HomeНаука и техникаRelated VideosMore From: 1000frolly

Sea Level and CO2 Thomas Wysmuller

415 ratings | 12226 views
Thomas Wysmuller, formerly of NASA, explains the relationship (or non-relationship) between CO2 and sea levels. Recorded at the London conference on climate change, Sept 8-9, 2016.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (126)
steve nunua (8 days ago)
I wish the graphs had citation of who what where and when they were created.
lilly bloom (1 month ago)
Carbon Dioxide is an organic compound formed by one atom of Carbon and two atoms of Oxygen (O=C=O). Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural constituent of the atmosphere with a density of 747 mg per cubic meter of air. Its concentration in the composition of air is roughly 0.032%; however, of all the organic compounds, carbon dioxide is by far the most important one for the sustainability of the biosphere (the whole of life on Earth). Without CO2 the life of photosynthetic organisms and animals would be impossible, given that CO2 provides the basis for the synthesis of organic compounds that provide nutrients for plants and animals. Through photosynthesis, organisms with chlorophyll take in atmospheric CO2 or dissolve CO2 in water to form more complex molecules, such as carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and nucleic acids. The general formula of photosynthesis is as follows: 6CO2 + 6H2O + Light = C6H12O6 (Glucose) + 6O2 To see the proof that C02 is not a pollutant, go here: http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_CO2.html
fireofenergy (1 month ago)
Bunch of lies. Silly people don't even know what infrared radiative forcing is (it's heating the world about 100x more than what the entirety of our global energy consumption does). CO2 is an infrared absorber and no amount of lies (from either side, mind you) can prevent these laws of physics from commencing. Go here to see just 1/100th the amount of fossil fuels BURNED (I dare ya)! https://biofry.wordpress.com/
YK Chan (1 month ago)
Realistic modeling, such as climate model, can be a daunting task involving full parameters, scaler, delay, uncertainty and deviations in each of those parameters under a time varying interactions. Delay can takes months years centuries. From hypothesis to theoretical model to mathematical model is a fantasy, remote from reality. To make a model behave less fantasy we usually back annotate this model with real world behavior or record, one parameter, scaler, exponent at a time and as much cycles as it takes until predictions agrees with past record, in hoping such prediction also hold true in the future. That is doable for steady state, static and dynamic modeling, however is next to impossible to back annotate a weather model of countless parameters and each specific delay when record data we have are limited to temperatures, ppm, sea level etc. Our academic institutions emphasis on specialization but generalization. While climate modeling and real world modeling requires both.
Climate C. Heretic (4 months ago)
Al Gore is the NWO... climate change alarmism is CONTROL over EVERYTHING.
Roy Oetting (4 months ago)
Good presentation. It was incomplete though and did not spend much time on solar cycles. I think the reason for that is that he kept saying thru the presentation that correlation is not causation and right now the best proof of solar driven climate is correlation. Until scientists like Svensmark and Soon figure out all the factors science should be relying on statistics so right now the correlation of solar activity temperature for the past thousand years should suffice to demonstrate future causation. It is going to get cold and we know this because of the major cycles of the sun historically repeats itself. One more thing is that as Svensmark has shown is that cosmic rays increase as the sun powers down and I mention this not as a climate factor which it is but as a health factor. I have to ask who is studying this because as we have seen an increase in CO2 the rise is cosmic rays is also apparent. I think this is going to play a factor in reducing average life span as more people die earlier due cosmic ray related health issues such as heart attacks. (foot note: We somehow have assumed that the rise in cO2 is anthropogenic and I'm pretty sure most of what we have seen isw an increase in natural CO2 rise in the atmosphere due to the delay between oceans giving up CO2 for when they began to be warmed which in this case was the medieval warming.)
Rea Ality (4 months ago)
"Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is an issue being used by 'Globalists/Socialists' toward the creation of a one-world government. This is in direct conflict with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Andy Croucheaux (5 months ago)
The presenter left out water vapor, which is the main greenhouse gas by far..
