My rules for comments in this forum. You can post your opinion freely in the comments to any of my videos. I like to engage with people on arguments and issues. I will, time permitting, happily engage with comments that are polite and broadly on topic for the video in question. You can still post what you want but if you want a response from me, those are the criteria. If you want to preface your biting critique with an observation of what a total idiot I am, knock yourself out, but I won't respond to those comments any more than I would if someone said that stuff in real life. Out and out obscenities and personal abuse will be removed. People who engage in bullying other commenters will be asked to stop if I think they are making commenting here unpleasant for others. If they refuse to stop then they'll be removed from the channel.
@deepthought5459
4 жыл бұрын
This is exactly the argument I and several others here have been advocating and while I disagree with your conclusion the science here is not in dispute in any way. Well done for explaining what many find are difficult concepts like Radiative forcing. I have had to do it in posts which are just too long. If I may I would like to.use your link to teach others how CO2 affects climate? My view based on discussions with scientists in the field is the that whether absorption occurs in the lower or upper sphere doesn't significantly change the warming effect. Unless the sun puts out more blue smarties the third baby is going to starve. So regardless of how many CO2 molecules you put up there now (like my analogy of you can't make a red wall redder no matter how much more red paint you throw at it) the situation will not change noticeably except for collision of molecules. If this was not so then when CO2 levels were at 4000 ppm + in the past the Earth would have fried instead of going into an ice age. Therefore I posit that it is Solar effects that is the cause of both cooling and heating and that CO2 simply follows after the fact. IE you are seeing the symptom as the cause. The recent Russian rediscovery of the solar waves of 11 year "counter" cycles seems to add credence to my theory but it's still early days.
@deepthought5459
4 жыл бұрын
mfr58 very interesting links. Ty.
@deepthought5459
4 жыл бұрын
mfr58 this follows Plancks Law... www.dropbox.com/s/yegvlmvsr39k7yg/CO2effectOnAtmospherePlanck.PNG?dl=0
@georgelet4132
4 жыл бұрын
Can you come up with a valid estimate as to how much fossil fuel CO2 has contributed to warming? There appears good evidence that recent claims of temperature records are due to urban heat effect and "adjustment" of temperature data. That it was at least as warm in the 1930s and 40s and likely more so in the Medieval warm period and the Roman warm period. It cooled from the 40s to 1979 than warmed to about 2000 and has done little since. There appears to be little correlation between temperatures and the rise in CO2 from fossil fuels.
@georgelet4132
4 жыл бұрын
Twilight Zone Science Fiction. Your first sentence is baseless and Therefore the rest is also.
@ManScoutsofAmerica
3 жыл бұрын
Someone a lot smarter than me, once told me, “if you can’t argue for the other side, you have no business arguing for your side”. He was right.
@davidhunt7427
3 жыл бұрын
*_He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form._* ~ John Stuart Mill
@bobbywise2313
3 жыл бұрын
That is actually very correct. In school I would actually write papers disagreeing with my personal beliefs. I could make great arguments in favor of this opposing belief.
@doctordub4501
3 жыл бұрын
Bars!
@bertthompson4748
3 жыл бұрын
Im not arguing for either side. Im arguing for the scientific method
@newhampshirelifestyle4233
3 жыл бұрын
This is also a big difference between fact and opinion.
@longbowarcher100
4 жыл бұрын
Here are some scientific facts that clearly show that an increase in CO2 does not lead to any significant increase in temperature The co2 concentration today is 400ppm. The temperature is circa 18c. in the Jurassic period the co2 concentration was 2000ppm, [5 times greater than today] the temperature was 22c. in the Triassic period the co2 concentration was 2500ppm [ 6 times greater than today] the temperature was 22c. in the Ordovician period the co2 concentration was 3000ppm [7.5 times greater than today] the temperature was 17c in the Cambrian period the co2 concentration was 6000ppm [15 times greater than today] the temperature was 22c For most of the time the planet was thriving not frying, the data shows that temperature is independent of co2 concentration Look at the data for the Cambrian. The co2 concentration is 15 times what it is today but the temperatures is about the same as it is today. Look at the Ordovician , the CO2 concentration was 7.5 greater than it is today and yet the temperature was 2 degrees lower than it is today.
@jwickerszh
4 жыл бұрын
Well, let me quickly rearrange the continents and dial down the Sun before anyone can see and .. yes, same temperature .. and only CO2 changed. Booya.
@chrisclimo1265
4 жыл бұрын
Exactly but why let facts get in the way of a good yarn. Pushing the current 400ppm down to 200ppm would be genocide, plants nearly stop functioning at 200ppm. The extreme weather events of hot and cold records smashed in the last year can all be attributed to the low solar spot signs and facts that we have entered a grand solar minimum period where food insecurity will be the main worry. Meanwhile people squabble about 'who' is at fault for the global catastrophe, wasting time
@shermie_65
4 жыл бұрын
@@chrisclimo1265 you mean the 200ppm that we thrived under for around 2000 years until it started rising in the middle to late 1800s? About the time of the industrial revolution? When we started burning fossil fuels and accelerating the amount of CO2 released compared to the amount trapped and stored by nature? The era in which we tipped the natural balance we lived under for yhe previous 2 millenia? Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story indeed...
@shermie_65
4 жыл бұрын
@kajestro m. what life existed at that time? And did that life evolve and become more complex as the CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere and stored naturally?
@TomLaios
4 жыл бұрын
@@shermie_65 are you serious?All life evolved from early single-celled organisms to the dinosaurs.
@stoppernz229
4 жыл бұрын
1:27 No plant has drown in co2, they grow faster and tolerate drier conditions. This is no analogous to drowning things in water, that's a logical fallacy, appeal to the extreme.
@ctrockstar7168
4 жыл бұрын
Stopper NZ not to mention the use of the term brain dead to describe anyone who believes that CO2 increase is beneficial to plants, after pinning that he won’t respond to name calling. Typical liberal bullshit!
@MallenBaker
4 жыл бұрын
You're taking the analogy too literally. All it does is to highlight an instance where a factually correct beneficial feature of something is irrelevant to a context where there is an unrelated problem.
@stoppernz229
4 жыл бұрын
@@MallenBaker Your analogy is a logical fallacy, it only works because you analogy IS an extreme analogy, its not me that took it to an extreme it was you, you made the analogy not me. Think of a non extreme analogy and see if you can make your logical fallacy work... go ahead mate.
@guitartinman
4 жыл бұрын
@@MallenBaker Very poor analogy
@donkanis6141
4 жыл бұрын
Chemistry was my major, 1989. You dont know what your talking about
@miyu545
3 жыл бұрын
Missed the point on CO2 being plant food. The more CO2 is available the more a given plant will actually absorb. That is why greenhouses pump CO2 in to facilitate a better growth ratio. So. You completely missed it. Try again.
@nathanielgates2863
2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. Huge miss here and not just with your point.
@michaellopez-lq5fn
2 жыл бұрын
Thank god.. these smug “science” you tubers just push establishment narratives and try to make it sound complicated and smart so that they lose most people to boredom and acceptance that “that guy who knows all that molecular detail must really know what’s going on and be able to handle an argument no problem” When in reality he is actually half straw manning. Let’s face it, authoritarians are trying to crack down on human freedom.
@teemulaulajainen9410
2 жыл бұрын
Missed the point? No youtube-video can cover the whole area of climate research, this video was focused only in ONE counter-argument, and it did a food job. There are studies about co2 as plant food and if it is bigger advantage than all the disadvantages what increased warmth brings.
@CG-zm9oj
Жыл бұрын
No he didn't miss the point if you think about it for a moment. The most obvious argument which I happen to agree with based on what I've red is also the most hotly contested by the trolls. The saturation argument bypasses all of that and sticks with absolute settled science Even the trolls can't argue with it
@kenwoodburn7438
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely 💯
@tonystern3071
4 жыл бұрын
No mention of other factors that can cause warming - sun spots, angle of rotation of the earth (precession). Why did the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods happen with low CO2 levels? There was no increased volcanic CO2 emissions at the time.
@righteousindignation8879
4 жыл бұрын
The handwaving over water vapor alone is enough to raise an eyebrow.
@timoteojuans1964
4 жыл бұрын
@MadHaze1 You can only tackle one problem at a time my word. With regards to your sun ideas we do know irradiance has been on the decline in the last few yrs.
@trafalgarla
4 жыл бұрын
@MadHaze1 "he basically wants us to believe that 0.04% of co2 , most of which is created naturally can override the Milankovitch cycles ." Probably because Milankovitch cycles take >23000 years to induce a change in climate and we're currently in the middle of an interglacial. Also the percentage of CO2 is irrelevant, it's the absolute amount of CO2 in parts per million that matters. Let's say there is an atmosphere of only 1000 ppm of CO2 and it absorbs half of incoming IR photons. This atmosphere is 100% CO2. Now add oxygen and nitrogen until the CO2 is diluted to 0.04% of the atmosphere. Oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR photons but the same amount of 1000 ppm of CO2 is still present in the atmosphere meaning half of the IR photons are still absorbed. The percentage of CO2 was irrelevant. "No mention of the Sun and sunspots" The solar irradiance has been stable if not slightly decreasing for the past 100 years and has changed by about 0.25 W/m^2. i.e. barely any change. Meanwhile average global temperature has risen by 1.2 C since 1850. So the sun is not causing warming or cooling. "grand solar minimum" We are not in a GSM and one of the largest GSM's in recent history was the Maunder minimum which was about 2 W/m^2 less than today's total solar irradiance. Again, that's not a big difference which is why we know the sun isn't causing large scale changes in climate in recent history. The sun is incredibly stable. "record cold around the world" The amount of heat records set around the world per year is about double that of record cold and the ration keeps increasing in favor of heat records. It used to be that the same amount of heat and cold records were set per year but not anymore. "how less solar wind allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere also effecting our Jetstream ." Cosmic rays don't affect the jetstream and, last I remember, cosmic rays are about 0.3% of the energy that the earth receives. The rest is the light emitted by the sun. So if the sun is so stable as to not affect the climate, why would cosmic rays have any possibility of affecting the climate?
