is from the core's heat varying from both it;s molten churning nature and vent points.....mainly the tectonic plate zones and change in rock/core density
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Check the source themself? Wow you're askin a lot of the average blogger hahaha
devlinxiro 1 year ago
Ofcourse the sun has the most influence on climate change.
david222444 1 year ago
@david222444
OF course the sun has influence on the climate of course it's not the only influence on climate.
booley 1 year ago
I belive this is the reason , I,m 16 years old swedish. I believe that the earth is getting colder even doh the CO2 it makes the light from the sun not bounch back to space right? but! what if we dont get enough light thanks to the CO2 to earth so that the heat/light is getting cooled not heated becuase the earth isent getting enough of it.
Thraxiz94 1 year ago
@Thraxiz94 That's factually incorrect. I mean, it is a /fact/ that the earth is warming. That's all.
ScarletSacrieur 1 year ago
I'm no expert, but a cursory look at wikipedia makes me think this might answer your question:
The earth is somewhat reflective,but the stuff that enters the atmosphere has more energy than the stuff that leaves. Everything absorbs and reflects its own sections of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it so happens that the greenhouse gasses let visible light through, but absorb the lower-energy IR rays. So they basically act as a high-pass filter. Check out "Atmospheric electromagnetic opacity."
beriukay 1 year ago
Truly excellent report. The precepts of science are so simple.
colmanstephenson 1 year ago
Google "Nasa climate change evidence"
it's quite an interesting site.
LesbianJesus 1 year ago
Use mighty power of nature
In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,
huge deserts, huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.
Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,
desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia
World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water.
see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING
33noa33 1 year ago
What astounds me is that Inhofe admits that we WERE going through a warming so now when the "cooling" of the last decade has been debunked, he's caught with his pants down! :)
And yes, "true" believers never check their sources. They just automatically believe anything another "true" believer says.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
love your videos man.
BillKiernan 1 year ago
@potholer54 Hi mate. I really appreciate the effort you've gone to produce these videos. They are very fair and quite scientifically sound. I've been a bit of a skeptic, because all i hear are people who dont know very much yelling about how its all CO2's fault, which I know is over-simplifying what;s going on in our very complicated system.
What I wanted to ask you was why you keep saying that the Sun has not been unusually active in recent decades.
DrJohnstone 1 year ago
My very limited research seems to show that there are people out there saying there HAS been unusual solar activity of 'recent"
check out:
Solanki, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M., Beer, J., 2004. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
This paper says that "the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago."
DrJohnstone 1 year ago
@DrJohnstone -- I'm very familiar with the paper. Do you mind if I ask whether you read the whole paper, or did you just get this quote from the Internet? The paper goes into some detail about the relationship between recent warming and solar activity and is worth reading.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 I admit, I had not read the entire paper, however I didn't get that quote from the internet, i believe that quote came from the abstract.
DrJohnstone 1 year ago
And also this paper:
Abreu, J.A., Beer, J., Steinhilber, F., Tobias, S.M., Weiss, N.O., 2008. For how long will the current grand maximum of solar activity persist? Geophysical Research Letters 36, Citation No. L20109.
suggests this: "Recent activity has been abnormally high for at least 8 cycles"
DrJohnstone 1 year ago
@DrJohnstone -- "Recent activity has been abnormally high for at least 8 cycles"
That seems to be the case on a historical basis. The maximum peaked in the 1950s and has been in decline ever since (and has dropped even further with the recent solar minimum.)
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 Has been in decline from its abnormally high level during this last century. It would therefore stand to reason that as it declines back to 'normal' levels (normal being with reference to say a 10,000 year average or something) we should expect the earth to cool down again, regardless of CO2 content in the atmosphere. Granted CO2 surely must have some effect, but the magnitude of that effect seems to be in great contention.
However I do appreciate your honest scientific approach.
DrJohnstone 1 year ago
@DrJohnstone =we should expect the earth to cool down again=
That's what climate scientists say also. So the obvious question is, why hasn't it been cooling for the last 30 years? And why are temperatures at record highs when we should be experiencing record lows? You conclude that it can't be CO2, but you don't say why. Even before temperatures started climbing, the link between CO2 and warming was postulated, and the rise in temperatures predicted.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 other planets in our solar system are warming up and are even further from the sun like mars. how are people causing that. new more presice studies are showing co2 levels go up after the heat goes up. the suns activity has increased over the last century. more sunspots are being recorded=warmer temps. co2 is a very weak green house gas. clouds trap 10 times the heat. they say they wanna stop it yet they just charge us more? they are crippling 3rd world countries even more. get a clue
iamdk007 1 year ago
@iamdk007 =other planets in our solar system are warming up ... how are people causing that?=
You'll find this Internet myth debunked in this series. A word of advice: If you read something in a blog but can't find it in the scientific literature, be a little bit skeptical and check the source.
potholer54 1 year ago