Władca Wymiaru (5 months ago)
Outgassing oceans cause made them shrink XD By the way: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICGal_8qI8c - Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSQlJx76b64 - Top 10 Facts that Prove CO2 Does NOT Drive
GordonVigurs (6 months ago)
The CO2 theory is seriously flawed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBvF9BBWTSs
GordonVigurs (9 months ago)
How can satellite radar operating at 3cm wavelength possibly resolve height changes of milimetres?
1000frolly (9 months ago)
It can't. All satellite sea level 'measurements' are utter nonsense.
Hans Jürgen Vetter (11 months ago)
Great presentation! Thanks! For all who want to learn the dynamics of climate should learn about cosmoclimatology from Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark - source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ&t
Silent Witness (1 year ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETu9LP4bCkw you know, science and stuff, economics, you know, eeeeeeeee let´s vote on it, you know, uuuuuuuuum, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZQWBrHnk0 2:42 I think the science is not settled...what a coward,
Harry Baines (1 year ago)
Yet another Heartland Institute oil shill.
The Killjoy (2 months ago)
That's a very convincing scientific argument. Oh wait, no, it's really not.
Phallus E (1 year ago)
Deleting and starting over is the only way to deal with trolls like Donald Clifford.
Richard Deron (1 year ago)
This guy is full of crap.
Marc Schuilenburg (8 months ago)
Your blind and dissolution ed can't you see its a political agenda to make money .
Donald Clifford (1 year ago)
Be specific.
Ian Macdonald (1 year ago)
Evidence that the sun's activity affects the climate on other planets, so it likely does on Earth too: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/31/baby-its-cold-outside-evidence-of-solar-cycle-affecting-earths-cloud-cover/
Harry Baines (1 year ago)
The paper they linked to mentioned *NOTHING* about climate. That was only added in by the writer of the article, an idiot ultra-conservative politician who claims single mothers are "too lazy to attract and hold a mate", who claimed the Australian Aboriginal stolen generation is a myth, and who knows absolutely *NOTHING about science. Tell me - how much have you noticed earth's climate change over the 11 year solar cycle? How much of a signal can we see in the various global temperature records?
Matt H (1 year ago)
Another great video Frolly! I see you are still attracting the warmist crowd. Wonder why they even bother commenting here!
Harry Baines (1 year ago)
Frightened of what exactly?
1000frolly (1 year ago)
Matt H Because they are frightened.
Ken Dickman (1 year ago)
Salt is the ever INVADOR  NOT CARBON, now the SEA ( ACIDITY ) tomorrow the LAND!!
primpal08 (1 year ago)
But CO2 is a deadly poison. That's why climate alarmists are using it to extract money from the West while making sure that the worlds' biggest CO2 emitter, China, is under no pressure to reduce its' CO2 levels at all - climate alarmists are, by their own standards, killing the planet for profit. Fortunately though, their science is junk science & every day their narrative crumbles a little more.
Bruce Williams Studio (1 year ago)
Thanks +1000frolly for your continued public service. I haven't been paying attention for some time now, but I'm so glad to see that reason and logic seem to be making headway. Merry Christmas my friend!
1000frolly (1 year ago)
primpal08 Good one! So now we have 'Communist' CO2 and 'Capitalist' CO2. Yes; we can all guess which one is toxic, that the globalists want to control & eliminate.
primpal08 (1 year ago)
Paul Carter Only CO2 produced by Western industry is toxic. Climate alarmist scienticians say so & globalist politicians agree. Or is it the other way around? It's hard to tell without a program.
Paul Carter (1 year ago)
primpal08 CO2 is chemically and biochemically very inert, not toxic. 400pm will never harm the breathng of any animal. 30% maybe. Yes, I agree that the main toxins here are greed and selfishness.
1000frolly (1 year ago)
Isn't it informative how climate activists never say a thing about communist China's massive emissions - already more than double the USA's, and set to double again by 2030? Hmmm, I wonder what their politics are?