@elbuggo
4 жыл бұрын
@Str8arrow62 - What is the substance they allegedly are spraying? Magical Molecules? Any better suggestions based on any measurements? Any credible measurements of this substance anywhere? Why not?
@elbuggo
4 жыл бұрын
@Str8arrow62 - aluminum? You should be able to pick the spray up on a low end radar then - why hasn't anyone done that to prove it is metal they are spraying?
@Deliquescentinsight
4 жыл бұрын
The adjustment of the graphs to swap the presentation of C02 'after' a temperature spike is interesting - they have tried to show C02 as a causation of temperature, when in fact it is a consequence of the oceans releasing more C02 when the temperature rises. Water Vapor has much more significance for climate than C02 . The so-called global warming trend halted, and so 'climate change' became the label. Sea ice in the arctic is fine. Antarctic also fine. Variations of climate patterns have always been with us,. Why do they keep cherry picking the start dates for the graphs, present the entire centuries, from 1900 - 2020! The 1930's were the hottest period in the past 2 centuries, vastly warmer than today. We can exchange opinions as much as we like, but the political dimension of this matter is very interesting to observe. Who are those who present science as being 'settled' and therefore beyond question? True science is never 'settled', the scientific method has nothing to do with 'consensus', it is about testing ideas, and reviewing results, not 'beliefs'.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Your first comment is incorrect. CO2 HAS led temperature increase in the past (though not always). You may want to read Shakun and Clark, 2012 published in Nature. Note the article has been cited 536 times. Water vapor does not drive temperature but is a feedback loop (see www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html). You are incorrect about the warming versus climate change name (previously debunked). Sea ice is "fine" really? You got any science to back that up? You are just repeating nonsense that has been debunked over and over and over again. When will you accept that the science has moved way past these disinformation campaigns?
@mortthomsonjr.2505
4 жыл бұрын
Hear, Hear, Let all be aware of the wisdom of your words! You are absolutely correct sir and saturation and the exponential relationship of CO2 in the air are two more reasons why CO2 does not cause climate change or global warming. It's like you said; Global increases in temperature cause increased CO2 in the atmosphere. NOT the other way around.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Well I didn’t say that and you obviously didn’t read the reference I provided but you’re not really interested in the science are you.
@Deliquescentinsight
4 жыл бұрын
@@RJones-Indy The stakes have risen dramatically, the political power groups who have positioned themselves to be able to direct climate research and funnel it all in the computer modeling paradigm, who have also harnessed the legacy media groups to promote their propaganda and instill fear and alarm among the young represent an existential threat to our very way of life, they are poised to impose draconian taxations, and alternative energy programs, to be able to direct people to live and behave according to their vision, and according to their values. Science unfortunately has become the means for these people to gain credibility-but this is not science as we once knew it, this is a bureaucratically directed mob of funding recipients. Tenure at universities and career success is now dependent on science people towing the climate alarmism line; you are out in the cold if you dare to raise questions, if you have the audacity to review results and propose new hypothesis. We can no longer trust 'Science', it has become a political tool.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
This is just paranoid ranting. You can provide no proof or evidence to support your wild assertions.
@Ferreolus
3 жыл бұрын
Dear Mr. Baker: Absolutely fantastic explanation and your approach in all your work I have seen to scientific knowledge and inquiry is refreshing to the point of being painful. I quite understand your explanation (physical chemistry having been my course of study at the University.) I confess I had not given much thought to the "CO2 saturation theory" but I do remember from my days of running IR on samples containing the CO group (slightly different absorption band but like CO2 quite intense) that the precise frequencies were very high absorption at low concentrations but that the intensity of rotational bands was quite low a low concentrations, whereas with increases in concentration there would be an apparent effect of the band broadening. Looking at the graph you presented I am not sure that these effects are not always apparent in samples of CO2 in rarefied atmosphere so that an increase of 300 to 400 ppm might not exhibit the same sorts of effects even assuming there were no other differences resulting from the CO2 being in a gaseous state (and having two conjugated C double bonds instead of the one) but it suggests to me that the matter is unlikely to be simple. In any case, your explanation that increasing concentrations in the lower atmosphere slowly causes corresponding increases in concentration further and further up from the surface making the statistical probability of "escape" of IR radiation lower at a given level in the atmosphere where concentration is "not" yet saturated and the elevation at which such escape is efficient (for our purposes) further and further from the surface regardless of any saturation on the surface, very persuasive. I will do whatever I can to share and encourage viewing of your excellent, commendably rational and helpful explanations to as wide an audience as possible. If only more people were able to discus matters with such articulate impartiality and dedication to the principles of science, we would be much closer to effective solutions. You neither sugar coat nor encourage people to panic. And that is important in a world where the speeches of the preceding President of the United States and, as I am a bit nonplussed and increasingly disappointed to discover, his successor each in their own way express themselves far too much with angry partisan hyperbole, fiction, prevarication and exaggeration. Your videos are making the rounds not a moment too soon. Best Regards Grady Loy Tokyo, Japan
@vladtepes481
4 жыл бұрын
An interesting and elementary discussion of the spectroscopy of CO2. Unfortunately, the thermometer data over the past 130 years or so indicate that the Earth is NOT significant warming. Indeed in appears that the warmest period was before 1940. (1880 - present) Those who have studied the climate after the ice ages have found that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere lags by several hundred years the warming. CO2 may be a result of warming but is not a cause. It is true that CO2 is indeed plant food. The recent increase in CO2 is, in part, responsible for increases in agricultural productivity and the general greening of the Earth. The Climate Change movement is a Scam to steal your money and has nothing to do with science.
@MICKEYISLOWD
4 жыл бұрын
We are warmer than 1940...lol It's there for all to see! Your claim it is a scam show me you have that tribal belief we just don't need. Believing in conspiracies is a dangerous world that can lead to all kinds of terrible ideologies leading to human suffering. The right approach is to listen to people with actual PHDs and decades of research history and read their peer reviewed papers on the study of climate change and the implications for us all here on Earth. The evidence for our industrial activities pumping out Co2 into the atmosphere which is causing this warming is enormous.
@adamthompson9286
4 жыл бұрын
@@MICKEYISLOWD here is some more people talking about the science. Watch "The Lack of Science in the Scientific Consensus: The Case of the National Climate Assessment" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/ybB323ywnJeploI Watch "The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/xq2AnIh_cZWUdKw Watch "Are We Doomed?" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/w26AwKNsiayhdoo Watch "Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/krCoy559Zol6Zoo That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/ Watch "The Global Warming Hoax" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/mKWmqaiCcYSUl6w Watch "Greenpeace Founder speaks about Climate Hoax" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/yJ2ol6p7nYVpZmU Watch "TEDxVancouver - Patrick Moore - 11/21/09" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/zH6QsaNnbHqHZXY Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA | The Daily Caller dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/ Tracking Climate Fraud | Real Science stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/ Climate during the Carboniferous Period www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html Watch "2015 Annual GWPF Lecture - Patrick Moore - Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/xWaQm3qasImokpg Watch "The Myth of the 97% Consensus" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/yYCr0JZjj6CSdoI
@chapter4travels
4 жыл бұрын
Stealing our money is just a side benefit of stealing our freedom. Fossil fuel energy is baked into every single aspect of our lives, globally and that's what they want control of.
@adamthompson9286
4 жыл бұрын
@@chapter4travels give it a watch. Watch "Dr. Patrick Moore: 12 Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom" on KZitem kzitem.info/news/bejne/t6tm1q6QkHZjaI4
@nyoodmono4681
4 жыл бұрын
@@MICKEYISLOWD There is no evidence for "our industrial activities pumping out Co2 into the atmosphere which is causing this warming". 1910 to 1940 had the same RATE of warming, without the majority of CO2 emissions. Can you tell me what evidence we have? It looks like the ipcc uses the Charney formula which means 1,5°C to 4,5°C with a doubling of CO2. 3°C was their best guess. Can you tell me if there is less uncertainty on the CO2 climate sensitivity by now, after 30 years of ipcc modelling? I see a natural trend that startet 1910, interrupted by a cooling phase in the 70s to go on to warm at the same rate. If we continue this Trend we will be at 1,5°C max. images.app.goo.gl/E6XhvgVh2ye2uaJg8 -The warming period of 1910 to 1940 must have been natural, the CO2 emissions come after world war 2 -The cooling in the 70s is not explained in detail, what happened here? -The hiatus just happened, no one saw it coming, it is not explained. We know almost nothing you see? This is why claiming consensus is hubristic. We do not even accept our own models it seems, because the one that meets the observations is one of the lowests. It is called "INMCN4" and it uses a CO2 forcing of x4. If we would accept it as the best model all the warnings would make no sense whatsoever. images.app.goo.gl/Z1g7KaZ9sZuuAX4c8
@juliesteimle3867
4 жыл бұрын
What gets me about this entire argument is how people ignore the word 'green' in the phrase 'greenhouse effect'. Hot does not equate dry.
@levirussell2417
4 жыл бұрын
@Redzone 2119 and 200 meter higher sea levels, with giant plant and animal life. like in past.
@cvb94
4 жыл бұрын
I appreciate you going after the good arguments (and you chose one)and also your arguments against it. I am probably not scientifically capable of evaluating your argument but philosophically I recognize that it is at least logical. But there was something about your initial dismissal of the "nonsense" arguments, that CO2 is plant food and "do the math" that did not quite sit right with me. The latter is an argument and not a very good one, a little bit of fentanyl obviously does a lot of damage. Still, there is a valid point in it. The global warming people do have to show how such a small trace gas in the atmosphere can create global warming, but this they have already addressed, even if it is not super clear how much of the 1 degree C warming since the latter half of the 1800s is due to CO2 and how much is due to other bigger factors. But the plant food comment was not an argument but a statement, and obviously 100% true. If "deniers" use it to prove there is no CO2 caused global warming, then it is a bad argument. But it is usually used to deal with the emotive side of the issue. People hear about CO2 and picture coal factories and the smog in China, and emotively it feels like a poison to them. So the point of saying CO2 is plant food is not to argue that it therefore cannot be causing global warming, the point is to change the emotion around the issue so that you can get to the real science, as you have done in addressing the logarithmic issue in your video. It is only nonsense if it is billed as being an argument that CO2 cannot cause global warming because it is plant food, but I know of no one who makes that point. They are simply saying let us not think of CO2 as a deadly gas but as the food of life. Yes, too much of any good thing can be bad, but if it is a good thing then the question of what is the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere is still a relevant question, and as far as I know this questioned has never been answered.
