FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Climate 101

Climate 101

(4:34) Bill Nye demonstrates climate change in a tabletop experiment that even deniers can get their heads around. Understand that reality is science based, not politically based!

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (1791 days ago)
Hahahahaha - cengland0 posted a link to some blatherings on, um, 'AstroWiki', and seems to think that this somehow gives him credence. Not bad for a fourteen year old though.
ReplyVote up (186)down (174)
Original comment
Hahahahaha - cengland0 posted a link to some blatherings on, um, 'AstroWiki', and seems to think that this somehow gives him credence. Not bad for a fourteen year old though.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1791 days ago)
Who cares where the information comes from as long as it's accurate. Do you dispute the accuracy of the information contained on the site that I linked? If so, state what you believe is wrong instead of pretending as if there is a problem. And about being a 14 year old, I assure you that I'm much older than you think and that's why I have so much experience, knowledge, and wisdom.
ReplyVote up (217)down (174)
Original comment
Who cares where the information comes from as long as it's accurate. Do you dispute the accuracy of the information contained on the site that I linked? If so, state what you believe is wrong instead of pretending as if there is a problem. And about being a 14 year old, I assure you that I'm much older than you think and that's why I have so much experience, knowledge, and wisdom.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1795 days ago)
Actually this tabletop experiment wont work and has been shown to not work for multiple reasons, the thermometers are probably photoshopped
ReplyVote up (199)down (186)
Original comment
Actually this tabletop experiment wont work and has been shown to not work for multiple reasons, the thermometers are probably photoshopped
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: sane (1794 days ago)
You are absolutely wrong. There, I've proven it.
ReplyVote up (192)down (186)
Original comment
You are absolutely wrong. There, I've proven it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1794 days ago)
reason 1) the glass jars are opaque to infrared radiation, therefore the infrared lamp is heating up the jar not the gas inside
ReplyVote up (195)down (213)
Original comment
reason 1) the glass jars are opaque to infrared radiation, therefore the infrared lamp is heating up the jar not the gas inside
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Skinny American (1794 days ago)
Glass is not opaque to infrared radiation. Do you own an incandescent lightbulb? Turn it on and put your hand close to it. You'll feel heat radiating from the element BEFORE the glass has time to heat up.
ReplyVote up (181)down (183)
Original comment
Glass is not opaque to infrared radiation. Do you own an incandescent lightbulb? Turn it on and put your hand close to it. You'll feel heat radiating from the element BEFORE the glass has time to heat up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1794 days ago)
the thick glass in the bell jar (normal glass) absorbs infra red in the region of co2 absorption (above 3000 nanometres) (infrard cameras/ detectors use lens with glass made from germanium for this reason). very badly designed (and misleading) experiment
ReplyVote up (185)down (208)
Original comment
the thick glass in the bell jar (normal glass) absorbs infra red in the region of co2 absorption (above 3000 nanometres) (infrard cameras/ detectors use lens with glass made from germanium for this reason). very badly designed (and misleading) experiment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest1 (1791 days ago)
Oh dear - it's a bit more complex than that... if only the pro-climate change bigots could get their heads around denial...
ReplyVote up (188)down (203)
Original comment
Oh dear - it's a bit more complex than that... if only the pro-climate change bigots could get their heads around denial...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
London1 London1 (1791 days ago)
I'm now starting to understand that cengland0 is an idiot. And there was me thinking the demonstration was clear enough. If air gets this temperature and CO2 gets a higher temperature than air with more CO2 in it will also reach a higher temperature than air with less. Simple enough for you?
ReplyVote up (208)down (222)
Original comment
I'm now starting to understand that cengland0 is an idiot. And there was me thinking the demonstration was clear enough. If air gets this temperature and CO2 gets a higher temperature than air with more CO2 in it will also reach a higher temperature than air with less. Simple enough for you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1791 days ago)
I don't dispute the fact that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. I was stating that the demonstration did not prove anything because it brings the amount of CO2 in one of the containers near 100% and that's not even close to what our atmosphere contains. The biggest greenhouse gas we have is water vapor -- not CO2. The demonstration was too simple and failed to take into consideration more factors about our earth than just CO2. And, the dispute is about if humas are the root cause of the warming that we are experiencing or if it is the natural temperature cycles that earth occurs periodically. Did you think that the earth had always had the same temperature for millions of years and all of a sudden we are producing CO2 and the temperature is 2 degrees hotter so we are the cause? Look back a bit further than the 100 year hockey stick chart and you will see that the increase in temperature we are experiencing now is nothing in comparison to what it was a long time ago -- even before humans were producing CO2.
