 |
Time history of atmospheric CO2 (2011 update) Posted by: CarbonTracker
Video duration: 195 seconds Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years before present until January, 2011. Recommend full screen/HD to read titles. See http://carbontracker .noaa.gov for more information on the global carbon cycle. Download the full-rez version from ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa. gov/ccg/co2/carbontr acker/movies/Globalv iew2011_pumphandle.m p4. Related: climate, change, carbon, dioxide, global, warming, noaa, carbontracker Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
 |
Time history of atmospheric CO2 (2010 update) Posted by: CarbonTracker
Video duration: 192 seconds Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, from 800,000 years before present until January, 2010. This animations uses measurements from Globalview-CO2 and other sources cited in the titles. Recommend viewing in HD to make text legible. See http://carbontracker .noaa.gov for more information. Related: carbon dioxide, carbontracker, global warming, co2, climate change Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
CO2 weather from CarbonTracker Posted by: CarbonTracker
Video duration: 220 seconds Carbon dioxide weather, from the CarbonTracker 2009 simulations. See http://carbontracker .noaa.gov for more information. Related: co2, carbon, dioxide, global, warming, climate, change, noaa, carbontracker Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
|||||
 |
CO2 weather from CarbonTracker Posted by: CarbonTracker
Video duration: 220 seconds Carbon dioxide weather, from the CarbonTracker 2009 simulations. See http://carbontracker .noaa.gov for more information. Related: co2, carbon, dioxide, global, warming, climate, change, noaa Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video: |
 |
Time history of atmospheric CO2 Posted by: CarbonTracker
Video duration: 195 seconds Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years before present until January, 2009. Recommend full screen/HD to read titles. See http://carbontracker .noaa.gov for more information on the global carbon cycle. Related: carbon, dioxide, co2, noaa, globalview, climate, change, global, warming Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
CarbonTracker CO2 weather - Orthographic projection over N. America Posted by: CarbonTracker
Video duration: 220 seconds Carbon dioxide weather, from the CarbonTracker 2009 simulations. See http://carbontracker .noaa.gov for more information. Graphics made using GMT (http://gmt.soest.ha waii.edu/) Related: carbon, dioxide, co2, climate, change, global, warming, carbontracker, noaa Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment Latest comments made on this video: |
Latest comments made on this video:
By: vengencefrom1979. on 22 Apr 12, 06:08:17
one thing is for sure, as soon as the million dollar homes on the shore start to wash away there? will be some squaking.
By: williamabk. on 20 Apr 12, 03:53:29
Very? revealing!
By: WaxItYourself. on 18 Apr 12, 14:09:07
I think you really need to wake up to reality. And your standing behind Climategate is hilarious. Can you display your ill knowledge of the situation more??
By: 1000frolly. on 18 Apr 12, 07:38:34
Nonsense. The sensitivity was calclated from measurements; nothing to do with models. Your claims are all fiction along with your fake "scientists" claims. They even admit that? they are activists; see Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch 2010. Only 10.8% of the 371 climate scientists questioned, described themselves as "Not being an environmental activist". Everyone can see from climategate and from their actions that they do not use the scientific method, either.
By: WaxItYourself. on 17 Apr 12, 14:34:12
How on Earth do you think those papers you stated found their climate sensitivity? Through models. WTF is wrong with you? The Lindzen and Choi paper was very flawed and the editor resigned. Andrew Dessler even published a response. And he did the same for their 2011 paper and Spencer and Braswell's 2011 paper was well. Why pay attention to authors who have made errors with? almost every paper they've published as opposed to more mainstream authors?
By: 1000frolly. on 17 Apr 12, 09:57:28
I agree that a doubling of CO2 should cause about 1.2c of warming. However, I was referring to the climate sensitivity, which has been shown to be low, and produce not more than 0.7c? of warming (Linzen&Choi 2009,2011; Christy et al, 2007; Spencer&Brasswell, 2008,2010) High climate sensitivity is fiction and it only appers in models.
By: WaxItYourself. on 16 Apr 12, 13:50:01
You? have stated Monckton is one of the good guys even though anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge in environmental sciences would know that he is a liar. And it is not 0.7C for a doubling of CO2. It is generally agreed that a doubling of CO2 alone would cause 1C warming. The feedbacks handle the rest with a best estimate of 3.5C. If you are claiming otherwise provide this evidence.
By: 1000frolly. on 16 Apr 12, 11:23:21
I am? neither ignorant nor can be manipulated. Monkton has never claimed to be a scientist; however, I am. I have degrees in physics and engineering. . The main point of disagreement in all this is climate sensitivity. Warmists claim it is high, empirical evidence shows that it is low, no more than 0.7c.
By: 1000frolly. on 16 Apr 12, 11:19:17
This is a referance to our prime minister, who when at university was a trotskyite. I, along with most Australians want to see the back of her as soon as possible. She back-stabbed her own leader and then lied to get into power. She is now power-sharing with the greens.? Many of them are called watermelons here, because they are green on the outside, but red in the middle. We will now have the worlds biggest carbon tax, it starts on July 1 this year. It will destroy the economy.