@AdeToz
4 жыл бұрын
This is the soundest comment by far.
@paularthur5563
4 жыл бұрын
good post
@slaphappyduplenty2436
4 жыл бұрын
Yes. I think mr Baker committed an accidental straw man fallacy. I say accidental, because he strikes me as a person who acts in good faith.
@jonclarke5568
4 жыл бұрын
Solid point
@Wakame44
4 жыл бұрын
Whenever I ask the question of what is an acceptable level of CO2, nobody ever has an answer. It's a question that needs answering. Some scientists say we are in a CO2 famine. Also, why is there so much focus on shutting down coal plants in western nations whilst China is building new ones?
@saunders59
4 жыл бұрын
I have really enjoyed all the stuff you post, and you are to be commended for all the time and effort you put in. I don't share your faith in climate scientists not being part of groupthink/ conspiracies. My reading of the Climategate files was that the people at the top of climate science were ganging up on editors and peer reviewers to obstruct the promulgation of views they disliked. This is hardly the action of proper scientists, confident in the integrity of their own work. When you throw in the actions of the media, who love to scare the bejasus out of everyone whenever something vaguely science based happens (Millennium bug, SARS, Coronavirus, CJD), you can see why people get excited easily. As far as grants and kudos are concerned, climate science will always follow the money, and there is not a penny to be made if it is shown that warming is natural and we can do nothing about it. It seems to me that many scientists have forgotten the corollary of Occam's Razor- warming has happened before and it could be happening again, and for the same reason. Keep up the good work!
@bradrowland7687
3 жыл бұрын
Best explanation without being condescending or Snarky. Actually making me rethink a few things. CO2 is still absorbing X amount of energy regardless, but where the energy is being absorbed (non-troposphere) makes a difference.
@hillviewmews
4 жыл бұрын
The basic science is very well presented in an understandable way and well worth the watch. The key questions still need to be answered is why average global temperatures have not risen significantly over the last 20 yrs indpite of CO2 rising and is there any science behind the alarmist predictions of consequences of CO2 doubling valid and provable, based on historic evidence over geological time. What disturbs logical thinkers is that economies are now being destroyed and millions are and will suffer and die, because of non democratic applied policies that are pushed through by hidden agendas of the IPCC that are not surported by facts, only a failed computer model.
@jordanwhisson5407
4 жыл бұрын
Hi Sky we have had 16 years of the hottest years on record in the last 16 years
@hillviewmews
4 жыл бұрын
@@jordanwhisson5407 We have had hotter or as hot years before in recorded history when CO2 was at it's lowest. So CO2 is a red herring.
@f.n.8540
3 жыл бұрын
@@hillviewmews this is completely different from your original point, which was that " average global temperatures have not risen significantly over the last 20 yrs indpite of CO2 rising "
@egoncorneliscallery9535
7 ай бұрын
Yes, it is contradictory. If Co2 has a big effect it should have resulted in higher temperatures. But they have come up w a new invention: that the temperature would be much colder without the extra Co2. But then one might say:'well' that's a good thing, right? Wrong. The mantra is: Co2 is bad, we caused it. And higher temperatures are bad, in fact catastrophic..
@element5999
4 жыл бұрын
Some strong counter-arguments against C02 being the driving culprit for climate change in last 150 years: 1. A significant portion of the modern recorded global warming was PRIOR to the global large-scale industrial output of C02. There is a major discordance between anthropogenic C02 emissions and the global temperature record during this period (1880-1940). 2. The Atlantic and Pacific Multi-decade oscillations map quite well onto the global temperature record since the 19th century, this phenomena provides a strong candidate explanation for driving global temperature trends. 3. The global temperature rate of increase has slowed since 2000, despite C02 emissions massively accelerating by China and India. In other words, there's another significant discordance between the rapidly accelerating C02 emissions and the measured global temperature rate - they are not in proportion. 4. Atmospheric C02 increases are historically known to LAG behind the increases in climate warming. The explanation is that C02 is the resulting by-product gas of increased biome matter in a warm period, globally, which then decays more fully in warming periods, and importantly, in ecologies which were previously both less vegetated and too cool for thorough decay processes to take place.
@jeffwells329
4 жыл бұрын
All good points that deserve a response. Point #4 may be the most disputable, as there could be other factors contributing to the historical record C02 lag effect, but the first three are strong points and should be fairly debated with the actual measured evidence.
@deepthought5459
4 жыл бұрын
The lag in warming is often explained as Solar initiated warming that heats the oceans. Hot oceans are unable to hold as much CO2 as cold ones so more CO2 is released which then heat up the atmosphere more using the greenhouse effect in an upward spiral. They neglect that there is usually an 800 year lag for deep ocean temps to change from surface heating. The circulation is extremely slow and the mass of water so huge that time delays are very long. There are many more points but I don't have time to cover them adequately at the moment.
@MsBiggles51
4 жыл бұрын
On point 2), yes these oscillations do correlate well. There's a clear 60-year cycle. On point 4) the most reasonable explanation for the lag (about 800 years) is that solubility in the oceans is temperature-dependent. The oceans are massive heat sinks and take centuries to warm up. CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold. It takes about 800 years for the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans to get into full swing. You could add 5) There is no evidence of CO2 driving climate in the entire paleoclimate history. There is rarely any correlation except during the current ice age, when as you said, temperature rises first, followed centuries later by CO2. You could also add 6) Computer models using the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis as a basis ought to be extremely accurate if the hypothesis is correct, but they all run hot. This suggests that, while CO2 may have some effect, it's vastly over-estimated.
@bryanblatz2001
4 жыл бұрын
@@MsBiggles51 as Lex Graber said in his first sentence "Solar initiated warming that heats the oceans" …
@CryptoSurfer
4 жыл бұрын
Point number4. Regardless of the cause, historically CO2 still lags temperature and therefore cannot be the driver of temperature
@Echidna7095
4 жыл бұрын
"Co2 is plant food" is a bad argument because I say it is a bad argument.
@spillarge
4 жыл бұрын
Yes, I think Mallen let himself down with that statement about CO2 not being plant food. Botanists and growers alike increase CO2 in order to increase plant growth rates purely because it is a food stuff which plants need to enable their growth.CO2 is extremely rarefied in the natural environment because it has become locked away underground for millions of years. However, this has not been the case throughout the history of the planet and it has been extremely beneficial for all life. In fact necessary for all life.
@jeroenkeijdener7865
4 жыл бұрын
@@spillarge correct! That's why it is essential for us humans to reverse the problem of CO2 dissapearing out of the co2-cycle. Putting it back in the atmosphere is key to the survival of life on earth.
@spillarge
4 жыл бұрын
@@jeroenkeijdener7865 Am I reading you correctly? Are you really reversing the link between the availability of carbon and that necessity for all life and saying that CO2 kills life on our planet?
@jeroenkeijdener7865
4 жыл бұрын
@@spillarge No, I meant that emitting CO2 is a good thing. It is saving life on earth, not killing it.
@spillarge
4 жыл бұрын
@@jeroenkeijdener7865 Yes, I wholly agree with you. More CO2 has definitely given rise to more plant growth and faster plant growth. That is good for insects, birds and animals alike. CO2 underwrites all life on our planet. It's absolutely preposterous that we should be talking about scrubbing the atmosphere of this gas. Its crackpot idiotic extremism.
@bradgrauer9148
3 жыл бұрын
you never hear any of these climate alarmists that mentions the saturation rate of CO2 and the fact that the CO2 has gone up since last 19 years but the temperatures have remained about the same
@fwcolb
3 жыл бұрын
Mallen Baker shows a graph illustrating this point at 2:12 (2min/12sec). It is well known by all climate scientists and was amply demonstrated in London during World War II during the "blackouts" when no house was allowed to show light that could be seen by Nazi bombers. Some of the cheaper blackout curtains were almost transparent. So people added layers of curtain. Depending on the manufacturer, each brand of curtain had a certain opacity. So the number of curtains to block the light varied. One, two, three....layers would block out all light. The same is true with CO2 in the atmosphere, at some point the visible light not being transformed into thermal energy by CO2 will be too little to have any effect. But there is indeed a phenomenon not mentioned in this video and not mentioned by activists. The oceans cover about 70% of the Earth's surface and visible light penetrates the surface of the world ocean to a variable depth, up to about 30 meters in places Yet little visible light escapes from or is reflected by the oceans. A little white light is reflected from breaking waves and from glint, but not much. And in some places you can see the bottom, meaning light is reflected into your eyes. On average, the oceans are dark, with a Bond albedo close to zero. kzitem.info/news/bejne/1q9_0o2QZnNoYGU CO2 is transparent to visible light. So the process described for light falling on land does not apply to light reaching the oceans. Visible light heats the oceans and leaves as thermal energy, at a wavelength around 15 microns. NASA gives an outline of the process and effects. But has a couple of unscientific statements and no explanation of the processes. www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content Unscientific statements, probably by a journalist on the NASA staff: 1) Less than a watt per square meter might seem like a small change, but multiplied by the surface area of the ocean (more than 360 million square kilometers), that translates into an enormous global energy imbalance. My comment: ALL scientific papers on the Earth's energy imbalance refer to watts-per-square meter, not watts multiplied by square kilometers. 2) "More than 90 percent of the warming that happened on Earth between 1971-2010 occurred in the ocean." General comment: Lack of scientific context. Visible light can enter the world ocean, but it is known that infrared light does not pass through the ocean "skin", with thickness a fraction of one millimeter. Visible light plus wind-driven wave turbulence may account for ocean warming. Rainfall may be a significant driver, but I have seen no studies of rainfall and runoff from land having a significant effect on warming the oceans. Yet ocean warming is our most reliable measure of Earth's energy imbalance. Thus, the statement alone is meant only to impress. Earth's energy imbalance. Quote, "[Energy] Fluxes leaving Earth at the TOA are also well documented, although inherently less accurate with an uncertainty of ±4 Wm-2 on the net TOA flux that mostly stems from calibration errors on measurements of the outgoing fluxes. This uncertainty is almost an order of magnitude larger than the imbalance of 0.58 ±0.4 Wm-2 inferred from OHC information" (Stephens, 2012) TOA=Top of the Atmosphere;. OHC = Ocean Heat Content;. Order of Magnitude = ten times;. ±4 Wm-2 = plus or minus 4 Watts per square meter. Translation: The energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere cannot be measured because the technology is not accurate enough to do so. But it is somewhere between a loss of 4 Watts per square meter and a gain of 4 Watts per square meter. If we use the gain in energy in the oceans the figure is closer to 0.6 Watt per m2. This estimate was revised to 0,5 Wm-2 in 2012 by another team (Loeb, 2012).. Stephens, Graeme L., et al. "An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations." Nature Geoscience 5.10 (2012): iacweb.ethz.ch/doc/publications/StephensLiWild_etal_NatureGeoscience.pdf Loeb, N. et al, Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf A paper published on the same subject in 2019 was retracted owing to error bars that were too narrow. The 2018 paper of Resplandy et al was retracted in 2019 because the error bars were set too fine. "...between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre..." Resplandy, et al. Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature (2018). Oddly, James Hansen when he was director of the GISS published the same value for Earth's energy imbalance with even narrower error bars in 2005. But nobody objected. Hansen, et al. Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications, Science (2005). The scientific community takes seriously the fact that the Earth's energy imbalance cannot be measured accurately and with precision either directly or indirectly. Seriously enough for Nature to retract the Resplandy paper. This does not falsify the theory of anthropocentric climate change. But it does mean we rely almost entirely on theory rather than empirical evidence.
