AAAS Global Climate-Change Video

http://www.aaas.org/climate
Residents of Shishmaref, Alaska, and experts like John Holdren, exploring the human impacts of global climate change.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• global
• climate
• change
• warming
• AAAS
• John
• Holdren
• Shishmaref
• Alaska
• American
• Association
• for
• the
• Advancement
• of
• Science

[bdist]

Yes CO2 levels is around 380 ppm now but it used to be around 280 before we started burning fossil fuels in enormous amounts every day. CO2 is a very powerful greenhouse gas. What do you think our temperature would be without greenhouse gases? It would be 33C (59F) lower than it is now. What do you think happens when we increase the CO2 level with 35%? Please think about it. Don't just say humans can't be doing it.

[MonarchyMartina]

I like this vid because it doesn't just show sad cases, but has a solution - which is education.

[HumanSayNo]

Why don't we spray reflective particles into the atmosphere from aircraft??

[meklo89311]

Shishmaref and Newtok should like come together and make there own community somewhere else because the land they live on will probably be gone in the next decade.

[Twilightifyable]

@Twilightifyable

.

I just read about it. He acknowledges that there must be some impact anthroponically speaking of climate change on the earth, but it's inconceivable to make predictions 100 years out. He stated that "plants love what we do with carbon". I believe John Christy is a true scientist so he won't neglect his findings he made with weather balloon and satellite data. Therefore, unless you can find another source, he will stick by his climate change is NOT CATASTROPHIC position.

[ExperienceCounts2]

@Twilightifyable Well you don't need to double check his work, he did and he found that he was mistaken. Exactly how many times do you plan on changing the subject? I pointed out that Christy made an error and admits it. You change the topic to weather stations. I address the weather station issue and now you want to change the subject to taxation and politics. Politics does not change the evidence. The evidence is what it is.

[Twilightifyable]

@ExperienceCounts2

.

I have little desire to double check John R. Christy's work. I will point out that if his work was bad or based on bad data the Illuminati would have had him discredited long ago to support their outlandish global warming alarmism. Global Warming Alarmism is about redistributing wealth of rich countries to poorer countries. Why don't you take some time and look at Christy's work. The atmosphere accounts for 90% of cllimate. watch?v=dNf3t5ggOlw

[ExperienceCounts2]

@Twilightifyable No, there is no such problem. As I just pointed out, you can get the station data and you can plot it yourself. You can remove stations you think don't provide good data. The scientists already rank the stations on data quality, if you disagree, remove the stations you don't think are valid. A denialist website identifies a couple hundred stations they felt gave bad data. They don't show the re-plot without those stations because it shows the same amount and rate of warming.

[Twilightifyable]

@ExperienceCounts2

.

The problem with the climate stations is that many are located in places that are built out like parking lots, etc which is inherently hotter than a park, which gives misleading information.

[ExperienceCounts2]

For those interested, please don't take my word on anything. Google for "Clear Climate Code". You can obtain the source code and the raw data, for free. Plot the data yourself. Choose your favored subset of monitoring stations. You can plot them by region, plot different randomly chosen stations, plot only urban stations, plot only rural stations. See what you get. Here's a hint. If you plot a statistically significant number of stations, you'll see the same amount and rate of warming.

[ExperienceCounts2]

@Twilightifyable You neglect to mention something. Deniers have their own rankings of climate monitoring station data quality. When the data from their "very good" or better temperature stations is graphed, it shows the same temperature increases and the same rate of warming. You can perform the same calculation yourself. The list of stations and the data from them is available to anyone. Eliminate stations you feel unreliable or randomly exclude stations. Same curve, same warming.

[ExperienceCounts2]

@Twilightifyable You neglect to mention something. Deniers have their own rankings of climate monitoring station data quality. When the data from their selection of "very good" or better temperature stations is graphed, it shows the same temperature increases and the same rate of warming. You can perform the same calculation yourself. The list of stations and the data from them is available to anyone. Eliminate stations you feel unreliable or randomly exclude stations. Same curve, same warming.