Climate Change Just Changed

Mutiny on the SS Global Warming, Perpetrated by the Top Ranked “Sailors on that vessel”

Carbon Effect Paper: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html
Solar Data: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/gmd-10-2247-2017-discussion.html

2018 Conference Page: http://www.observatoryproject.com/otf2018
Conference Speakers: https://youtu.be/DtyEL2OI1Bc

http://www.Suspicious0bservers.org 
http://www.SpaceWeatherNews.com
http://www.QuakeWatch.net
http://www.ObservatoryProject.com
http://www.EarthChanges.org
http://www.MagneticReversal.org

Facebook: https://www. FACEBOOK /observatoryproject/
Alerts on Twitter: twitter: #TheRealS0s

The Disaster Prediction App:
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.disasterprediction.ios
Apple: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/disaster-prediction-app/id1177806007

How to Use the App: https://youtu.be/ZhYjGQFMJ1M

Our Book “Weatherman’s Guide to the Sun”
[PDF DOWNLOAD: http://OTF.selz.com ]

20 thoughts on “Climate Change Just Changed”

  1. This shouldn't be necessary, but I feel I have to point out to everyone rubbing their hands and saying "Ha! A bunch of scientists are finally agreeing that climate change is a myth" that the paper in question is saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. You do not need have to go further than the abstract (JUST FOLLOW THE LINK!) to establish that this group is saying we need to double down on CO2 restrictions. Get this:
    If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation.

    PLEASE PLEASE READ THIS!!!!! For Suspicious Observers read lying scumbags funded by big oil. ]

    There is no mutiny on the good-ship Global Warming. The entire crew is on board and agreed on the course the vessel needs to take.

    Reply
  2. You subtitle your video : Mutiny on the SS Global Warming, Perpetrated by the Top Ranked "Sailors on that vessel"

    And then you are surprised when people think it's a denial video. Amazing.

    Reply
  3. "Politically Incorrect
    1 month ago
    The sun is responsible for climate change now they will figure out a way to make money from that."

    It is very easy to make money from that. It is called climatology, the study of climate. What affects climate they study. Like the sun. Mainly they don't study causes, since it is all just the sun. They study trends.

    Reply
  4. At this point the collapse of civilization is essentially assured. It is wishful thinking to imagine given the set of arrangements our political and economic system demands of industry that anything will change substantially over the next couple of decades. Neoclassical econ and the banking system demands growth at all costs. Even if the paper's conclusions are correct it is hard to imagine that we are going to change our energy production and use to the extent necessary to mitigate and eventually curtail our emissions to ZERO by 2080. Wishing that Jesus will actually save your ass and put you in a mythical place called heaven after you die is just as likely to have the same odds of success. Also, no real practical way to remove CO2 inexpensively at scale has yet been developed and it is hard to imagine that Arctic amplification and the other positive feed backs currently working to produce 2 molecules of CO2 for every 3 we produce will suddenly stop. I really do think it is over folks. We must get used to the idea that adaptation is essentially the only option after the collapse which will probably occur within about two decades unless a nuclear skirmish occurs. Even a small scale regional exchange would turn off the civilizational heat engine for a week or so, long enough for the removal of sulfate aerosols to unmask the true extent of the radiative forcing of GHGs. This would heat the planet at least 1 C in a very short period and our fate would be sealed even sooner.

    Reply
  5. The uploader is an ignoramus.
    He clearly has no capacity for understanding a scientific paper and his claims are way off.
    If you do not understand something, best not to upload nonsense onto Youtube and expect people to support what you present.
    The referenced paper is about the affects of different mitigation strategies on future climate, nothing more and nothing less.
    CO2 is certainly NOT the only climate driver, and efforts to mitigate the non-CO2 drivers can therefore allow greater CO2 emissions, with the net effect on temperature being unchanged into the future.
    More FAKE NEWS from the idiotic Americans!

    Reply
  6. To TheGalmo Apologies , I do not want to get involved in a discussion with you as I am not qualified to do so. However when I mentioned I had reached my own conclusions they were not based upon one solitary report, good luck with your own nit picking research though.

    Reply
  7. To the TheGalmo. I am quite capable of reaching my own conclusions thank you. The only time I have heard the term "you tubers" is from children.

    Reply
  8. Man-made CO2 IS NOT the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change.

    Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/10/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby-explains-why-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

    In my book professor, Michio Kaku lost credibility when he said: "Human-caused global warming"
    And here is why: "Climate" is by antonomasia "change" There is not a single place on earth that maintain the same climate for a second much less temperature, it would be catastrophic. A single volcano produces more GHG than the whole human emissions

    Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent

    greatwhitecon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-graphs/#Compactness

    Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
    Editor’s note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.

    Reply
  9. You can't predict sunspots!!! esp to 2150!!!!
    This is bollocks folks another attempt top trick you into a false sense of security
    – hey kid… you can't fool me.

    Do us a favour, go kill yourself.

    Reply
  10. Let's sum the it all up. Yes, CO2 is warming the atmosphere and increasing storm damage, drought and heat waves, and ocean acidification. Fossil fuel burning is causing this and the cost to the environment is steep. Oil spills, fracked aquifers, coal-sludge spills, mercury and other toxins in our food and water, acid rain, lung cancers and other health effects. But here's this paper that says we might have a bit more breathing room than previously thought and the deniers jump on it like it proves Climatology is bunk and we have nothing to worry about. Pathetic!

    Reply
  11. Doesn't CO2 being significantly less of a 'greenhouse' gas mean that the effects of natural forcings have a far greater impact than previously thought? And don't those natural forcings include cooling effects? And doesn't that change the whole scenario for the future?

    Reply
  12. You do realise that most of the methane is also the result of human activity as well? (around 80% according to GHG online)

    Reply
  13. There is so much bull shit in this video that glosses over the reasons why CO2's thermal effect was re-calculated that the viewer can easily become mis-informed by the obvious bias shown by the narator against science foundations.If he did read the cost manifesto for climate and ecological work across the whole demographic he would see that trillions are spent on subsidising oil companies which pays for exploration work.That can't be done without a whole swathe of scientists including meteorologists and geologists.All of whom know about the physics of the climate but have been kept quiet about it by the big fat foot of the oil industry. It's not 50% decrease in heat absorbtion. It's 50% of previous warming total since 1890 having to be lowered due to a change in base line averages of the climate record. The atmosphere is still going to warm near enough and if not more so than previous optimistic predictions could have offered.Don't be stupid. Don't get dirty like this video. Go clean.

    Reply
  14. Here is the abstract from the paper they are quoting here:
    The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

    Still with me? I'm not a climate scientist. Neither, I suspect, is the twat who posted this video. But just pay attention to the last bit from above:
    "Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible."
    This paper is clearly saying that it is ESSENTIAL to STRENGTHEN pledges on CO2 reduction in 2030.

    You just have to read the F*** ing abstract to see what conclusions are being reached. So much climate change denial is based on stupidity and lies! We really are risking the survival or our species.

    Reply
  15. Don't believe a handful of scientists? Then listen to these politicians and hollywood actors tax the ait that you breath.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to bluegold21 Cancel reply

16 + 5 =