Aaron Davis (1 year ago)
More recent data refutes Mr. Wysmuller's notion that temperatures are not rising. It is rising and has been for a long time. Polar ice melting is accelerating and once it's gone the effect on temperatures will be to rise abruptly. We can and must implement an Active Thermal Control system for the planet. We start by halting the rapid release of fossil and nuclear energy into the atmosphere and hydrosphere where natural radiant cooling cannot keep up, and causing increased humidity and cloud cover further suppressing nighttime radiant cooling. Wysmuller is correct in proposing airborne weather modification using the 100,000 flight per day commercial aircraft to increase clouds and humidity during the day and decreasing them at night.
Neville Buck (9 months ago)
TRUE. Simply google Professor Don Easterbrook Ph.D. a very senior, non-political, highly respected scientist who has stated clearly in a Congressional Hearing that his "Peer Reviewed" original data had been fraudulently altered and adjusted in the preparation of models and representations for FUNDING and GRANTS. ps: All the models, still have proven to FAIL even with the fraudulent alterations. FACT CHECKED.
Thermal Reboot (11 months ago)
You're looking for Patrick Moore formerly of Greenpeace.
Aaron Davis (1 year ago)
I agree, there seems to be a bias about accumulating levels of CO2 over what I think is simply a proxy for man made accumulation of excess heat that the planet has no natural means of rejecting. CO2, HCLs, Ozone all could potentially be what's known as forcing factors in that they absorb and slows outgoing radiation. But how much they do so relative to the big players like water vapor and could cover is not at all obvious. They've modeled the crap out of this hypothesis with what is known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) but variations in results are bigger then the offset. It is happenings, it is us, it's bad, and it can be fixed. But you have a good point, they need to not attack the proxy and go after the real problem; how to reject more heat to space.
1000frolly (1 year ago)
dastardlyman How much does NASA a year now get to 'investigate' climate? US$2 Billion - that buys a lot of 'science'.
dastardlyman (1 year ago)
there is a problem with nasa - they are so invested in the co2 global warming nonsense that they are going back and changing temperatures from history to make today look warmer. one of the founders of greenpeace - i for get his name is very angry about this - he is worth watching. all the climate models are wrong or incomplete and have been predicting disaster since the 1990s - its all hype and nonsense. the kids in uk schools are taught c02 warming as fact - it makes me very sad.
Borce Ivanovski (1 year ago)
www.labofcarbon.com.au is the only genuine instant solution for get rid off CO2 #&#
YourTV Unplugged (1 year ago)
Yep, it's like this... You either have the authority as truth... Or truth as the authority! Those people have chosen the former and allowed themselves to trapped in their disinformation chambers with no escape (because anything that doesn't come from their disinformation source they feel they can't trust, so therefore they end up only trusting disinformation. A truly horrible state for a mind to be in)... Next time to try and break through to them, ask them this: If you put so much trust into these few sources thinking they could never lie to you, don't you see that's exactly how they can and are getting away with lying to you? If they think they can never lie ,then the opposite is true, because by thinking they could never lie allows them to easily lie to you constantly because you've by default given them credit for telling the truth without verifying their information, because you're just trusting it. Well guess what your trust has been betrayed! Seriously tell them, if you really think they could never lie, then you've just made it impossible for them not to lie! The moment you started blindly trusting them, is the same exact moment they betrayed that trust and started selling you all the bridges in the united states and now they're getting to the rest of them of the world!
Noevilea (1 year ago)
YourTV Unplugged I`m at a loss to understand the mentality of many people these days because no matter what you may point them towards as an alternative source of data instead of the IPCC, NOAA and NASA`s BS they tend to claim anything NOT from those sources cant be trusted as those 3 mentioned are the ONLY sources that know what they are talking about. Would not surprise me to find many of these morons are flat earthers. In fact it would explain a hell of a lot.
