Global Warming – Natural vs. Manmade Causes Compared By NASA | Video

When you compare possible natural causes (orbital, solar and volcanic activity) over the course of the last 100+ years, to possible manmade causes (aerosols, deforestation and greenhouses gases), the winner is clear. Greenhouse gases directly correlate to an increase in Earth temperature.

Credit: NASA/GSFC GISS
Video Rating: / 5

They build transparent boxes, fill some with CO2 and methane, then monitor temperature differences.
Video Rating: / 5

33 thoughts on “Global Warming – Natural vs. Manmade Causes Compared By NASA | Video”

  1. It is curious, but still does not take all variables into affect. Please continue adding information to justify something.
    Live Life:)

    Reply
  2. The great barrier reef was announced dead last year after being alive for 25 million years, it lived through the last ice age and many other climate changes but now its dead. How do you explain that if not for human impact? Surely whatever natural cycle could have caused its death would have came and went many times since. It died because the water was too warm. The earth is dying… I dont think there will be much left 200 years from now if things continue as they are. Im no scientist but from my understanding the environment is a delicate interconnected living thing, if the largest reef is dead and 30 to 50 percent of all species on earth are estimated to go extinct by 2050 and what is remaining of the rain forests is estimated to be gone within 40 years if current rates of deforestation keep up… kinda seems like we might be fucking up the balance a bit… fuck the economy its fucking us anyways, I always hear people making the point about protecting economic stability by keeping calm and carrying on and doing nothing to change the bullshit in the world, it nice that we 1st worlders can maintain our slave machine economy and sit up on the thrones that the rest of the world carries for us. While we eat 4 times more than we need to survive everyday and 80% of the population starves. Maybe it'd be good for us to have to ration what we eat for a while and learn to grow food again and survive, maybe itd be good if we learned the real meaning of the word community and had to work together towards something better.Time to innovate and make an effort in a reasonable planned out way to heal the planet and live in harmony with its natural cycles. Not enough is being done it needs to be more of a priority.

    Reply
  3. if temperature change can be a sum of all the factors presented, like in a polynomial function, the video seemed to assume every factor's coefficient is 1, having the same quality/quantity of effect on temp change… plotting CO2 in a different unit scale does not prove anything.

    Reply
  4. Are my comments gone? :O VideoFromSpace, what is this sorcery? 🙁 Edit: Are people allowed to post links? Maybe because of that? Does anybody know?

    Reply
  5. Nice presentation. Let's recap: we have measured a 1.4 degree Fahrenheit (0.78 degree Celsius) increase since 1880. So In absolute terms the earth has increased in temperature 0.269% in the last 136 years. That is 136 years of the most booming (rapid growth) period in human history (Both population growth and per capita wealth). Also, Over the last 2.6 million years, the planet has experienced a series of glacial periods separated by thaws, or interglacials. In the long run we are heading toward another glacial period (or "Ice age"), but the green house effect of humanity will delay this period for thousands of years. In the near term (say 1000 years) we will likely see some observable sea rise that is so gradual that society will have ample time to make the needed changes. But in the longer term, we are actually helping sustain most of the biological life on earth for thousands of years before the next glacial cycle destroys most life.

    THE SKY IS FALLING! So let's over-regulate all human industry to the point of economic stagnation (or collapse) so that our grandchildren are less advanced than we are. In the name of saving the future we can do more harm than good, and we aren't even going to cause as much damage as the propaganda will have us believe. In the much longer term we are even helping sustain life on earth, with the medium term risk of flooding out a few low lying areas that may have to slowly adapt over the next 1000 years to changing sea levels…

    Just an alternative perspective on this issue from a working scientist. Have a great day everyone, life is good.

    Reply
  6. Idiots!! The atmospheric system that we live in is not a closed system, like a greenhouse. It is an open one in which many gases and other substances pass out into space, never to return. This is a false test that does not replicate the earth's atmospheric system.

    Reply
  7. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. 
    Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.

    The kids lamp didn't go through 20m of CO2 therefore it caused warming

    Reply
  8. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere-source GOOGLE

    Reply
  9. Ohhh and do you really think "myth busters" could afford to go out of business if they said anything wrong about the religion of global warming ? give me a break !

    Reply
  10. Do you know the difference between science and bullshit?
    Scientific experiments try to disprove a scientific theory. ALWAYS.

    Bullshit is everything else.

    Oh, I forgot to mention what a scientific theory is. You know what? Fucking use the google!

    Reply
  11. without knowing the uncertainties, all measurements are meaningless.

    1. the percentage of CO2 they tested in the video is not the real percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere now. also, the % of CO2 they put into the fake atmosphere was too high and the result is not even 2 degree celcius higher than the control one. according to this experiment, you burn all the fossil fuel in the earth the same time and it increases a little bit in temperature.

    2. they didn't show the temperature of the gas from the input. we don't know if it's higher or lower than the air temperature in the control champer.

    3. they didn't count the increase of gas molcules in the same volume => the increase of temperature. if they drill a hole on the top of the champer to avoid that, the gas they put in will carry out the water vapor and it's not a closed system anymore. therefore the measurements will be invalid.

    4. Temperature of gas under pressure differs from when released.

    5. Person body observing getting near the object which gives off heat which can effect reading depending on time standing near the greenhouses.

    6. they didn't repeat that experiment to avoid system uncertainties.

    Reply
  12. This is nonsense. The results of that simple lab experiment can not be extrapolated to our planet which is way more complicated. eg I could hypothesis that due to this effect we might get cooling down on earth due to CO2 trapping the heat of the sun at higher altitudes than would otherwise occur and this trapped heat then convects or radiates back into space giving a cooling effect at ground level. Historically there is a correlation between CO2 and global temperature but global temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise, suggesting that warming is liberating stored CO2 eg from the seas not that CO2 is driving warming.

    Reply
  13. Were the two control boxes on the outside? The boxes were quite close to each other, close enough to effect each other. What was the CO2 level increased to?

    The c.n.c ice sculptures and the light test were the only certainty.

    Reply
  14. the experiment tell us that we can completely ignore the greenhouse effect until the entire globe is filled with those type of gas, and that will only increase the weather by 1 degree. normally all human already completely dead when the planet is half full with those gas.

    Reply
  15. this it cerrtenly a wrong experiments, which prooves nothing about increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and very sad that most people beleives in it…therefore the majority done the wrong conclusions, this is destroying our planet

    Reply
  16. This is NOT correct! Yes it is true that CO2 will absorb and release long wave infrared waves. However, the specific heat capacity of CO2 is even lower than that of Nitrogen and Oxygen. The gas CO2 can't hold much heat at all. What is experiment is doing is measuring the ability of the container to hold in heat, not CO2. The container allows shorter wave, higher energy, waves in, but blocks long wave infrared heat from leaving. So the CO2 is helping grab the heat for a very short period, but it is the container that is trapping it. Our atmosphere is not inclosed in a container that blocks the reradiation of long wave infrared so it is not trapped. It is free to be reradiated back into space according to the laws of thermodynamics, Plank's Law, etc. This is a similar and more simple example of the same blunder the IPCC is making. To be valid the experiment would need to be done with a material that freely allows the long wave infrared to be reradiated out.

    Reply
  17. Commentator said "CO2 stands at 350ppm" at 1:31. CO2 is currently at 405ppm so has increased quite a bit since this episode was filmed. Where will we be in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, etc?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Scott R. Cancel reply

two × two =