ReplyVote up (232)down (199)
Original comment
I don't dispute the fact that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. I was stating that the demonstration did not prove anything because it brings the amount of CO2 in one of the containers near 100% and that's not even close to what our atmosphere contains. The biggest greenhouse gas we have is water vapor -- not CO2. The demonstration was too simple and failed to take into consideration more factors about our earth than just CO2. And, the dispute is about if humas are the root cause of the warming that we are experiencing or if it is the natural temperature cycles that earth occurs periodically. Did you think that the earth had always had the same temperature for millions of years and all of a sudden we are producing CO2 and the temperature is 2 degrees hotter so we are the cause? Look back a bit further than the 100 year hockey stick chart and you will see that the increase in temperature we are experiencing now is nothing in comparison to what it was a long time ago -- even before humans were producing CO2.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Actual Scientist (1743 days ago)
Latest comment: Cengland - the wavebands that water absorbs energy in are saturated. This means that though it is the greenhouse gas which is most important, changes in its concentration don't change the amount of heat that the atmosphere reflects. The CO2 wavelength bands are not saturated, meaning that changes in concentration do make a difference in the heat balance.
ReplyVote up (219)down (190)
Original comment
Latest comment: Cengland - the wavebands that water absorbs energy in are saturated. This means that though it is the greenhouse gas which is most important, changes in its concentration don't change the amount of heat that the atmosphere reflects. The CO2 wavelength bands are not saturated, meaning that changes in concentration do make a difference in the heat balance.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Turdface (1794 days ago)
Doesn't sound like Bill Nye to me.
ReplyVote up (175)down (198)
Original comment
Doesn't sound like Bill Nye to me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1794 days ago)
Regarding that tabletop experiment, that is invalid because it's making the CO2 in the jar at nearly 100% which is not even close to reality for us on earth. Our earth has about 0.0314% CO2 so do you still think that's a valid experiment? Let's see the same experiment with CO2 at 0.0314% and another one at .04% to see the temperature difference and then I might agree this has some validity. I'd like to make sure the lights are of the same spectrum as our sun instead of just using heat lamps. Make sure the lamps have the same lux power and are at the same distance. Next, put some trees inside the jar that can consume that CO2 and convert it back to Oxygen. We also need to account for the magnetic properties of the earth because that helps shield the earth from the harshness of our sun too. I doubt the globes used in the desktop experiment had the same magnetic properties.
ReplyVote up (192)down (273)
Original comment
Regarding that tabletop experiment, that is invalid because it's making the CO2 in the jar at nearly 100% which is not even close to reality for us on earth. Our earth has about 0.0314% CO2 so do you still think that's a valid experiment? Let's see the same experiment with CO2 at 0.0314% and another one at .04% to see the temperature difference and then I might agree this has some validity. I'd like to make sure the lights are of the same spectrum as our sun instead of just using heat lamps. Make sure the lamps have the same lux power and are at the same distance. Next, put some trees inside the jar that can consume that CO2 and convert it back to Oxygen. We also need to account for the magnetic properties of the earth because that helps shield the earth from the harshness of our sun too. I doubt the globes used in the desktop experiment had the same magnetic properties.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JoeTaicoon (1794 days ago)
You seem to have trouble wrapping your head around the difference between showing the effect of a greenhouse gas and modelling the Earth as a detailed system. You seem to doubt that CO2, Methane and water vapor (to mention the three main ones) has the effect of trapping radiated heat? That is really not a subject for discussion and no one with the slightest understanding of the science doubts that fact. Yo can also easily enough look up the absorption rate of CO2 as a function of radiation frequency and then compare with the spectrum of the sun. That is all the experiment shows. Next, after your coming to terms with recognized facts, we can discuss if the observed increase in CO2 levels has a small or a large effect, but again you don't have do do much calculation along the line of comparing solar spectrum to absorption spectrum of the current atmosphere vs the one from before the industrial age, to see that, yes, more energy will be trapped. When you then have done that and recognize that rising co2 levels do in fact trap more energy, we can begin to discuss other mechanisms, the cold/warm cycles of ancient Earth and various positive and negative feedback mechanisms... but please refrain from holding your current silly misconceptions as high as you do now. Learn just the basics before speaking too loudly.... magnetic field affecting infrared radiation... really.. ;-)
ReplyVote up (274)down (196)
Original comment