YourTV Unplugged (1 year ago)
Yea pretty crazy Noevilea, anyone's who's taken even a little time to look into it will recognize it for what it is, a massive fraud... But the people that haven't are basically being weaponized against us and against themselves (while they feel they're doing a noble thing of trying to protect the environment, when really they've been conned into helping them try to gain control of our human energy... That's what this is really all about they don't give a flying fuck about the environment, in fact they'll contribute to destroying it if they thought it would help their cause [seems like they're doing just that right now with their aerosol injections, common haven't we aleady learned aerosols are bad for the ozone layer? Why do we throw out known good information, in favor of pseudo science bogus information? So lets forget what we know, and waste our time on a dead end path... yea that makes sense... really shows they don't care about the environment and only care about their agenda). Luckily though I don't see too many real people like that these days, when I talk to real people they kind of know how crap it is with the sheer amount of bullshit they've been spewing over the years, so it's like they've cried wolf one too many times and hadn't rammed their agenda through fast enough before people realizing they were full of shit! We're winning this though, more and more I only see nothing but bots spouting the global warming lie... They must be feeling more and more alone :D Hahaha Borce, that's funny... Photosysthesis... is that a belief? No it's a fact of nature... CO2 for plants O2 (oxygen) for humans in exchange. That's another fact of nature, not a belief... It is you who have the belief that one of the most essential components of our planet could somehow be detrimental to our planet... That is your belief, I don't have a belief... I have the knowledge that an essential component of life on the planet could not possibly have a detrimental effect on planet! That makes ZERO sense and could not possibly be so! That would be like saying oxygen an essential component of how you stay alive by breathing, is somehow detrimental to your health.... WHAT??? No it is the absence of it that would be detrimental! If you really think CO2 is detrimental to the planet, and you actually believe that... Then guess what you exhale CO2, so as you read this start holding your breath and don't ever stop, because if you exhale anymore you'll be hurting the planet, according to your belief system! See how retarded you are for believing in it?
Borce Ivanovski (1 year ago)
YourTV Unplugged of course you don't have to convince California people because if you try it would be interesting humor show # Please continue to live with your believes and enjoy the aircon #
Noevilea (1 year ago)
YourTV Unplugged Still astounds me the amount of people that push the fear as proposed in the media for the agenda of those that made up all this BS in the first place. Most are simply too lazy to bother doing research so become mouth pieces for the religion of fear that we alone are causing problems while they ignore the fact that Co2 levels were at times up to 2000 PPM.
Jackyboy335 (1 year ago)
FACTS: Global humanity is burning 800,000+ tons of coal EVERY HOUR...24/7. Global humanity is consuming(mostly burning) 162,000,000 gallons of crude oil EVERY HOUR...24/7. Global human population is increasing by 9,000 EVERY HOUR...24/7. The depth of the earth's atmosphere is comparable to a coat of paint on a basketball. Is this not having any effect on anything?
Thermal Reboot (11 months ago)
Jackyboy335 Gee, that sounds like a lot. However, can you tell me how large the atmosphere is in tons? How much CO2 from all sources enters the atmosphere each year and as a percentage of the total how much is due to human activity? Further, how much impact does CO2 have as a global warming gas compared to the combined total of ALL global warming gases?
Ell Bee (11 months ago)
1000frolly In response to your response to Jackboy and your citing of a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) news release. As stated in the article they were, "able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes." They went on to say, "On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example." There is always that dreaded word, "however"!
Harry Baines (1 year ago)
1000frolly _"Yes, more CO2 is hugely beneficial"_ But you claimed the opposite in your PhD paper.
Dwight E Howell (1 year ago)
Biomass is up. Plants grow faster and need less water.
Peter Vudrag (1 year ago)
If we burn every last bit of coal, oil or gas, and all the animals fart their brains out we will manage to warm up our planet by no more than 0.02 degrees. see 1000frolly for another look at why
Shaun Moller (1 year ago)
The thing that ALWAYS happens when a "global warming" person comments or talks to some one, is they NEVER think the sun has anything to do with warming/cooling. NEVER do they understand the sun is the only damn thing that heats/cools this planet. Not even seeing the main thing to the issue is blind irrational blabber. The sun is the thing, not us, not CO2...... the sun god damn it.
