Hitler on Climate Change

No description available.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• hclimate
• 3

[youngchampagne]

This video went viral on Podgorica

[ParanoidGallows]

No matter how many times I see these Downfall parodies, Goebbels' face at 1:03 always reminds me of Skeletor.

[enriqueowens616]

This video is a favorite on Kampala

[garith21]

@TheRealArchAngel

Responding to something that was posted 4 months ago? Seriously.

Anyways the actual mechanism for CO2 causing a net increase of energy has been known and tested for over a hundred years, it's pretty basic, you add energy to a system you get increased heat, it isn't that complicated.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"then it "flies" with water vapor till it cools as clouds and co2 "rains" back d"

The Average estimated Co2 that the Keeling station uses is just that...an average

That 390ppm is made by taking the air sample at a certain time of day,at a certain altitude,at a certain wind speed,at a certain tempature,and at a certain humidity

second by second and minute by minute variations in CO2 ppm in air varies from 0ppm to 900ppm as wind,tempature,and humidity changes along with evaporation/percipitation

[TheRealArchAngel]

"the cooling. And CO2 FOLLOWED, it not lead."

Right

The thing never discussed about co2 is that 1) it is extremely tempature sensitive and,more importantl 2) It is heavier then air and only rides up into the air on the evaporation/percipitation cycle within the water vapor

When there is "Global Warmiong" the co2 coming out of the deep earth and from the ocean floor is carried by the ocean cuurent to the surface then it "flies" with water vapor till it cools as clouds and co2 "rains" back down

[TheRealArchAngel]

"CO2 has always followed temperature"

But since the Politicians ask physists,whjo have a lot of time on their hands,instead of a vulcanologist...who is either near in a volcano the why,they got the "AGW" bullshit the Physists pull out of their ass via thumping on Svante

The Earth's core is like a pressure cooker and comes more hot when plate tectonics doesn't let it vent then releases heat as it does

COre pluming =interglaciation

COre Waning =Ice Ages

co2,methane,etc vents WITH the heat

[TheRealArchAngel]

"AGW is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory. It remains unproven"

It's what the consensus of opinion was for,to get funding from the governments to verify and test for agw and to determine 1) if it exists, 2) if so,how bad and 3) potential impact

The "A-Train" Began launching in 2008 first starting with the Canadian Co2 monotoring orbitor (CanX-2) then Japan's (Ibuki) witht the Next Generation Weather Sattilites Starting launch in July 2010

The'll test if predictions match real map

[TheRealArchAngel]

"you'll have to attack the basic physics and physical laws that are used for the theory."

AGW isn't a "Thnoery" yet

It's a Hypothises of Consensus of opinion based on the Corolation of Estimated average CO2 rise"observed" at the Keeling station vs observable Tempature rise in the "AGT" from about 40 weather stations in the Upper Temparate region

Next step of the Scientific Method is verifying and testing for the cause and effect of co2 on heat and actually linking co2 rise to humans

[wkwickham13]

freakin brilliant

[Kinkspace]

Excellent :)

[garith21]

@Willaev

If you're referring to the period where aerosols were particulate matter blocking out sunlight masking the effect of ghgs for a few decades, well that doesn't prevent the basic mechanism of CO2 resulting in rising temperatures with similar solar irradiance and albedo. That argument would make about as much sense as "heaters don't work because you can open the window and make it cooler"

[garith21]

@Willaev

This has been a repeated assertion that statisticians during blind studies reject, even over the last 10 years the trend has been up. How on earth is it cooling if the last few years on the instrumental record are record highs? Where on earth do you get your information from? Lastly, if you want a response hit the reply button

[Willaev]

As cohesive and consistent as...a 30-year cooling period in the middle of rising CO2. As cohesive and consistent as "We're not going to investigate other possible methods of warming, as they don't fit into our political agenda." As cohesive and consistent as "Anyone who disagrees with us is a holocaust denier, paid off by the corporate lobbyists. As cohesive and consistent as, "We need to ignore opposing data, and inflate data we like to scare the shit out of people, so they'll -have- to act."

[garith21]

@Willaev

It's a scientific theory in the same way that the theory of evolution, theory of gravity and atomic theory are theories. It explains observed facts and laws in a cohesive and consistent which is why it's believed that AGW is the best explanation for the most recent warming, since most of it is basic physics, you'll have to attack the basic physics and physical laws that are used for the theory.

[Willaev]

@garith21 AGW is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific theory. It remains unproven. Your argument otherwise just proves your lack of critical thinking skills or understanding.

[garith21]

@Willaev

1) Actually in peer reviewed publications they don't, I don't really give much of a shit of their personal opinions as those aren't peer reviewed.

2) Obviously you're too stupid to realize that your fanaticism in regards to denial of scientific facts and information is identical to that of a creationist as is your tactics. It doesn't require you be a "biblethumping chrisitian" just a fanatic with no critical thinking skills or understanding.

[Willaev]

James Hansen, George Monbiot, David Suzuki, for starters. Grist, Drudge. Again, thank you for proving your religious fanaticism to Gaia. Not once did I mention anything about creationism or evolution, nor did I mention anything about my religious preference. Which is -zero-, by the way. But your fanaticism ASSUMES that I must be some biblethumping christian. Sorry to disappoint your shallow mind, retard.

[garith21]

@Willaev

Thanks for the strawman, name one person that states that "a 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to destroy the world". Why is it that you have to resort to being so dishonest time and time again and resort to such moronic arguments in order to attempt to have a discussion? Also glad to see you admit that your idiotic reference is in fact more idiotic than a position no one holds, cheers to the religious denier, just like a creationist denying evolution.

[Willaev]

@garith21 Yes, it's far more idiotic than asserting that a 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 is going to destroy the world. I bow to your ultimate wisdom. Allow me to cease talking with yet another religious zealot.

[garith21]

@wrjamescom

6) obviously you didn't read the e-mails Christy is in rather frequent communication with CRU

7) I've read the e-mails in context rather than out of context and I've also examined what has happened in real life to see what action was really taken. You're merely looking for any way to bend something to say "look it's a conspiracy" without any critical analysis what so ever.

[garith21]

@wrjamescom

5) The reason why water vapor isn't seen as a driver in climate as much as a feed back in climate is because in order for it to stay in the atmosphere for a long period of time the temperatures have to rise first, otherwise it quickly condenses so it's completely irrelevant to long term deviations in temperature as a driver.

[garith21]

@wrjamescom

3) none of your idiocy or strawmen gets rid of the basic mechanism of CO2 as a driver in climate when all other relevant factors are the same, you can't blame long term deviations on short term cyclical variations, which is all that solar cycles and the el nino/la nina cycles are.

4) Clouds also retain long wave radiation that would otherwise go out into space, which is especially important at night

[garith21]

@wrjamescom

1) While the sun is a significant factor in climate you can't say "the sun is changing the climate" when it's activity has been relatively stable over the last 50 years.

2) CO2 merely absorbs the available long wave radiation, on a snowball earth with little long wave radiation to absorb requires a vast amount of ghgs to swing it out of a snowball earth since the reflectivity of the earth would be very high

[garith21]

@Willaev

1) CO2 concentrations have been increasing, while more plants are growing there are many other carbon sinks reaching their limits and actually less able to absorb CO2 due to temperature increases, such as the ocean.

2) It was a perfect analogy for your argument as you implied that because it's used for photosynthesis that we either can't have to much of it or that it ceases having negative effects because it's required for life, it's merely pointing out the idiocy of your argument.