You seem to have trouble wrapping your head around the difference between showing the effect of a greenhouse gas and modelling the Earth as a detailed system. You seem to doubt that CO2, Methane and water vapor (to mention the three main ones) has the effect of trapping radiated heat? That is really not a subject for discussion and no one with the slightest understanding of the science doubts that fact. Yo can also easily enough look up the absorption rate of CO2 as a function of radiation frequency and then compare with the spectrum of the sun. That is all the experiment shows. Next, after your coming to terms with recognized facts, we can discuss if the observed increase in CO2 levels has a small or a large effect, but again you don't have do do much calculation along the line of comparing solar spectrum to absorption spectrum of the current atmosphere vs the one from before the industrial age, to see that, yes, more energy will be trapped. When you then have done that and recognize that rising co2 levels do in fact trap more energy, we can begin to discuss other mechanisms, the cold/warm cycles of ancient Earth and various positive and negative feedback mechanisms... but please refrain from holding your current silly misconceptions as high as you do now. Learn just the basics before speaking too loudly.... magnetic field affecting infrared radiation... really.. ;-)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1794 days ago)
Ace7 and JoeTaicoon, you have both got to be kidding me, right? Read from this link and then get back to me regarding the magnetic field: LINK The magnetic field does block us from the sun's charged particles and if you doubt that, then discussion is over because I will not entertain any other views on that. You would obviously be trolling if you state otherwise. Regarding the other comments, I do understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it may contribute to warming; however, the tabletop experiment was a bogus way of proving that the little extra we have on earth is the root cause of our temperature change of 2 degrees in past 100 years. Even if that was proven to be the case, then there is still doubt whether human CO2 production is the cause because, in nature, there are other CO2 producing objects that we have no control over.
ReplyVote up (189)down (229)
Original comment
Ace7 and JoeTaicoon, you have both got to be kidding me, right? Read from this link and then get back to me regarding the magnetic field: LINK The magnetic field does block us from the sun's charged particles and if you doubt that, then discussion is over because I will not entertain any other views on that. You would obviously be trolling if you state otherwise. Regarding the other comments, I do understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it may contribute to warming; however, the tabletop experiment was a bogus way of proving that the little extra we have on earth is the root cause of our temperature change of 2 degrees in past 100 years. Even if that was proven to be the case, then there is still doubt whether human CO2 production is the cause because, in nature, there are other CO2 producing objects that we have no control over.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PeterLondon (1793 days ago)
cengland0, you really are a wonderful dork. Actually, I don't believe you are real - and think you just post on BoreMe to wind us all up. Which you do manage sometimes :-) Do try and read the posts. We all agree that the earth's magnetic field blocks some of the charged particles (and other non-charged particles) from the sun (you know, that big yellow thing in the sky?) and other cosmic radiation. The question is, does that effect the temperature of the earth? And the answer is that some scientists think it does. Cosmic radiation effects the formation of clouds, and clouds reflect the sun's heat back into space. So you could have a point! But only by default, and you did not understand what you were saying; nor appreciate the science behind your proposition. So that still makes you a dork. In fact your picture is the picture I would use if I want to illustrate the word "dork". But we like you all really, and you are quite harmless. Please keep spending your time posting on BoreMe; and that way you will spend less time in the real world where you might start doing some serious harm. Happy Christmas!
ReplyVote up (168)down (210)
Original comment
cengland0, you really are a wonderful dork. Actually, I don't believe you are real - and think you just post on BoreMe to wind us all up. Which you do manage sometimes :-) Do try and read the posts. We all agree that the earth's magnetic field blocks some of the charged particles (and other non-charged particles) from the sun (you know, that big yellow thing in the sky?) and other cosmic radiation. The question is, does that effect the temperature of the earth? And the answer is that some scientists think it does. Cosmic radiation effects the formation of clouds, and clouds reflect the sun's heat back into space. So you could have a point! But only by default, and you did not understand what you were saying; nor appreciate the science behind your proposition. So that still makes you a dork. In fact your picture is the picture I would use if I want to illustrate the word "dork". But we like you all really, and you are quite harmless. Please keep spending your time posting on BoreMe; and that way you will spend less time in the real world where you might start doing some serious harm. Happy Christmas!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1793 days ago)
PeterLondon, It is my opinion that you need to read the posts. If you did, you would have seen that I was talking to Ace7 and JoeTaicoon. Neither of those two believed that the earth's magnetism blocked the charged particles from actually hitting the earth. If you know that it does, then we both agree on something. No problem there. I did understand what I was saying. Do you really believe I typed what I did by accident? Regarding your "Happy Christmas," thanks but I'm an atheist and anyone who isn't an atheist is, in my opinion, stupid. Oh, one more thing. The reason it appears that my posts "wind us all up" is because they are controversial. If I watch a video posted on Boreme and agree with everything then I usually don't type any responses. If I disagree with the video, then those are the ones I post my views. I cannot allow incorrect information in a video go by without someone like me helping out the other viewers so they don't just blindly believe everything they see and hear. If someone has already posted the same views as me by the time I got around to watching the video, you will usually not see a post from me.
