I strongly object to the use of "skeptic" when referring to deniers of evidence! I consider that slanderous. Skeptics do not reject the evidence for human-caused climate change: Denialists do.
Taking a look at global energy flows (26:26). We have the sun, the only energy source in the system, providing incoming solar radiation in the amount of 341 Wm-2. Now let's add up all the energy striking the earth: 23+161+333=517 Wm-2. Anyone care to explain this additional generation of 176 Wm-2 of energy out of thin air, in light of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
It's a tragedy to see that this talk on climate science by a recognized expert gets just a few hundred clicks while "climate science hoax" gets half a million.
Outstanding presentation, not dumbed-down or sensationalized for mass consumption, yet accessible and comprehensive. It's sickening the way denier blogs and their spambot armies completely dismiss the scientific process and resort to accusations of malfeasance rather than calmly studying issues at hand. The notion of ocean heat being sequestered at varying rates in different locations and depths is intuitively obvious, yet I've seen dozens of ignorant parroted comments in which any discussion of ocean heat is regarded as an attempt to cover up the "hiatus" by monkeying with data. I admire any researcher who has the capacity to deal with this idiotic, ideological assault on their work.
Linked to this video at: www.quora.com/Black-body-radiation-goes-like-T-4-The-green-house-gas-effect-goes-like-the-log-of-the-CO2-concentration-Dont-these-combine-to-severely-limit-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
@grindupBaker If it's drivel, how can you refute it? Slander is not science. Self-promoting link? It's not a commercial link, it's information and I provide it free at my own expense. It tells the truth to the U.N. IPCC's lies. If you think you can logically refute my work, I simplified the disproof of the CO2-driven AGW hoax even more in this free link: www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
Excellent video.
I strongly object to the use of "skeptic" when referring to deniers of evidence! I consider that slanderous. Skeptics do not reject the evidence for human-caused climate change: Denialists do.
9:40 - "May be irreversible if collapse begins." was a prophetic statement.
Brilliant lecture thank you
Taking a look at global energy flows (26:26). We have the sun, the only energy source in the system, providing incoming solar radiation in the amount of 341 Wm-2. Now let's add up all the energy striking the earth: 23+161+333=517 Wm-2. Anyone care to explain this additional generation of 176 Wm-2 of energy out of thin air, in light of the First Law of Thermodynamics?
The UN appointed an *Economist* to head the IPCC. This shows us that the IPCC and the UN should be disbanded.
It's a tragedy to see that this talk on climate science by a recognized expert gets just a few hundred clicks while "climate science hoax" gets half a million.
Looking at Trenberth's vitae it looks like he's never taken a undergrad or graduate physics course in his life.
Outstanding presentation, not dumbed-down or sensationalized for mass consumption, yet accessible and comprehensive. It's sickening the way denier blogs and their spambot armies completely dismiss the scientific process and resort to accusations of malfeasance rather than calmly studying issues at hand. The notion of ocean heat being sequestered at varying rates in different locations and depths is intuitively obvious, yet I've seen dozens of ignorant parroted comments in which any discussion of ocean heat is regarded as an attempt to cover up the "hiatus" by monkeying with data. I admire any researcher who has the capacity to deal with this idiotic, ideological assault on their work.
If it can't be summed up in a headline and accompanying graph, they tend not to be too interested.
Linked to this video at: www.quora.com/Black-body-radiation-goes-like-T-4-The-green-house-gas-effect-goes-like-the-log-of-the-CO2-concentration-Dont-these-combine-to-severely-limit-climate-change/answer/TL-Winslow
@grindupBaker If it's drivel, how can you refute it? Slander is not science. Self-promoting link? It's not a commercial link, it's information and I provide it free at my own expense. It tells the truth to the U.N. IPCC's lies. If you think you can logically refute my work, I simplified the disproof of the CO2-driven AGW hoax even more in this free link:
www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html
That's all you got out of this informative presentation?
You watched the whole vid and that's all you got out of it?
No flashy graphics and cliche words to keep the climate deniers occupied.