Graham Lyons (1 month ago)
+Mike Arkwright Good point. I am speculating: the number of volcanic eruptions on land are sporadic and therefore it's likely that so are subsea volcanic eruptions are also sporadic i.e. some time periods have many other periods few.
Mike Arkwright (1 month ago)
+Graham Lyons I'm assuming that you have documented that there has been a big uptick in subsea volcano activity, in order to explain the rising temps of the seas?
Graham Lyons (11 months ago)
Johnny Jones: absolutely correct and hardly ever considered. The oceans take up two thirds of the surface of the plane. It follows logically, that there are three times as many volcanos under water as on land. The effect of under water volcanos on global warming is even greater than that of land volcanos: volcanos erupt on land and the resulting heat dissipates into space through air; heat from volcanos, erupting from the depths of the oceans, takes years, if not decades, to reach the surface.
Ian Macdonald (1 year ago)
Not necessarily. Kirchhoff's Law of Thermodynamics says that an absorber of thermal radiation MUST also be an emitter. There are no exceptions. Thus, CO2 also has a cooling effect on the upper atmosphere since it provides a way for heat to be liberated to space. .
MrToby (1 year ago)
The argument regarding CO2 is generally about trapping heat and not about creating it. Pretty sure most scientists realize that heat comes from the sun. Just saying.
King Miura (1 year ago)
I see evidence that the CO2 narrative is being talked about less and less by the "warmists" who are now talking more about methane and also just broadening the whole matter into man's destruction of the environment, see? Man is just...well, he's just altering the climate....changing the patterns.....it is just too many humans....consuming too much....making too many changes, see? They say they have met the enemy....and that enemy is man, see? They will not admit they were wrong on CO2....they will change the subject, see?
Leon Hostad (20 hours ago)
Well they have to keep the grant money flowing, and the people paying them have to keep justifying taxation, tidy little arrangement....
dlwatib (1 year ago)
Yes, and now that the miniscule sea level rise is no longer as scary as they had hoped they have started talking about ocean "acidification", as if the world's oceans could possible turn from alkaline to acid by the addition of trace amounts (.0012%) of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere.
Bill Franks (1 year ago)
Sad I hoped he was credible. Too bad. His figures are incorrect to actual facts. Ice volume in Antarctica has dropped not gone up.Same facts about Greenland. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/14/16772722/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-sea-level-rise
Dwight E Howell (10 months ago)
NASA did a radar map of the place. Most of Antarctic is several feet higher than the last time they checked. The best evidence is that is snow. The only part with melting seems to have at least 143 active volcanoes. A recent publications found the thick attached ice sheets were freezing from below. They drilled through and examined the ice at the bottom. You can read and hear a lot of bleep. Recently a news outlet said Greenland had a fortnight or two weeks above freezing because of cold air sliding into Europe. Check the records showing the temps and found out it got all the way up to -20 C which was actually a bit of warming but hardly likely to melt the ice sheet even if it was made out of vodka.
Dwight E Howell (10 months ago)
Not really. More like I may be able to give you a lead to a lead. I've watched some lectures by Professor Salby : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM This is one of his lectures. In at least two of them he explains that studies on the residence time of C14 in the atmosphere crated by atomic bomb testing allowed researchers to determine how fast CO2 was removed by natural sinks with most of it being gone in 10 yrs and not detectable any more in 20 yrs. I'm thinking that the studies done on the removal of C14 created by the atmospheric testing are the only possible source of valid data on what actually happens in an atmosphere and I'm hoping nobody repeats them because no more atomic bombs go off in open air. I do think he located the information you are looking for or at least the best approximation available that isn't based on guess work. He used what appeared to be a graph showing what you want in one lecture. I'm not saying the graph is good enough for your needs but if you can find out who made the graph they might be able to help you out. This suggests the experts don't agree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM Good luck and best wishes.