ReplyVote up (212)down (196)
Original comment
PeterLondon, It is my opinion that you need to read the posts. If you did, you would have seen that I was talking to Ace7 and JoeTaicoon. Neither of those two believed that the earth's magnetism blocked the charged particles from actually hitting the earth. If you know that it does, then we both agree on something. No problem there. I did understand what I was saying. Do you really believe I typed what I did by accident? Regarding your "Happy Christmas," thanks but I'm an atheist and anyone who isn't an atheist is, in my opinion, stupid. Oh, one more thing. The reason it appears that my posts "wind us all up" is because they are controversial. If I watch a video posted on Boreme and agree with everything then I usually don't type any responses. If I disagree with the video, then those are the ones I post my views. I cannot allow incorrect information in a video go by without someone like me helping out the other viewers so they don't just blindly believe everything they see and hear. If someone has already posted the same views as me by the time I got around to watching the video, you will usually not see a post from me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Ace7 Ace7 (1791 days ago)
CEngland0. Please read my post again.
ReplyVote up (227)down (176)
Original comment
CEngland0. Please read my post again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1790 days ago)
I read your post again. Now what? It appears to have the same text from when I read it the first time.
ReplyVote up (174)down (185)
Original comment
I read your post again. Now what? It appears to have the same text from when I read it the first time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Ace7 Ace7 (1786 days ago)
So did you spot your misquote then?
ReplyVote up (169)down (186)
Original comment
So did you spot your misquote then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Ace7 Ace7 (1794 days ago)
Allow me to retort. The jars were to demonstrate that CO2 retains heat. It worked and is repeatable. I have done it. The concentration was used to demonstrate the properties of the gas not to be a direct replication of our atmosphere. The current level of CO2 in our atmosphere makes a known difference to our climate. That fact is not disputed. (ie day and night temperatures are fairly consistent unlike, say, the moon which has temperature differences over 250 Deg. C between day and night.) Now the figures you quoted for our atmosphere CO2 look small but remember CO2 in the atmosphere does have a major effect and you increased that gas by over 20%. Do you think that won't make a difference? The lights being the same spectrum is irrelevant because the experiment was demonstrating the heat absorption properties of CO2 and was not a model of our atmosphere. Again I think you missed the point of the "dumbed down" demonstration. Now your comment on trees... Trees only absorb CO2 when they are alive. When they die all the CO2 is released back to the atmosphere as the tree decomposes/burns. Therefore trees will have no effect to the long term CO2 problem. Especially as we are cutting them down. And lastly the magnetism of the earth. This protects us from particles not infra red or even UV. Your turn.