@waynebow-gu7wr
3 жыл бұрын
@@fwcolb This is way above my brain to comprehend, but I'm sick to death of my life being influenced by science theory. There are plenty of other theories that get rejected daily, and were only supposed to believe the one's big brother approves. Science ' theory ' is never settled, ie. even the big bang theory has been debunked. kzitem.info/news/bejne/lIGhzoafm3Sdn4o
@fwcolb
3 жыл бұрын
@@waynebow-gu7wr I share many of your sentiments. And it's hard work keeping up. But I have a professional interest.
@fivish
3 жыл бұрын
Global average temperatures have gone DOWN according to NASA satelite data.
@fwcolb
3 жыл бұрын
@@fivish Global average temperature wiggles up and down at all time scales, from days to millennia.
@warrenpeece1726
4 жыл бұрын
The problem is that a correlation is being marketed as cause and effect.
@pdoylemi
4 жыл бұрын
No, that is not the problem - the cause is demonstrable.
@pdoylemi
4 жыл бұрын
@Donald Kasper Well said. If I knew absolutely nothing about cars, but was a passenger in one I could spot the connection between pressing the gas pedal and acceleration. I could see that the car never accelerates (unless going downhill) unless that is pressed. I may not know what that pedal does, but I know that it is involved in making the car go faster.
@555atU
4 жыл бұрын
@@pdoylemi where has CO2 ever been demonstrated empirically as the dominant greenhouse gas and the human contribution is the primary cause of global warming?
@pdoylemi
4 жыл бұрын
@@555atU Since the early 1900's you dolt. There are more powerful greenhouse gases but they are not as persistent. But why does "dominant" even matter? They say one drop of Ricin in a swimming pool sized reservoir can kill everyone who drinks from it - but not so arsenic. You would need a lot of arsenic to do that. Your arguments are like arguing that someone deemed to have died from arsenic poisoning could have had a heart attack, or been poisoned some other way! People die all the time! But all the evidence points to the massive amounts of arsenic in the body, and NO evidence points to any other cause. Every known or even hypothesized cause for warming events has been eliminated - leaving ONLY one known cause that we know is happening.
@555atU
4 жыл бұрын
@@pdoylemi in other words you don't have anything. Call me your silly names all you want, but you don't have shit for empirical proof. Can you even explain why it's freezing on Mars and boiling on Venus when both have about 95% CO2 concentration or you going to come up with another stupid analogy?
@ronaldgarrison8478
4 жыл бұрын
Dr Humbert's point supports a simpler way of looking at this, and everything in this video preceding that can even be seen as just embellishment. Using what Humbert says, you can stretch that out by looking at the case of Venus. The CO2 there is almost a million times as dense as here on Earth. If the effect were linear across that whole, huge range of concentrations, then Venus would be at many millions of degrees, not just 500 C or so. The logarithmic effect results from the presence of multiple absorption bands. When one band saturates, increasing concentrations cause more absorption, but increasing at a slower rate. The curve is logarithmic over a wide range of concentrations, but the thing about a log curve, or an exponential, or a hyperbolic or parabolic or anything like that, is that if you're looking at a narrow segment of it, it can appear quite linear. This is the case with CO2. The concentration has only risen by about 50% over pre-industrial levels, and anything higher than a doubling strains credibility (although I know there are some who foolishly imagine much higher levels occurring). Going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, I would expect close to a linear change in warming. (Perhaps someone can offer a more precise calculation?) In fact, I would expect that, if CO2 concentrations ranged over a factor of a million to one, the curve would not just be logarithmic, but would start to take on still more complex shapes. Again, if someone has more details to offer, you're welcome to have at it.
@andymacdonald821
4 жыл бұрын
Ronald Garrison: It's simple: BOOST the co2.... MELT the ice.... MODERATE worldwide Climate... RESTORE the Biosphere..!!!
@ronaldgarrison8478
4 жыл бұрын
@@andymacdonald821 That's great, if you're an effen DINOSAUR. And it definitely sounds like you are.
@hayuwijayanti9790
4 жыл бұрын
Ronald Garrison OMG!!! Are you scammers still using that debunked piece of junk science? Venus has atmospheric pressure equivalent to being 900 m under the ocean. Oh and BTW, it was NASA who debunked the scam science and if i recall correctly, they pointed out the Co2 levels on Mars that havnt warmed that planet up to anywhere close to livable. I guess Mars needs a Marxist political agenda for Co2 to begin warming
@ronaldgarrison8478
4 жыл бұрын
@@hayuwijayanti9790 Fuck off-after you explain yourself. Exactly what do you think is junk? I can't even tell what it is you disagree with. Take of your MAGA hat for a minute, put your thinking cap on, and start at least trying to make some sense.
@DJRonnieG
4 жыл бұрын
The point made by the Venusian example is not lost upon me but it also orbits more closely to the Sun. Not to mention, is a bit of an odd-ball with regard to it's direction and speed of rotation. Then there's the fact one day on Venus is equivalent to 116 days on Earth. That means one side of this volcanically active planet spends more s time facing the Sun.
@lawsonhannah
4 жыл бұрын
Mallen, The world would be a much better place if more people took your advice and actively sought out the best arguments against their positions. So many people are “ideologically possessed” where they just repeat what someone told them without every understanding why. You see this when people are unable to coherently defend their positions and resort to Ad Hom’s.
@ferkeap
4 жыл бұрын
It's a nice idea, but also a utopia. It takes allot of time. But most of all you need some strong mental ability to do so.
@ASYLUMCUSTOMWOODWORKING
4 жыл бұрын
His data is bias he’s showing graphs that have already been called out for fraud. And there is so much data out to blow his ridiculous ideals out of the waters
@nickwf70
4 жыл бұрын
Everyone wants to know the truth, the mere fact the alarmists say there is no longer any doubt and never want to discuss the science in any real detail on mainstream media is suspicious. The complete lack of action to reduce CO2 is also suspicious.
@jwickerszh
4 жыл бұрын
@@nickwf70 luckily there isn't a total lack of action.
@marynadononeill
4 жыл бұрын
@David Bunney exactly right!!!
@jonmoore176
11 ай бұрын
Great video and well explained. Baffling that Happer et al argue this saturation point while failing to mention that the argument only applies to IR radiating directly to space from the surface and that the molecules will transfer energy (re-radiation , convection etc) some of the absorbed energy to higher level, as they must do by conservation of energy. Otherwise the lower saturated regions would get infinitely hot.
@plinkbottle
4 жыл бұрын
Just how does 0.04% 400ppm carbon dioxide form a layer that traps heat, Its ok to say there are other things where a small amount of something has a big effect, but in chemistry these are catalytic reactions, this is not. Not only is it a small amount of the atmosphere, but it is also a small amount in comparison with other green house gasses like water vapor, methane and nitrous oxides.
@NapoleonGelignite
4 жыл бұрын
Charles Rablin - compare the temperatures at which CO2 and water condense. And CO2 is not a layer.
@toby9999
4 жыл бұрын
Are you a scientist? Because if you're not and you really want the answer then I suggest you study the science. Find references to the actual scientific papers. There are too many idiots with opinions on KZitem.
@NapoleonGelignite
4 жыл бұрын
MrToby -yes I am a scientist and I have read the literature, I don’t think Charles is though.
@catvapecult5876
4 жыл бұрын
Co2 could last about 2 centuries in the atmosphere and water vapour last about 9 days in the amosphere.
@ElazarusWills
4 жыл бұрын
Actually CO2 is the "driver" of the greenhouse effect and is the second most common GHG by ppm volume. CO2 has a relatively long residence time in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most common GHG, and most powerful, but with the shortest residence time. Ppms of methane, NO2, artificial refrigerants, etc are much less than CO2. And and someone else pointed out CO2 is not a "layer" but is well mixed with other gasses. It is the individual molecules that absorb infrared heat and emit it. WWW.howglobalwarmingworks.org
@johnnursall408
4 жыл бұрын
Modeling as I understand it is not "difficult" -- it is impossible.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Then you don’t understand it. Models are accurate.
@johnnursall408
4 жыл бұрын
@@RJones-Indy I guess it depends on what you're calling accurate.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Sorry you are wrong again. See Hausfather et al 2019. Models are very accurate.
@johnnursall408
4 жыл бұрын
@Rory Forbes Well said. But the greatest mistake of all is underestimating the complexity of the problem.
@righteousindignation8879
4 жыл бұрын
The models are so accurate that they are consistently incorrect.