Geoffrey Stevenson (10 months ago)
Dwight, Do you have any good refs on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere? I came across some sources which ref an average time but that is still a little meaningless (to me) unless you also have the standard deviations. Also, I do not understand why residence time is quoted as an average rather than a half-life like radioactive decay. That I would think is a more meaningful way of describing reabsorption. But hey, I am just an instrumentation engineer (at least I was).
Dwight E Howell (11 months ago)
The theory was that CO2 would cause modest warming causing more water to evaporate. However warming just speeds up the water cycle and should also cause more clouds to form which would also shade the surface. CO2 is somewhat unevenly distributed and convection currents are free to do their thing nor is it clear that adding CO2 which is actually a kind of pitiful greenhouse gas is going to do much any more than painting a black surface black will cause it to absorb more heat. It only impacts a tiny part of the spectrum. What has been demonstrated is CO2 has a fast cycle with the gas entering the air and being grabbed from the air by green plants and other sinks occurring at a much faster rate than expected.
Graham Lyons (11 months ago)
YOURTVUNPLUGGED: Who is the 'you' you are talking to?
Island Aerial (1 year ago)
Another gem. Thanks!
Europa Europa (1 year ago)
Climate change, global warming, CO2, sea level rise, methane, arctic ice reduction are all code words for taxpayer money embezzlement. Warmers are funded by deep pockets to promote their agenda of lies, exaggeration, and sensationalism.
Europa Europa (1 year ago)
Exactly, even nitrogen which makes up 78% of the atmosphere traps heat and oxygen, which makes up 21% of the atmosphere, also traps heat. But they won't tell you that nitrogen and oxygen are bad guys just like CO2. Methane is everywhere in the universe not just on Earth, but other celestial worlds in our solar system such as Titan. They have even found methane floating freely in deep space and not a part of any heavenly body. My point is that it is more plentiful then most people think and makes up about 80-90% of natural gas used in heating homes and offices as well as electrical energy production from gas turbines.
YourTV Unplugged (1 year ago)
Right on Ken! Fuck off Bill CO2 is good for the planet and frollys already proved that every other gas is the same and doesn't matter which gas it is, the effect is a constant! With his formula that proves that the type of gas doesn't matter whatever gases the environment are made up of all fit into the same equation and get an accurate result! So all this alarmism of things that naturally make up our atmosphere is ridiculous! lol next you'll be screaming watch out oxygen its everywhere, oxygen its bad for you!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL your so dumb that you would think oxygen is bad for you if they told you that next! lol Right taxation and theft will do nothing to help this imaginary problem... It'll just create a new one!
Bill Franks (1 year ago)
Methane levels have doubled.Nitros oxide and hydrogen sulfide have risen drastically too. I am with Trump on poling out of the fraudulent Paris ripoff. Taxation and restrictions will do nothing to help this problem. The problem, is real.
Franklin Taylor (1 year ago)
Thank you Sir!
J Henry Phillips (1 year ago)
Even the advertisement was good! Altruist National Socialism has turned Latin America into a huge slum loke 1980s Moscow
Corey Falls (1 year ago)
Staten Island is a perfect place to measure Sea Levels, My family used to own Staten Island when we were oil barons, back then up to 382 years ago, we used to get oil for our lamps from whales. Staten Island was perfect for beaching whales as it was such a low grade to the Ocean, I am in Canada now, a non Loyal Loyalist, so tell me as I have never been back, Is Staten Island now under water? We used to own Coney Island as well, even lower, is it still above water? Most area was around 3ft above the waterline back then in the 1600's.
Andy Croucheaux (1 year ago)
Thankyou again Frolly !