ReplyVote up (254)down (190)
Original comment
Allow me to retort. The jars were to demonstrate that CO2 retains heat. It worked and is repeatable. I have done it. The concentration was used to demonstrate the properties of the gas not to be a direct replication of our atmosphere. The current level of CO2 in our atmosphere makes a known difference to our climate. That fact is not disputed. (ie day and night temperatures are fairly consistent unlike, say, the moon which has temperature differences over 250 Deg. C between day and night.) Now the figures you quoted for our atmosphere CO2 look small but remember CO2 in the atmosphere does have a major effect and you increased that gas by over 20%. Do you think that won't make a difference? The lights being the same spectrum is irrelevant because the experiment was demonstrating the heat absorption properties of CO2 and was not a model of our atmosphere. Again I think you missed the point of the "dumbed down" demonstration. Now your comment on trees... Trees only absorb CO2 when they are alive. When they die all the CO2 is released back to the atmosphere as the tree decomposes/burns. Therefore trees will have no effect to the long term CO2 problem. Especially as we are cutting them down. And lastly the magnetism of the earth. This protects us from particles not infra red or even UV. Your turn.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AdrianJBailey (1793 days ago)
It was not an experiment. If it were an experiment, there would have been a rationale, a hypothesis, and a clearly identified variable with detailed measurements taken. It was a demonstration to show that increasing CO2 in an environment raises the temperature of that environment - visual evidence of a statement of fact, because there are some people out there that don't believe this to be true. A second statement of fact is that even accounting for plant respiration, the net level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising year on year. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that, assuming constant flow of energy from the Sun, the Earth is retaining more and more heat because of the increase in CO2. Bear in mind that a CO2 makeup of 0.0314% in our atmosphere is enough to maintain temperatures at these levels. When there are so many scientists from so many reputable academic institutions that show findings to prove climate change is happening, the debate is really over. The question is now about what we do about it. I have seen quite a few of your posts, many of which seem to be conservative. In terms of economics, conservatives tend to lean toward an attitude of so called fiscal 'responsibility' defined as ensuring future generations are not saddled with the monetary debt of their parents. And yet, we are facing a situation where the actions of previous generations are impacting on our lives, yet we choose to burn fossil fuels with reckless impunity without a thought for future generations. You're either a very articulate troll, or obstinate in the face of evidence.
ReplyVote up (201)down (181)
Original comment
It was not an experiment. If it were an experiment, there would have been a rationale, a hypothesis, and a clearly identified variable with detailed measurements taken. It was a demonstration to show that increasing CO2 in an environment raises the temperature of that environment - visual evidence of a statement of fact, because there are some people out there that don't believe this to be true. A second statement of fact is that even accounting for plant respiration, the net level of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising year on year. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that, assuming constant flow of energy from the Sun, the Earth is retaining more and more heat because of the increase in CO2. Bear in mind that a CO2 makeup of 0.0314% in our atmosphere is enough to maintain temperatures at these levels. When there are so many scientists from so many reputable academic institutions that show findings to prove climate change is happening, the debate is really over. The question is now about what we do about it. I have seen quite a few of your posts, many of which seem to be conservative. In terms of economics, conservatives tend to lean toward an attitude of so called fiscal 'responsibility' defined as ensuring future generations are not saddled with the monetary debt of their parents. And yet, we are facing a situation where the actions of previous generations are impacting on our lives, yet we choose to burn fossil fuels with reckless impunity without a thought for future generations. You're either a very articulate troll, or obstinate in the face of evidence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1793 days ago)
I don't dispute the fact if you have regular air in one container and 100% CO2 in another container with both having heat lamps over them, the one with the 100% CO2 would be warmer. My dispute is that the Earth's climate is more complex than what was demonstrated. For example, the little CO2 that we have extra in our atmosphere that has built up in the last 100 years is nowhere near the 100% that was in the jar. Regarding your comment about so many scientists from so many reputable academic institutions "prove" climate change is happening, I can give you a list of over 700 that disagree that humans are the cause of that increase. How many can you give me that do think it is the cause? Besides, those scientists you mention are giving opinions and not proof. I bet you cannot get close to my 700. This link says 650 but more than 50 were added later: LINK Regarding your last statement about evidence, you provided none. You only state what others have said and that is not proof. I look forward to seeing your list of scientists that outweigh my list and some sort of proof. Oh, and by the way, I do not disagree that there has been a 2% increase in temperature in the last 100 years. My problem is with people assuming it's due to human created CO2 and no other natural causes but when you look back thousands, you can clearly see time periods where the earth was warmer than it is today. My contention is that it's POSSIBLE that this is a regular warming cycle the earth would go through anyway. So if you want to make up a story about human created CO2 as the cause, you need proof of that claim to be convincing. Perhaps others will blindly believe you but I require some sort of proof. That's why I don't believe in god. If you can prove there is a god, I might believe it too but you can't just state that there are millions of preachers out there that say there is one and use that as your only proof.