@paddydiddles4415
4 жыл бұрын
The whole debate is about ‘how much’ is the projected heating, ‘how accurate’ etc ie not about whether increasing CO2 will cause more greenhouse effect
@larrys-qr6zr
4 жыл бұрын
nature produces about 730 billion tons of CO2 and we produce about 30 billion tons or a little less than 4% of what is in the atmosphere. if you want to know what the projected heating will be, get yourself a crystal ball, it will be about as accurate. climate forecasters can't forecast next weeks weather accurately, do you really think they can accurately forecast 100 years from now?
@egoncorneliscallery9535
7 ай бұрын
Easy, you devise models dat run linear and supposes initial states of elements and variables. And there goes the graph!
@l337g0g0
5 ай бұрын
CO2 can't cause a green house effect. Heat rises, the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, and the earth is not encased in (glass). And CO2 does not reflect blackbody radiation, it only absorbs 3%, the 15 μm blackbody radiation spectrum. The greenhouse effect is from water vapor, water reflects incoming and outgoing wavelengths of the radiation spectrum. that's why it's cool on cloudy days and warm on cloudy nights. the radiation is being reflected by water vapor, water vapor is the greenhouse gas.
@victorg4867
4 жыл бұрын
I have a question, in the last 40 years, how much has been spent on research into the effect of CO2 on the climate, compared to other factors, such as the SUN and/or water vapour?
@pdavid000
3 жыл бұрын
Probably not much compared to what's being spent trying to prove CO2 is the culprit. For one thing, the IPCC is mandated to look only at human caused climate change so they hardly even look at data from any other possible cause. Government don't seem very interested at financing any efforts into other causes of warming as well.
@sedigives
3 жыл бұрын
@@pdavid000 It's 100% true. We all know if you just look for one thing, you'll find it eventually. I'm more concerned with the 30's & Medieval Warm Period missing from NASA updated information, then the IPCC's charts & model's off even more.
@BANKO007
3 жыл бұрын
You can't make a climate model without the sun being the biggest single input. As you see in this video, the sun's radiation spectrum is completely integral to the underlying quantification of climate change as well as the physical explanation. The same goes for water vapour. I don't understand what you are getting at.
@FanofMillan
3 жыл бұрын
@@pdavid000 What other possible cause is warming the planet
@FanofMillan
3 жыл бұрын
@@BANKO007 The sun's warmth energy or what ever you want to call it has been decreasing in the last 40 years so how could it cause temps to rise?
@RussCR5187
4 жыл бұрын
Mallen, I have taken issue with some of your videos in the past and argued with you on points large and small. I watched this video after having taken a "short vacation". My sincere congratulations on taking the time to dig into the science and then presenting a subject, which can get deep pretty quickly, at just the right level and in a very understandable way. Thank you!
@jwickerszh
4 жыл бұрын
@Pablo Koinonia what the paper actually says .. is that the observed forcings matches the modeled forcings and the values previously published in prior IPCC reports. Also .. no, it's not that hard to understand.
@petervithus3971
4 жыл бұрын
He's a fraud, an AGW/IPCC troll ! I mean, he seems intelligent enough to know that what he's arguing for is nonsense !
@nn-uj1iv
2 жыл бұрын
@@petervithus3971 he doesn't know and his is just a reading website article and comes to the wrong conclusion no understanding of first principles.
@petervithus3971
2 жыл бұрын
@@nn-uj1iv hmm, possible, But I lean more towards him being a AGW/IPCC shill !
@grahamlyons8522
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this informative video. You and I know that water vapour is a more effective GHG and more prevalent than CO2. So it is logical to assume that WV's warming effect is much stronger than CO2's. But your point about warming from CO2 in the upper atmosphere (from which water vapour has been "frozen" out), can be challenged on two counts: 1. CO2 is the heaviest atmospheric gas, the bulk residing close to the surface; only a tiny fraction of CO2 rises to higher levels where it gets its own back on water vapour. 2. The same frequency band of the sun's radiation, that 'low' CO2 captures and re-radiates, will also, of course, be captured by high-level CO2 molecules. And they will radiate some heat downwards. ... Yes, but to no avail, since the latter's radiation will encounter, either water vapour, whose radiation-capturing frequencies largely overlap CO2's, or low-level CO2 molecules, already at their limit of flexing or rotating - in other words, already full up.
@Krusty-kl5ej
3 жыл бұрын
Graham: A 3rd and much much less considered property of CO2 in the mass transfer dynamics of Earth and it’s carbon based life forms: CO2’s residency time in the atmosphere has been horribly mis-appropriated. There’s a reason atmospheric CO2 remains much lower in concentration than O2 or H2O. It is in high demand by the biosphere, and it has a strong chemical affinity to the substrate. As such, it has a very high transfer rate in and out of the atmosphere. While it is true it has relatively high radiant properties, these are minimized by its mobility. I often supply an analogy to help this understanding to AGW proponents by just relating the seasonal management of ones’ backyard - growing grass, gardens, managing fall leaves, garden harvest, etc, etc Because of life and carbon’s active demand in the substrate, and even with higher artificial atmospheric concentrations, CO2 and carbon in general is highly mobile, and less capable or able to “block” or store atmospheric heat at much lower concentrations relative to other major GHG’s and other temperature drivers. This very nature of CO2 and the highly mobile/transferable nature of carbon make it virtually impossible to model concentrations and render any predictive influence.
@greenftechn
3 жыл бұрын
@@Krusty-kl5ej wrote, "CO2’s residency time in the atmosphere has been horribly mis-appropriated." When it gets to the upper levels in the atmosphere, there's little biological appropriation happening, hence it's accumulation. We are also MEASURING higher levels. To your point, it may be possible to reduce those levels faster than we presume. It is worth a try.
@xtremelemon8612
2 жыл бұрын
if CO2 captures some sun light it will reflect it back to space more than down to earth and would even be a cooling gas at this point
@mikev4621
2 жыл бұрын
@@xtremelemon8612 But when a CO2 molecule reflects sunlight , it doesn't suddenly orient itself to radiate upwards
@dwightehowell8179
4 жыл бұрын
When a molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon of of the limited part of the spectrum it can absorb what happens next? A. It almost instantly releases a photon or it transmits that kinetic energy to the other gases in the atmosphere and none of them are imprisoned inside a container as in a greenhouse. They are free to move with the convection currents. How much of that same limited part of the spectrum is absorbed by water vapor? In the end the best answer might be all that is available. Has the earth ever had an ice age while CO2 levels were higher? Well yes it has. What does current research say about the amount of the CO2 now in the atmosphere came from burning fossil fuels? Almost none of it. The C14 produced by atomic bomb testing didn't stay in the atmosphere for 20 yrs as a detectable trace. The carbon cycle including uptake by plants is pretty fast. 11,000 B.P. during a period of 15 yrs. the planet warmed by 7 C. This resulted in enough ice melting to flood Doggerland and the rest of the coastal lowlands of Europe Making Britain and Ireland into islands. Where fossil fuels being burned at the time? 😂🤣😉
@mikemcgarrity7572
4 жыл бұрын
Dwight E Howell I hope we discover the Glass Cube Earth is in soon. It will be back to the White Board for everyone.
@NapoleonGelignite
4 жыл бұрын
Dwight- you don't seem to realise the rapid warming 12k years ago is explained by the rising co2 and decreasing albedo. The increased solar radiance is not enough to explain the rapid warming on it own. Maybe you have an alternative explanation??
@NapoleonGelignite
4 жыл бұрын
kajestro m. - why don’t you look up the scientific explanation for the temperatures back then? You know the Sun was less radiant then yes? You understand that if the Earth was warmer but the Sun was dimmer then it must be CO2 and the GHE?
@mikemcgarrity7572
4 жыл бұрын
kajestro m. In addition Mars is about 3 times farther from.the Sun than Earth. Consequently Solar Radiant Energy reaching Mars is about .25 of Watts per Square Meter of Energy of that of Earths. Attributing any Single Causal Factor such as Atmospheric CO2 to explain Planetary Temprature differences is Absurd.
@elbuggo
4 жыл бұрын
What would happen if the trees ate all the CO2 in the atmosphere? The ocean would release new CO2, and within 5 years, we would be back at the exact same concentration as today. What if we by tomorrow doubled the CO2 consecration in the air? The ocean will eat it, and within 5 years we would be back at the exact same concentration as today. There is a chemical balance there between the ocean and the atmosphere, and humans simply can not do anything about it. So all surplus CO2 that is emitted by fossil fuels will be eaten by the ocean in not so long anyway. If interested in this chemistry, read geochemists Tom Segalstad primer on this here: www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean-Chemistry_NIPCC_CCR-II-B_2014.pdf
@georgesdellopoulos5808
7 ай бұрын
The graphic @ 11:26 shows that the radiative flow has increased by 0.2 W/m2 in 10 years. Using the Stefan Boltzmann equation to convert this into temperature gives us 0.036°C. Is this not proving that the CO2 effect is indeed saturated?
@ddee2501
4 жыл бұрын
You cannot model a complex system such as the Earths atmosphere without introducing huge errors.
@RodMartinJr
3 жыл бұрын
The errors in input are tiny; the errors in output are what are huge, because of the "chaos effect." Complex, non-linear systems, like the climate, are globally stable, but locally unpredictable because of this effect. I recommend James Gleick's bestseller, *_Chaos._* On climate, I recommend my own #1 Weather Bestseller, *_Climate Basics: Nothing to Fear._*
@rodkeh
3 жыл бұрын
@@RodMartinJr Climate has nothing whatsoever to with CO2 so the models are meaningless.
@RodMartinJr
3 жыл бұрын
@@rodkeh Do you always read so poorly? Did I mention CO2? And does a computer model always have to include CO2? Not it doesn't. Please read my comment again, carefully. And if you read my book (only 99c), you'll learn that I dismiss all the alarm about CO2, too!
@rodkeh
3 жыл бұрын
@@RodMartinJr All the models are based on the idiotic notion that CO2 and the atmosphere have an effect on climate but they don't! So modelling is meaningless anti-science.
@MUSTASCH1O
3 жыл бұрын
@@rodkeh What theory or evidence do you have that CO2 has no impact on the rising global average temperature?