Jamal Munshi (1 year ago)
A test of the anthropogenic sea level rise hypithesis. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023248
Bill Franks (1 year ago)
Climate change, Unfortunately, the oxygen will be replaced with hydrogen sulfide and methane, nitrous oxide. Our end will come from affiliation and spontaneous fires. Warming is a side effect. Extinction is the end product.
bakters (1 year ago)
+Bill Franks - Since the temperatures are growing so steadily, should I invest in an arctic port somewhere in the North West Passage region? Because people did... I wonder how much they earned from all this shipping going across the north of Canada?
Steve Selwood (1 year ago)
@Bill Franks: Yes, at the same rate as before 1950, when CO2 was much lower. Go figure ay, no affect from CO2 at all. I'm not sure a few mm per year could be claimed as "fast" lol I wouldn't sit on the shore and wait for the sea level to rise, you'll be very very bored lol
Bill Franks (1 year ago)
Wow, I did not know it was rising so fast scenes 1950.
Steve Selwood (1 year ago)
@Bill Franks: Well done, you've proved that tripe is published widely :) Now how about we look at some real data instead of political & funding biased fake science. Of course, if you'd watched the video, you'd have seen plenty of real evidence. The issue is a really simple one, so simple that anyone can look at it and see for themselves. I encourage everyone to examine the empirical evidence. There are hundreds of long-term tide gauge records from all over the globe. By long-term I mean more than 90 years. These are available on the NOAA website. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.htm Just look at many long-term charts, and see if there is any significant acceleration. I think you will find that the pre 1950 part of the chart looks very very similar to the post 1970 part of the chart. With increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the claimed affect on the climate, how is it possible that there is no significant affect on local sea levels? To make it easier, here is a list of long-term tide gauge charts from around the globe. Mean Sea Level at Brest, France http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=190-091&g_date=1800/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=190-091 Mean Sea Level at Wismar, Germany http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=120-022&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1&g_date=1840/1-2099/12 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=120-022 Mean Sea Level at San Francisco, CA, USA http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9414290&g_date=1850/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 Mean Sea Level at The Battery, NY, USA http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8518750&g_date=1850/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 Mean Sea Level at Aberdeen I & II, UK http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=170-011&g_date=1860/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=170-011 Mean Sea Level at Poti, Georgia http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=305-021&g_date=1870/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=305-021 Mean Sea Level at Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=680-140&g_date=1880/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=680-140 Mean Sea Level at Honolulu, HI, USA http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=1612340&quadratic=1&g_date=1900/1-2099/12&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1612340 Here are a couple of tide gauge charts with a 1M sea level rise prediction. The Battery New York https://i.imgur.com/ecqWQ4M.png Sydney Australia https://i.imgur.com/RmQrz3Y.png Is such a prediction credible from the charts? If you wish to support the predictions of sea level rise you have to explain why these charts do not support such claims. This chart makes the point, that pre 1950 looks just like post 1970. http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2016-04_anthro_vs_natural.png Such a chart can be repeated for every long-term local sea level chart on the NOAA website.
Axe Man (1 year ago)
"contrails". yeah right.
J Glad (1 year ago)
Axe Man So sad and so completely obvious that the couple thousand unbelievably rich owners of Evil Corp. had a meeting and decided that if the slaves were catching on and unsettled by the horrible degradation to our environment and quality of life they had to come up with a way to limit their personal liability, shift blame onto the poor, and come up with some excuse to tax and scam everyone further into poverty with broadsweeping price increases so we'd all shut up and be to busy slaving to save up for food water and shelter so we wouldn't have time nor the will to complain or ask anymore questions. Nasty sentence.. but true enough if you look at the state of affairs on this planet.
Axe Man (1 year ago)
+J Glad, Oh I agree, One of my big beefs with all this climate change nonsense is that it has distracted from, and starved of research funding, many real environmental issues.
J Glad (1 year ago)
Even *if* those streaks in the sky are "jet engine exhaust" there is no such thing as an engine with 100% efficiency of a fuel burn.. so all the fuel, fuel "additives" and soot raining down everyday is carcinogenic and toxic. This fact has been deliberately obscured by the weather mod and chem-trail ranting. Seriously... https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.