By: PureRaven. on 15 Apr 12, 19:06:55
The moment? you said 'communists' I became immune to anything you said.
By: WaxItYourself. on 30 Mar 12, 05:32:47
Monkton is a habitual liar. There are five parts to the video below watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM There are two parts to the video below watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4 And? there is this watch?v=DCoi94n0aJg He is a liar who takes advantage of ignorant easily manipulated people such as yourself. You are being manipulated. Monckton has a degree in journalism not science.
By: 1000frolly. on 30 Mar 12, 05:26:21
Monkton is one of the good guys; on our side we also have most ordinary people, unbiassed scientists ect. On your side, you have leftys, communists, mad greenies, gravy train "scientists". NGOs with their hands in the govt coffers, Power-hungry types, Blood & Gore raking in hundreds of millions, big business and bankers hoping to make a killing out of this scam before it folds, third world? countries like China and Kiribati making or hoping to make big dollars out of it before it folds ect. ect.
By: WaxItYourself. on 30 Mar 12, 04:43:21
Your ignorance shows itself. You do realize the term 'Hide the decline" refers to northern tree ring proxies? right? The entire 'industry' of climate science was created back in 1896 with Svante Arrhenius and his paper that showed a doubling of CO2 would result in 4C of warming. If you look at the band within Earth's emissions spectrum centered at 667cm^-1 you'll see where most of the warming is coming from (Harries, 2001;Griggs, 2004;Chen, 2007)
By: 1000frolly. on 30 Mar 12, 04:39:05
The entire industry of "climate science" was? created out of virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate change?rather than investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate change. Mann-made global warming, (see; hide the decline) . This is one of the darker periods in the history of science. Those who love science, and all it stands for, will be pained by it.
By: WaxItYourself. on 30 Mar 12, 04:36:41
Somehow I knew you were a Monckton? fan. You do realize he is a habitual liar right?
By: 1000frolly. on 30 Mar 12, 04:34:19
Monkton states over and? over again, ad nauseum that CO2 is a GHG and affects the climate. What else do you want? If you want him to become an alarmist you are dreaming.
By: MTNtimes. on 29 Mar 12, 16:47:54
Are you questioning the fact that CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly, in a manner? that is unprecedented over the entire of human history (at least 100,000 years)? It is fine to question the interpretation of information like that presented here, but I think it is completely unreasonable to question the information itself. Climate change is real - global warming is a misnomer, and true only as an average expression of what we are doing to our planet.
By: WaxItYourself. on 29 Mar 12, 14:33:34
In a warmer atmosphere climates change regardless where the warming is coming from. You can run around stating climate sensitivity is low and claim that the papers that states as such are unbiased all you want but those papers come from the likes of people like Roy Spencer and a lot of? them are published in a non-journal known as energy & Environment. To claim that those sources are unbiased is funny to say the least.
By: 1000frolly. on 29 Mar 12, 10:25:07
What? you say about the climate system shows that you don't know much about it. The climate system is not in balance, and never has been; such an idea is preposterous, how can a chaotic system be in equilibrium? . As for our emissions affecting the climate, yes of course they will. But so will a butterfly flapping its wings. What do you mean by 'affect'?
By: 1000frolly. on 29 Mar 12, 10:21:36
Ha Ha, funny to see you guessing. My degrees are in physics and engineering, including a masters. If you knew anything? about science at all, you'd know that science is not done by consensus; we use something called the scientific method. 2003 Poll of the worlds 530 climate scientists; Bray&Storch 2003 41% thought we should MITIGATE; 27% thought we should ADAPT; 30% thought BOTH. MAJORITY 77% Said AGW "May have some positive effects" 34% Think "Climate models accurately predict the future".
By: FoulFiend113. on 29 Mar 12, 09:45:41
Of course you are American so when you talk about "three" degrees you are probably talking about the equivalent of diplomas in music, photography and woodwork. The whole climate change "drama" is not complete bullshit. There is consensus amongst the scientific community about the anthropogenic influence on Earths climate. The Earth system is balanced and with humans ejecting millions of tons of CO2, NOx, CH4, sulphur dioxide, etc etc? every year, are you telling me that WON'T effect our climate?
By: 1000frolly. on 29 Mar 12, 08:51:35
There is no evidence whatsoever for the view that human CO2 will create a climate problem. The net positive feedback imagined by the model programmers does not exist, and never did. Climate sensitivity is very low,? as shown repeatedly by many unbiassed scientific papers.
By: 1000frolly. on 29 Mar 12, 08:48:33
No education? How about three degrees and a GPA of 6.9? WTF are you talking about. . Human CO2 isn't a problem, and never will be. I often work in 10,000ppm all day, without any ill effects. All this global warming drama? is just complete and utter BULLSHIT.
By: FoulFiend113. on 28 Mar 12, 22:40:12
You clearly have? no education.
By: WaxItYourself. on 28 Mar 12, 02:07:08
Due to the heat retention capabilities no. There will be more droughts and more? floods. both of which are bad for crops and bad for fresh water. Drought decreases rainfall and flooding pollutes fresh water.