@jamescaley9942
4 жыл бұрын
This evidence is "as close as we are going to get right now". That doesn't make it a strong case, certainly not 99.9%. The actual correlation of temperature rises is weak, if at all statistical significant. It is not even clear current temperatures are abnormal in any way. This is not just an academic debate. All the onus is on those who want us to take drastic action, impose climate austerity, ban the developing world from using cheap energy that drives growth and lifts people out of poverty. Not to mention impose dramatic changes in every aspect of our lifestyle without have the first clue of how to feed 8 billion people without fossil fuels. There is no question that catastrophic climate change will take place at some time, the best defence is rapid economic development, not slowing it down. That would also address the real "emergency" which is poverty, not climate change that might happen. "you will only ever find what you were looking for". That is exactly the case with the papers you quoted. In general papers do not get published if they are inconclusive or they reject a hypothesis. Confirmation bias works both ways: researchers look for evidence to support the hypothesis and what is published and is not published is another bias.
@byrnemeister2008
4 жыл бұрын
So why do you think “climate austerity” is required? The cheapest way to generate electricity in much of the world is now solar power or Wind. Hence a significant shift to those power sources is underway. Not to mention they have many other advantages. Zero marginal cost. Big reductions in deaths from air pollution. More distributed. Etc. Finally when big investments are made in new infrastructure new industries are born and new economic opportunities open up. Think roads or rail or airports.
@muratgurol446
4 жыл бұрын
@@byrnemeister2008 well, that's exactly the point: solar and wind is the most expensive energy source if it were not for billions of subsidies. Not to mention that you need natural gas power plants as backup for wind still days accounting for as much CO2 production as if you'd rely solely on natural gas plants.
@muratgurol446
4 жыл бұрын
@@user-ez9is7lb9p we're still far below medieval and Roman warmth periods, let alone warmer periods in the holocene. As to your question, oceanic oscillations haven't been accounted for properly as climate drivers.
@byrnemeister2008
4 жыл бұрын
Murat Gurol Where are you getting your data from?
@muratgurol446
4 жыл бұрын
@@byrnemeister2008 I worked for 13 years in the utilities industry
@natazer
4 жыл бұрын
Your advice to stay open minded instead of finding ammunition is so on point it seems almost alien at this point.
@useodyseeorbitchute9450
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, what's wrong with that dude? ;)
@paarsjesteep
3 жыл бұрын
Einstein said in a 1917 publication that heat transfer from light to gas is predominantly by Maxwellian-Boltzmann momentum transfer and that photoelectric absorption and emission and associated frequencies play essentially no role. This undermines the CO2 “back radiation” argument which is all about the absorption and emission that Einstein said were irrelevant.
@nn-uj1iv
2 жыл бұрын
That is photons from light being converted to energy on the way in. The "back radiation" fairytale defies the second law of thermodynamics.
@egoncorneliscallery9535
7 ай бұрын
Indeed. That would be my first question to the man in the video.
@seanremington5823
4 жыл бұрын
Why are we afraid of a climate similar to the medieval warming period?
@matthewvaughan8192
4 жыл бұрын
Sean Remington Google ‘medieval warm period climate change.’ There’s a lot of doubt that there was a warming period on a global scale or just a local event; whether it was caused by milankovitch cycles & solar irradiation; whether it had the effect of climate change; how much CO2 & positive feedback loops affected it. It's not a simple 'gocha' against climate science. It can be explained with modern climate models.
@danieldjz
4 жыл бұрын
@@matthewvaughan8192 Like humans are really advanced enough to manage any change, pfft
@matthewvaughan8192
4 жыл бұрын
@@danieldjz You base that on what exactly?
@danieldjz
4 жыл бұрын
@@matthewvaughan8192 climate changes without human intervension. Look it up.
@matthewvaughan8192
4 жыл бұрын
@@danieldjz Have done many times. Little substance to it & the overwhelming scientific evidence says otherwise
@marlogue53
4 жыл бұрын
The modelling has failed abysmally. 5 predictions based on modelling used by the Canadian government in 2001 all totally missed their mark. This can hardly be called science!
@davidwatson8118
4 жыл бұрын
So what. We would also like to see some references for those assertions.
@naughtynat82
4 жыл бұрын
@@davidwatson8118 check this as one reference. I am sure you can find others. kzitem.info/news/bejne/pYhs3ZipmJ6qZag
@johnnyjones3362
4 жыл бұрын
Dave of OZ Still waiting for the Maldives to vanish under the sea because of climate change. Why haven’t they vanished Dave? Please Grace is with your science and wisdom.
@davidwatson8118
4 жыл бұрын
@@naughtynat82 Wow, what a stunning reference. A history teacher talking about stuff he knows bugger all about.
@davidwatson8118
4 жыл бұрын
@@johnnyjones3362 Maldives? You guys can't help spouting the same debunked rubbish.
@ssm59
4 жыл бұрын
The principle issue with trying to explain all warming processes on the planet by CO2 has fallen prey to the all to common problem of trying to explain all phenomenon with a single variable. None of the current models address convection or the effect of a waning 40+ year long solar maximum, the relative quiescence of Volcanism one the last century, etc. There are a host of variables operating on short time scales that are simply are/can-not accounted for in simulations that buffer all of the green house effects. The power of these transitory elements are strikingly powerful given the planetary temperatures have remained in a very narrow zone of the entire 20th century, (+/-1%). For example a single cloud blocking the sun for a single hour at noon on the equator reduces forcing by 6W/m2 for the entire 24 hour period completely negated the effect of doubling of CO2 (3.7W/m2) (which we will not achieve through our efforts). Life on this planet is only possible via a series of powerful buffers that work in concert to negate large changes in surface conditions. Climate science (more accurately known as conjecture) dismisses these buffers as unimportant consequently relegatiing its credibility to the dust bin. More people are beginning to realize this.
@grumpyaustralian6631
4 жыл бұрын
Because Its primarily CO2, obviously scientists have accounted for other variables, are you seriously suggesting that you think scientists wouldn't of thaught of that or any other potential contributory factors? Peer reveiw means everyone in the profession looks for problems and inaccuracies in every paper, if it was anything else other than greenhouse gasses they would know about it. kzitem.info/news/bejne/q69vwH2pf6OgZZg
@ssm59
4 жыл бұрын
@@grumpyaustralian6631 It. is not a question of thinking of it, it is a question of able to account for it. Further you put far too much faith in "scientists. I have multiple degrees and did research in several institutions. The degree of passive fraud is epidemic, and active fraud is far too prevalent to be tolerated. These are normal grubby people with eh same base motivations as you and me. They operate in a field where to survive hyperbole and frank over-statement are necessary for survival. BTW How are tings in Brisbane? I did some of work at Uni. of Queensland
@grumpyaustralian6631
4 жыл бұрын
@@ssm59 I have a bachelor of engineering with a major in applied physics, it's not faith its education. They can, do, and have accounted for other variables through a variety of methods which are all detailed in every paper, you are suggesting that academia has somehow missed something due to a non existent biase and or fear of persecution from their peers but that isn't how peer review works, if ideas are valid they are explored in full. You're questioning the entire scientific establishment because you dont agree with the vast amount of research, there are no biasses in science we gather facts and come to conclusions, sorry if that sounds a bit harsh as youre obviously quite intellegent but you clearly haven't studied in science specifically. Brisbane is ringed by bushfire, so its probably smokey I imagine 😅
@ssm59
4 жыл бұрын
@@grumpyaustralian6631 You do not need me to examine the current dilapidated state of our shared institution of science. I direct you to the work of John Ionnaidis, MD of Stanford, a widely heralded expert in statistics and his critique of most medical research of the last 30 years. To go beyond the medical arena you might want to pick up a copy of David Freedman’s book entitled Wrong, why experts keep failing us and how to know when not to trust them. He covers Ionniadis as well as similar problems in the institution of science beyond medicine as well as economics, business, and politics. What you describe is the Panglossian view of how Science is supposed to work. Unfortunately the institution never achieved these lofty goals and worse, it has been on a precipitous fall since the end of WW2. It is now widely recognized that much of pear review has become corrupted by echo chambers of small groups controlling access to publications. Why do you think the American Physical Association pulled its statement of support AGW/CC and instituted its 5 sigma regiment for publication? Even in physics the plague of pseudo statistical significance had become too corrupting. BTW if you have to already, you must read Thomas Kuhn’s “On the nature of scientific revolutions”. He detailed this phenomenon in the early 1960’s I have been in the room when decisions to misrepresent and frankly make up data have been openly discussed and implemented so do not tell me this does not happen, I have seen it, I have colleagues who have seen it. This is why I turned down multiple requests for Univ. research appointments over my career. I will not participate in the fraud. Regarding climate issues simply look into the manipulation of Australian or Icelandic historical temperature records. These values have been “adjusted” to bring the history in line with current AGW theory yet the exact reason for the adjustments are poorly if ever explained. After being pressured to explain the reason for the adjustments, the Icelandic data has been returned to its historical values. This is not science, data does not ebb and flow at the whim of political interests. If the adjustments were legitimate, explain them and stand by them. Obviously that is not the case. This is not to say that the is no truth in the theory of CO2 driven climate forcing. like every great environmental hoax of the last 60 years there is always a kernel of truth, small, and mostly insigiificant when it comes to the human contribution. It is unfortunate that your Country is once again experiencing severe summer bushfires. This is not unusual for Australia given that it is the driest continent on the planet, constantly oscillating between extreme drought and severe flooding. Remember in 2008 when it was declared that the drought of that year was the harbinger of a permanent drought conditions in SE Australia only to be met with record flooding in 2010-11? So much for predictions. This occillation is well documented in the Sydney newspapers all the way back to the 1860’s when CO2 was well below 300ppm. In a week or so NW Australia will be in a tropical deluge so It looks like you will be seeing a repeat of 1850 when the continent was experiencing both severe fires and flooding at the same time. Hopefully your official s can get their heads clear and implement policies to permit the reduction of ground fuels so you can get better control of this situations in the future. Your grandparents understood the need for this as the memory of Black Tuesday was quite literally burned into their psyche.
