Comments by "andrew worth" (@andrewworth7574) on "Valuetainment" channel.

http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/ There are a couple of tricks to watch out for, often skeptic commentators will focus of the US contiguous states data, tricking you into thinking it's global data and when they claim that adjustments have increased the apparent rate of warming they are certainly referring to the US data, in the US the adjustments have had a significant effect. The reason the adjustments in the US data has had such a large effect is due to a US wide trend towards taking measurement earlier in the day, before daily temperatures reach their maximum, as was the systemic method of data collection in earlier times. Also the skeptics like to point out that the US has not warmed since the 1930's, this is true - but only because, in picking the 1930's as their reference point, the skeptics are cherry-picking an exceptionally warm period in the US contiguous states climate history - the dust-bowl era, the US is now returning to the temperatures experienced at that time.
4
@J P "except satellite data reads decently different, showing a temperature stabilization." No it doesn't. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah6/plot/rss "The ocean warming is certain compared to what, exactly?" It's certain because we can measure it, both directly and through the effects of thermal expansion. "Volcanic activity plays a major role as well." Major eruptions have short term effects of surface temperature, that's the only major role of volcanism on the timescales under discussion. "And the ice melting? Well, a pole shift suggests a different story," I doubt you've any idea what you mean by that, the decline in land and sea ice has been accurately measured in recent decades. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/ice_sheets.html "Well, that's the basis GHGs work on. They absorb, and re-emit solar radiance... however, like i said, CO2 doesn't have that property." That looks like you're claiming that CO2 isn't a GHG, I'll assume that's not your meaning (because it's a really ignorant claim to make) and suggest you reword what you're trying to say. ". . the earth has been in a warming trend for centuries." No it hasn't, the warming trend is less than 2 centuries old. " "There are no observed mechanisms that can explain". If that were true, then like i keep saying, we wouldn't be entertaining the developement of new instruments and measurement systems used in helioseismilogy to further our understanding of the full spectrum of solar influence/forcing." We're continuously improving our understanding of the universe through better technology and new methods, we've been doing it for centuries and will continue to do AGW or no AGW. "TSI measurements still leave questions that need answers." TSI varies by less than 0.1% between solar maximum and solar minimum. Again I suspect you're out of your depth on the science. "The warming observed is inline with a trend that's been observed for centuries." Simply untrue, warming over the last century is unprecedented since at least the establishment of this interglacial period (there may have been similar rates of warming during the glacial to interglacial transition - about 12,000 years ago).
2
It's the low iq who think the moon landings were faked.
1
3:00 If you ask a lot of people what the most stressful event was in their lives, it'll be an occasion when they were indeed the victim of some lowlife, when they were a victim of fraud, violence or sexual crime, and people do actually encounter lowlifes their occupations. So I don't rate the question as useful.
1
To photograph the stars the images of the lunar surface would be over exposed. Cameras, and eyes adjust to light levels, if you're standing under a street light you'll find the stars are fainter. The lunar lander was larger than you think. The rover was folded up and secured to the outside of the descent stage.
1
It didn't leave the moon with a single blast, the engine kept firing. The plume from the propellant combination used just isn't visible to the eye.
1
Sibrel is a con artist, a grifter.
1
I've checked Sibrel's claims and none of them survive informed scrutiny. Sibrel has never debated his claims with anyone well enough informed to seriously challenge his claims. China, Japan, India and South Korea have all confirmed the existence of the landing sites with their own spacecraft.
1
No one who's studied the Van Allen Belts claim they were impassable for the astronauts. Despite claims to the contrary, microfilm of the blueprints of the Saturn V are in storage, a fully flight certified Saturn V is on display at the Johnson Space Center.
1
How about space probes to the moon, in recent years, from China, India, Japan, and South Korea, having confirmed the existence of the landing sites? Is that also baffling?
1
Your guarantee is worthless.