ReplyVote up (191)down (173)
Original comment
I don't dispute the fact if you have regular air in one container and 100% CO2 in another container with both having heat lamps over them, the one with the 100% CO2 would be warmer. My dispute is that the Earth's climate is more complex than what was demonstrated. For example, the little CO2 that we have extra in our atmosphere that has built up in the last 100 years is nowhere near the 100% that was in the jar. Regarding your comment about so many scientists from so many reputable academic institutions "prove" climate change is happening, I can give you a list of over 700 that disagree that humans are the cause of that increase. How many can you give me that do think it is the cause? Besides, those scientists you mention are giving opinions and not proof. I bet you cannot get close to my 700. This link says 650 but more than 50 were added later: LINK Regarding your last statement about evidence, you provided none. You only state what others have said and that is not proof. I look forward to seeing your list of scientists that outweigh my list and some sort of proof. Oh, and by the way, I do not disagree that there has been a 2% increase in temperature in the last 100 years. My problem is with people assuming it's due to human created CO2 and no other natural causes but when you look back thousands, you can clearly see time periods where the earth was warmer than it is today. My contention is that it's POSSIBLE that this is a regular warming cycle the earth would go through anyway. So if you want to make up a story about human created CO2 as the cause, you need proof of that claim to be convincing. Perhaps others will blindly believe you but I require some sort of proof. That's why I don't believe in god. If you can prove there is a god, I might believe it too but you can't just state that there are millions of preachers out there that say there is one and use that as your only proof.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1792 days ago)
Please do not use that 700 list again as evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change, because it isn't. It is simply a hand-picked list of 700 climate skeptics who happen to have some link with "science". Also, you can't compare the consensus of preachers that God exists, with the scientific consensus on climate change because that is based on the scientific method, whereas preachers base their beliefs on faith, ie. no evidence necessary.
ReplyVote up (192)down (203)
Original comment
Please do not use that 700 list again as evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change, because it isn't. It is simply a hand-picked list of 700 climate skeptics who happen to have some link with "science". Also, you can't compare the consensus of preachers that God exists, with the scientific consensus on climate change because that is based on the scientific method, whereas preachers base their beliefs on faith, ie. no evidence necessary.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1792 days ago)
WalterEgo, That is a valid list of scientists and I will continue to use it. It shows their name and credentials. AdrianJBailey stated that so many scientists agree that climate change is happening so I used that list to show him that he might be wrong. There might be a few but nobody has provided a list of scientists that is close to the 700 that do not agree so until someone does, I only have this list of scientists to go by. Actually, we all agree that the temperature has increased an average of 2 degrees within the last 100 years but the disagreement is regarding if humans are the cause or not. My preacher example is a perfect one because the scientists that do believe humans are the cause are doing it based on faith and no scientific evidence. Preachers think, for example, humans are too complex so a god must have created us and it could not have been done randomly. Scientists are doing the same thing by saying CO2 has increased and humans do create CO2 so humans must be the cause of the warming. There are other causes of warming that are unrelated to human created CO2 so this is a perfect comparison.
ReplyVote up (178)down (169)
Original comment
WalterEgo, That is a valid list of scientists and I will continue to use it. It shows their name and credentials. AdrianJBailey stated that so many scientists agree that climate change is happening so I used that list to show him that he might be wrong. There might be a few but nobody has provided a list of scientists that is close to the 700 that do not agree so until someone does, I only have this list of scientists to go by. Actually, we all agree that the temperature has increased an average of 2 degrees within the last 100 years but the disagreement is regarding if humans are the cause or not. My preacher example is a perfect one because the scientists that do believe humans are the cause are doing it based on faith and no scientific evidence. Preachers think, for example, humans are too complex so a god must have created us and it could not have been done randomly. Scientists are doing the same thing by saying CO2 has increased and humans do create CO2 so humans must be the cause of the warming. There are other causes of warming that are unrelated to human created CO2 so this is a perfect comparison.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1791 days ago)
Your 700 list is meaningless because it is simply a hand-picked list. It would be possible to build a hand-picked list of 700 creationists with "science" somewhere in their credentials. It's probably possible to build a list of 700 flat-earthers if you looked hard enough. If you want a valid list, then a good way to do it is to look at the top climate scientists (no. of peer reviewed articles would be a good way to measure their expertise), and then see how many of those are climate change skeptics. Fortunately, this has already been done. You know the results because we have discussed this before, but let me remind you - in one study of 489 top climate scientists, 97% believe climate change is happening, 85% of the 97% believe human activity is a major contribution. LINK In another study, let me quote: "About 97% of the group with the most expertise - the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published are convinced by the evidence of human-induced climate change." LINK