@grumpyaustralian6631
4 жыл бұрын
@@ssm59 There are so many thing wrong with every one of of those arguments, you need to research climate science further. You are legitimately too much. This is the most severe drought we have ever experienced, there is a weak monsoon coming but will in no way help with water. What do you presume is cauasing the indian ocean dipole to slow and pool cold water to the west of australia, antarctica not melting? Yes we have always had droughts in warm periods, thats how we know that every time antarctica sheds ice we get drought. the fact is we just had a 12 year drought followed by a small reprieve then the most severe drought we have ever experienced, the last 20 years have been completely out of the ordinary for our climate, it is because we are 90% desert that 1c° is affecting us first, our already pre existing devastating droughts have become unsurvivable. Funny you mention an older "fire scared our grandparents" when in 2009, 170 people died in the black Saturday fires, they're getting more common and spreading faster than ever, you are just a climate denier who is jumping on the australian fires because the American right wing media has flooded you with missinformation. Do your own research. These fires are the biggest we have ever had at 8.4 million hectares have decimated wildlife an rainforests that have never been in great danger of fire before, there is no debate about why Australias climate is changing. That said we could toatally survive 2c° to 3c°, there are definitely pleanty of alarmists claiming the world is ending with very little understanding of actual timescales referred to. I know we'll probably agree to disagree here but you really should look into climate drivers and how radically a few degrees can change their intensity, its definitely greenhouse gasses building up due to our excess emmisions that is slowly warming the planet, the carbon cycle can only eat so much.
@johnmarks227
3 жыл бұрын
The rotation of the earth and it's proximity to the sun has an effect that wasn't stated by anyone yet as far as I have seen. It would affect the intensity of wavelengths in various frequencies and their absorption either + or - . Not to mention any solar flair episodes.
@sedigives
3 жыл бұрын
Are you trying to get kicked off youtube? Noe just ignore that giant ball of fire in the sky, nothing to see here. Just because some amazing scientist's have found new GSM facts means nothing. So don't learn how to adjust for farming in cool climates like we did thousands of years ago.
@fwcolb
3 жыл бұрын
The rotation of the Earth is a key feature of every atmospherics course in every university in the world. Regarding other solar effects, are you familiar with the work of Svensmark and Kirkby?
@sedigives
3 жыл бұрын
@@fwcolb Not onboard with the "Ionization of aerosols" but agree that cloud formations & cosmic rays make sense due to the influence they can have on each other. Other then that, no. I'll have to see their work at CERN. I'm old fashioned in that I would like to see, what I believe to be the most important discovery not discovered yet. Gravity. I like to say I'm sure of this or that, yet I forget all the time, I think I know a little. We know nothing, were just getting an idea. Lot's of theory's (Theory's) and some should be Hypotheses.
@nn-uj1iv
2 жыл бұрын
Yes they do but the composition of atmospheric gases also has an effect. The question here relates to max atmospheric absorption and it is where the powers at be are conning and frightening the population with bullshit, basic physics sorts out the truth.
@gufpott
4 жыл бұрын
It's a good explanation of the theory Mallen, with some evidence alongside. But the missing tropospheric hotspot is what convinces me. The absorption of energy aloft should be accompanied by a temperature rise. The temperature rise has to be sufficient to radiate enough IR back to the surface to cause warming. As the mid atmosphere radiates in all directions (consider up versus down as sideways is only redistribution), the surface only receives about half of the ADDITIONAL radiated energy due to the rise in temperature aloft (OK it's a bit more complicated than this because a layer of the atmosphere is like a spherical shell, but my statement is approximately correct). It follows that regions of the atmosphere must increase at a significantly greater the rate of warming at the surface below those regions. That's the theory (see my first citation to confirm) and it is testable. It is a Popper-falsifiable representation of the question of CO2-induced warming. You can see a quite nice graphic in the first citation below, but the IPCC did a good presentation in AR4 Figure 9.1 and it's worth a look. So we now have the theory, and we can turn to the question: what do we observe? My second citation below confirms the predicted pattern of warming in the key regions (parameterised as a "Scaling Factor" which could be tested) is not confirmed by observations. This position has now persisted for 10 years. As Feynman said (my paraphrasing), it doesn't matter how beautiful and elegant your theory is, if the data says it's wrong …. it's wrong. Theory: Santer et al, 1995, "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere" (Quote from this paper: "The pattern of stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming … is in accord with previous modelling work and represents the direct radiative signature of the change in CO2".) Observation: Christy et al, 2010, "What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? " (Quote from this paper: "A key indicator of the response of the tropical temperatures in enhanced-greenhouse gas-forced models is that the ratio of trends of the TLT layer relative to the trend of the surface, Tsfc, should be about 1.4, i.e., a ―scaling ratio‖ (SR) of 1.4. Using observed trend values, the observed SRs for TLT are significantly less than 1.4, being ~0.8 ± 0.3. This suggests that on average, the model amplification of surface temperature trends is overdone, and that the observed atmosphere manages to adjust to heating processes without allowing (over decades) a temperature change in the troposphere at a higher rate than it changes near the surface. An alternate explanation is that the reported trends in Tsfc are spatially inaccurate and are actually less positive. A more positive surface temperature trend than reported here, of course, would make the disagreement with the models even more significant [7,8]".) Just in case you didn't quite catch Christy et al's polite phrasing for journal presentation … they are saying the models are falsified by data. And before anybody gets excited about peer review of Christy et al's analysis and conclusion, the above paper led to a prolonged debate and challenge, mostly by Santer. The result was never overturned by Santer. Santer managed to argue that Christy's result could be changed somewhat, but not overturned and it still stands by a clear margin. Despite a decade of more evidence.
@muratgurol446
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this great information
@BlueShadow777
4 жыл бұрын
Commendably excellent and objective presentation. Thank you for this. Now, I appreciate your scientific consideration of both sides of the argument and, although I often find myself slipping into the tribal mindset (skeptical on mmcc), I like to think I do - at times, just as now having been settled down by your video - adopt a critical thinking mindset. I have listened to both sides of the science through reading, watching debates and videos etc., and I do feel the skeptics' viewpoints to be more rational, acceptable and convincing... it makes more sense to me than what seems to be a scaremongering attitude generally presented by the proponents of mmcc. If this makes me - after what I believe to be objective critical appraisal - tribal, then I can't help that. If one believes/leans more towards a 'side' in anything, one can be accused of 'tribalism'. However, putting the science aside, I believe there's another very important factor in this whole issue, and that is... history. Just look at the history of the global warming/climate change argument and the constant doomsday threats that the world will end due to mmcc/gw in 'x' number of years... and no such event has ever come to pass. Historical-pattern observation can often prove more soundly predicting than warring scientific opinions. The problem is - applying the indisputable historical timeline - the issue has become not so much one of science, but one of a political infiltration. This is the big problem, and why science seems to have been pushed aside in favour of the corollary tribalism. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AN HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS (and this is only touching the surface): • In 1922 the NYT carried an article saying that within 10 years, there will be no more ice caps, seals are dying off and great shoals of fish were depleting at an exponential rate. It went on to state also that within a few years the Earth’s coastal cities will be fully submerged. • In the 1970s, the great acid rain scare. • in the 1970s/‘80s, as a youngster I remember news reports (you can still find them on KZitem) stating that with global cooling, we’re now about to move into a *new ice age*. They even proposed covering the polar ice caps with black soot in order to *stimulate* melting so as to prevent *global cooling* . • in the 1990s/2000s, the issue of global warming was put forward and the scare-mongering recommenced with, additionally, the idea of a hole in the ozone layer ready to destroy us all! • Then, according to Al Gore, the world’s coastal cities should be submerged by now (actually projected for 5 years ago), and the polar caps completely gone. [Very interesting how real-estate agents are still selling multi-million dollar coastal residences in Florida and elsewhere. Obama, for example, hasn’t sold his coastal estate and scurried off in blind panic]. • With global warming having become static for 25 years, they decided to change the description from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. I wonder why... [Incidentally, I'm led to believe also that currently there are more trees in the northern hemisphere than there have ever been in Earth's history]. • Recently, they’ve again been postulating the idea that the Earth is actually now cooling. ...and through all this, we’re STILL being taxed and penalised on the basis of so-called ‘man-made climate change’. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE POLITICAL INFILTRATION (HIJACKING?): After initial being taken in with the whole issue of - at the time 'global warming' - Thatcher (after researching and comparing both sides of the argument) eventually changed her mind and came to the conclusion: “Global warming ‘provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism’”. Also, check out: kzitem.info/news/bejne/yqJ6nJWPr3-Bjaw After all the debates I've seen (the most rational seemingly from the skeptical viewpoint) AND the history (in my opinion VERY IMPORTANT) starting long before the presented 1922 point, I find myself firmly on the skeptical side. I fear that the whole issue is very dangerous - politically - and in itself may lead to (particularly third-world) human/animal destruction not from so-called mmcc/gw but from unnecessary efforts to change what is a natural process having occurred cyclically for millennia.
@CC88811
4 жыл бұрын
Daniele Iannarelli Well said. The political narrative, which tends to oversimplify or stray from science in general, has me quite concerned. We hear less from experts (from all ends of the debate, and including independent scientists) and more from clueless politicians and raging activists.
@elliegreen4738
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent post and very well said. To discover the origins of the global warming hoax use the duckduckgo searc engine and type in Aurelio Peccei quote on global warming. It tells you all you need to know about clinate change, especially if you know about the UN's Agendas 21 and 30. Rosa Koires video Agenda 30 is excellent.