1
Both terms have been used for a long time, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization, the term "climate change" has become dominant because it's in the name and the term preferred by the scientists working on the issue and because increases in extremes of climate, rather than a couple of degrees warming, is where the experts think the focus should be.
1
A hint on the science: Don't get it off CNN or FOX, go to the peer reviewed literature and learn to understand the science.
1
What Sibrel claims is nonsense to anyone with a solid science and engineering background.
1
We've increased the amount of CO2 over the Earth's surface from 4.2 kg/m^2 to 6.2 kg/m^2 over the last 150 years, just as increasing the insulation in your house by 50% will reduce the rate at which heat escapes adding insulation to Earth's atmosphere reduces the rate at which heat escapes.
1
@J P I am going to deny it because your claim is simply untrue, natural forcings have not changed significantly in recent decades, solar forcing has been declining since 1960. "Insulation". No analogy is perfect but the fact that an increase in GHG concentrations slows the rate at which energy in Earth's atmosphere escapes to space thus increasing the temperature in the lower atmosphere - in the same way that increasing a houses thermal insulation will slow energy escape from the house (to a colder outside) is sound. If you don't agree state your reasoning.
1
@J P you haven't "studied" it, to do so you'd need to read and understand the literature, not go visit a few youtube channels and web sites that say what you want to hear. "You're the type. . ." Lots of people are "the type" to think that, for you to not think that you must be avoiding even the standard skeptic sites like Spencer's, Curry's and Watts that at least understand that CO2 is a GHG, even if they believe climate sensitivity is at the low end of the possible range. ". . . to think the most prevelant GHG (CO2), causes warming, which it does not." You contradict yourself inside a single sentence. If CO2 is a GHG it has the effect of making Earth's surface warmer than it would otherwise be, so saying it's a GHG that doesn't cause warming is nonsensical. And it's not the most prevalent GHG water vapor is - but now I guess I'll have to explain to you that water vapor is a feedback, and then I'll have to explain what that means . . . Go back to your Flat Earth sites or where ever it is you get you fix of nonsense.
1
@J P "Always with that "dunning-kruger" BS . . ." Yes, I've no doubt you frequently have to endure people referring to you and Dunning-Kruger in the same sentence.
1
@J P the conclusions of that study are consistent with an earlier 2008 paper from David Archer. What's your point, are you under the impression that the rate of decline from a CO2 pulse entering the atmosphere somehow has a bearing on our discussion? That the study somehow supports your belief that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations isn't a significant contributor to the enhanced GHE?
1
Live science debates are usually pointless because the depth the science needs to go to doesn't translate into such a simplistic format. As an example even live debates between Flat Earthers and "Ballers" won't settle what should, on the face of it, be a simple matter. If you're a "Baller" how do you, when sitting in someones office, prove the Earth is a globe? Photos from space? Faked! Testimony of astronauts? They're in on it! etc, etc.
1
@J P The warming over the last 60 years is certain, it's obvious in both the surface and satellite data, the ocean warming is certain and the ice melt is certain. The only rational conclusion is that the Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is releasing back to space, causing it to warm up. There are no observed mechanisms that can explain that observed radiative imbalance other than the enhanced GH Effect, and the warming observed is in line with that calculated by scientists as far back as a century ago.
1
@J P woodfortrees isn't an activist site, it just reproduces the data from GISS, The Hadley Centre - which both use the surface data set, and RSS and UAH, which both use the satellite data, if you come across a real data set that shows no global warming over the last 20 years link to it. NSIDC is also not an "activist site" I've just read the balance of you comment . . . you make several imaginative claims, link to the sources you use.
1
Sibrel is a grifter onto a good thing.
1
It was controlled by an operator in Houston. They tried it 3 times, on apollo 15, 16 and 17. It's the Apollo 17 shot in which they got the timing right.
1
@chadillac2472 obviously you're one of those facts don't matter people.
1
You are correct, they didn't go in '65, they went in '69.
1