ReplyVote up (168)down (250)
Original comment
Your 700 list is meaningless because it is simply a hand-picked list. It would be possible to build a hand-picked list of 700 creationists with "science" somewhere in their credentials. It's probably possible to build a list of 700 flat-earthers if you looked hard enough. If you want a valid list, then a good way to do it is to look at the top climate scientists (no. of peer reviewed articles would be a good way to measure their expertise), and then see how many of those are climate change skeptics. Fortunately, this has already been done. You know the results because we have discussed this before, but let me remind you - in one study of 489 top climate scientists, 97% believe climate change is happening, 85% of the 97% believe human activity is a major contribution. LINK In another study, let me quote: "About 97% of the group with the most expertise - the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published are convinced by the evidence of human-induced climate change." LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1791 days ago)
WalterEgo, thanks again for your opinion but we had this discussion before. My list of 700 people are real people with real credentials and this list was sent to the senate committee. Your so-called list is not a list -- it's a summary of a survey. The 489 you mention are people were from a simple survey (apparently anonymous because I cannot find who these people are) and they were the only ones that responded from a much larger list. What about those that didn't respond? Could it be that they didn't agree but were worried about losing their jobs or something else if they stood up for their beliefs? Also, only 97% of those even believe that warming occurred and out of those, only 84% agree that it's human induced activity that is causing it. That brings the total number of scientists to 398.4372. Obviously the percentages they used were rounded. And, regarding your idea about hand picking scientists for their opinion based on the number of peer reviewed papers published is completely wrong. The fact they are peer reviewed makes them all have the same opinion now doesn't it? Think Galileo would have his idea peer reviewed and approved? It was controversial and unfair criteria to require that in order to give your opinion on the matter. Galileo was right even though he was tried and found suspected of heresy.
ReplyVote up (162)down (177)
Original comment
WalterEgo, thanks again for your opinion but we had this discussion before. My list of 700 people are real people with real credentials and this list was sent to the senate committee. Your so-called list is not a list -- it's a summary of a survey. The 489 you mention are people were from a simple survey (apparently anonymous because I cannot find who these people are) and they were the only ones that responded from a much larger list. What about those that didn't respond? Could it be that they didn't agree but were worried about losing their jobs or something else if they stood up for their beliefs? Also, only 97% of those even believe that warming occurred and out of those, only 84% agree that it's human induced activity that is causing it. That brings the total number of scientists to 398.4372. Obviously the percentages they used were rounded. And, regarding your idea about hand picking scientists for their opinion based on the number of peer reviewed papers published is completely wrong. The fact they are peer reviewed makes them all have the same opinion now doesn't it? Think Galileo would have his idea peer reviewed and approved? It was controversial and unfair criteria to require that in order to give your opinion on the matter. Galileo was right even though he was tried and found suspected of heresy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1794 days ago)
I agree, this experiment not only does not prove global warming is caused by humans, it is deliberately misleading with it's time charts. I want to see the same charts go back a few thousand years more so that they will show the global temperatures that exceeded today's temperature and could not possibly have been caused by man. whether or not you can replicate what this man did has no bearing on anything that is actually happening with our climate. C02 does retain heat has done forever and will continue to do so.. The point of this little "Experiment" Is not to educate but to indoctrinate.
ReplyVote up (172)down (174)
Original comment
I agree, this experiment not only does not prove global warming is caused by humans, it is deliberately misleading with it's time charts. I want to see the same charts go back a few thousand years more so that they will show the global temperatures that exceeded today's temperature and could not possibly have been caused by man. whether or not you can replicate what this man did has no bearing on anything that is actually happening with our climate. C02 does retain heat has done forever and will continue to do so.. The point of this little "Experiment" Is not to educate but to indoctrinate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: quiquirn (1793 days ago)
You know what gets me is that the idiot who posts this says its about science when its obvious its just propaganda for retards anyone with an ounce of genuine science knowledge will just ignore it
ReplyVote up (178)down (182)
Original comment
You know what gets me is that the idiot who posts this says its about science when its obvious its just propaganda for retards anyone with an ounce of genuine science knowledge will just ignore it
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Question for Bill Nye: Is the multiverse theory a paradox?
Question for Bill Nye: Is the multiverse theory a paradox?
Bill Nye vs climate change-denying physics professor
Bill Nye vs climate change-denying physics professor
Bill Nye's open letter to President Trump
Bill Nye's open letter to President Trump
Hey Bill Nye, what's the best way to handle overpopulation?
Hey Bill Nye, what's the best way to handle overpopulation?
Bill Nye tours Ark Encounter with Ken Ham
Bill Nye tours Ark Encounter with Ken Ham