@BlueShadow777
4 жыл бұрын
Ellie Green Thanks for the links... will check ‘em out.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
4 жыл бұрын
The global cooling scare of the 70s arose from a handful of scientists (not the majority, who were in fact warning about global warming even then) who worried about our ever-growing sulfate aerosol pollution problem. Sulfate aerosols, produced from burning coal, reflect sunlight and cool the planet the same way aerosols from volcanoes do. We were, in fact, smack in the middle of a bit of a cooling trend then, so the concern had some validity, especially if we continued to spew increasing amounts of the stuff. Because aerosols were also causing premature deaths and massive health and lung problems worldwide, the U.S. and other countries decided to do something and passed legislation (including the Clean Air Act) that significantly reduced sulfate aerosol pollution. The clean-up was so effective that climate scientists can actually mark the time period of the 70s by the absence of the aerosol pollutants in ice cores. The long-lasting result was over $2 trillion in savings in health care, according to the EPA. Unfortunately, the drop in aerosols left C02 as the dominant pollutant, allowing it to continue to trap heat and raise global temperatures, just as MOST scientists in the 70s warned that it would.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
4 жыл бұрын
1. No consensus of scientists in the 1920s said the icecaps would be gone in ten years. No credible scientist would say such a thing because the icecaps require centuries to melt. Nor did any consensus of scientists say cities would be submerged in that same timeframe. You're quoting a newspaper article, not a panel of scientists basing their opinions on a library of scientific papers. 2. We mitigated acid rain by passing the Clean Air Act. Google SCIENCE DAILY and enter "acid rain" into their search engine. You'll see somewhere around 40 studies chronicling the damage acid rain caused. 3. We helped repair the ozone hole by banning CFCs. It wouldn't have healed on its own. 4. Al Gore never said any cities would be submerged now. NOT EVER. ANYWHERE. IN SPEECHES OR IN HIS DOCUMENTARIES. What he said was, and I quote: "If half of West Antarctica or half of Greenland were to fall into the sea tomorrow, sea level would rise 20 feet." And he's right. It would. But he wasn't making a prediction. He was making an illustrative point. Big difference. 5. Al Gore never said the polar caps would be gone now. That process, again, would require CENTURIES. He said the Arctic Ice would be gone in "parts of SUMMER between 2013 and 2060, but conservative media outlets always leave off the second half of his range estimate. I urge you to watch Inconvenient Truth and see for yourself. 6. NOBODY CHANGED GLOBAL WARMING TO "CLIMATE CHANGE." The term "climate change" is the RESULT of global warming. 7. 20 of the last 22 years were the warmest on record. So were the last ten. So was the summer of 2019. So was September. Even with the sun in its minimal phase, warming has not stalled. It's pretty frustrating to see history rewritten like you've done, Daniele. Virtually everything you posted is either inaccurate or a gross misrepresentation of the facts. You boasted that you've done your homework on this issue but it's clear that you've actually manufactured information from internet mythology just so you can turn around and scoff at it.
@prieten49
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video. I can't say that I understood it but it's good to know that someone is still willing to follow the evidence to where it leads.
@adrianvance556
2 жыл бұрын
You cannot understand it because it is not true.
@amylee9
2 жыл бұрын
@@adrianvance556 then explain what is true
@petersteenkamp
4 жыл бұрын
The major flaw in this vid is the same as Arrhenius: assuming that CO2 is only a radiation absorber and not a radiation emitter. In the upper atmosphere, where the air is dry, N2 and O2 (who are bad at emitting radiation) collide with CO2, donating their energy to CO2, after which CO2 can emit the energy to space. In this model, CO2 is a cooling gas, and more CO2 leads to more cooling.
@petersteenkamp
4 жыл бұрын
@@burgesspark685 If you have a talent for physics, check out this scheme. It's quite complex but quite illuminating. Try to understand every line: www.researchgate.net/figure/Radiation-transmitted-by-the-atmosphere_fig6_328024940
@muratgurol446
4 жыл бұрын
You lost me at the point where you argue that CO2 in the higher atmosphere absorbs more energy. Then, again, shouldn't there also be a saturation, maybe shifted by a certain amount? And to make my moron approach complete: the argument that CO2 is plant food is not simply that it's plant food, rather that we've been living in a carbon draught since the pleistocene. To stay in your analogy: the argument is not about drawning in _too_ _much_ water, but dying from a literal _draught_
@stevevogel2264
4 жыл бұрын
CO2 aborbs energy optimally from sources that are at -50C. It is virtually ineffective at +0c. Hence, the colder it gets, the better CO2 works.
@BwanaFinklestein
4 жыл бұрын
Yes!
@brucefrykman8295
4 жыл бұрын
Consider this, without intervention and upheaval (volcanism, asteroid strikes, etc) Carbon based life forms (plant and animal) will eventually exhaust CO2 levels to the point that the Earth will no longer support any life. CO2 like elephants have graveyards where it goes to die for eternity. It is the oceanic sedimentation of the shells of small fossilized snails, shellfish, and coral over millions of years. This is in form of calcium 'carbonate' synthesized from CO2 in solution that drifts to the bottom of the seas to form sludge, then limestone then eventually marble. This takes the CO2 plant to animal and back to plant exchange budget forever out of circulation. Thankfully the Romans invented cement and modern portland cement factories cook all that dead carbon back to life again just like we do when we burn 'fossil' fuels to liberate life. At 180 ppm atmospheric CO2 Earth slowly dies. Save the Earth, make more cement and burn more fuel
@dannynewton3988
4 жыл бұрын
What kind of energy is the molecules in the highest part of the atmosphere absorbing? If you lift a molecule to 70 miles above the Earth Would it not gain potential energy? What would happen if you put CO2 molecules in a thermos bottle while 70 miles ip and then transported them to sea level? would they be warmer, colder or the same temperature as long as the bottle maintained temperature and pressure?
@jrb_sland5066
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for a well-reasoned presentation. My primary objection is to alarmists claiming an imminent 'catastrophe' and scaring children. It is well-known that existing climate models tend to run hot so that there is uncertainty of the magnitude of any/all temperature rise [by AD 2100]. We need much more objective evidence before I'm prepared to panic. Our response to 'climate change' should be to prepare plans for adaptation, for instance, to a possible rise in sea levels over the next centuries. Our distant ancestors were smart enough to move to higher ground ~15,000 years ago as melting ice-age glaciers refilled the ocean basins. Surely we can do the same without bankrupting our present civilization?
@tonyclif1
4 жыл бұрын
jrb _sland , to me the real problem is that people listen to “the alarmists”, and not to the scientists. Very few scientists tell stories like the (usually unqualified) alarmists, such as media, and social media commentators. There have been several reports recently confirming the models are conservative in their projections, so not sure where your “existing climate models tend to run hot” comes from? As for our ancestors successfully moving to higher ground, I suggest the numbers today are much higher, by a factor of hundreds of millions, if not more. Here’s an interesting read on modelling accuracy, with links to relevant studies - skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
@jrb_sland5066
4 жыл бұрын
@@tonyclif1 ...Over the last 30 years, the UN's IPCC has issued a number of Assessment Reports containing non-numerical evaluations of the likelihoods of various predictions made by climate models. As we'd expect, the more recent reports claim higher quality evaluations than the older reports - the science has indeed made progress. One of the notable changes is that the reports are beginning to acknowledge that earlier predictions were likely a bit too extreme, i.e, "running too hot". I take this to mean that the science is not settled, unlike the statements made by alarmists. Your reference to skepticalscience.com is useful, especially since it contains extended back-and-forth discussions [from as early as 2007] of various topics. More folks should read these commentaries to understand the nature of the issues involved. I agree that human population today is higher than 15,000 years ago, but only by a factor of perhaps x1500, i.e. 7+ billion today, ~5ish million then. Doesn't change my basic point - sea level rise is SLOW, and we'll always have ample time to move higher. How many docks, marshaling yards and other seaport infrastructure wouldn't be rebuilt anyway after a century? Alarmists loved to repeat their prediction that the Maldives would be underwater by now - in fact they are still in existence without evident loss of land area. Al Gore famously predicted in 2007 a flooded Florida by now . lol The great quantum physicist Neils Bohr is credited with the line: "prediction is hard, especially about the future". How many futurists prior to 2007 predicted the iPhone? There was no obvious reason to miss that one. I cannot predict the future; why do we allow alarmists to make climate claims which can only be proved by waiting out many decades while giving them our precious tax money to subsidize unproven tech? Given the inevitable necessity to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, we must note the appearance of practical electric vehicles [EVs]. The Tesla model S was first introduced in 2012. Now in 2020 it and its cousins are being manufactured at over 400,000/year. These autos will soon sell better than their ICE equivalents, and in a decade [or two?] we will see EVs dominant as commuter cars worldwide. Goodbye to ~15% of all fossil fuel usage, a big step in the right direction. www.maritime-executive.com/article/transport-uses-25-percent-of-world-energy
@tonyclif1
4 жыл бұрын
jrb _sland , whilst I agree with much of what you say, when you quote Al Gore, you also are quoting a non scientist (I won’t go as far as call him an alarmist, but no doubt many many do, and to an extent, I understand why - he doesn’t strictly follow the science, he adds some emotion and exaggeration) I made a mistake re the factor of millions - I didn’t mean millions of times greater, but many millions more people. I generally agree your numbers would be close re population size, but say that x1500 increase is HUGE in terms of the extra costs will be. If my calculations are correct, 10 million people, just to pick a number out of the air, needing, say, 4 million new residences at only $200k per residence = $8 quadrillion! Some estimates predict some 2.5 million will need to relocate just from major cities in Florida! All up, we are on the same side of the argument, with simply the finer details at question, which we can probably both justify in our own minds. An interesting discussion though. Cheers from Australia.
@jrb_sland5066
4 жыл бұрын
@@tonyclif1 ...Hi Tony, I'm a retired man from a small town near Kelowna, B.C. in western Canada. I quoted Al Gore because for a few years he was the poster child for AGW, and won himself a Nobel Peace Prize. Many folks accepted his exaggerations as reality. Shameful, but that's just my opinion, which no-one wants to hear. I recalculate your numbers as 4*10^6 * 200*10^3 = 800*10^9 = $800 billion. Over 100 years of slow adaptation this would be $8 billion per year. Not quite as bad as you thought! Canada's present population is about 38 million, and of that I'd guesstimate only 1 in 10 would be directly affected by sea level rise, so we'd need new housing for say 2 million households, i.e. half of the previous result --> $4 billion per year. Canada's GDP is around $CAN 2 trillion per year, so the adaptation to sea level rise would require 0.2% of our GDP each year for a century. Let's double this to account for infrastructure. 0.4% of GDP is less than I'd expected, and makes my point nicely - no big deal, and many citizens end up in more modern housing in brand-new better-planned cities! [unless I've grossly goofed the math or my population estimates] Agreed we are generally on the same side of the argument, and while I'd love to continue my quasi-rant I'd best quit before I say something truly foolish. Happy New Year, and cheers back to you - the planet will survive!
@tonyclif1
4 жыл бұрын
jrb _sland , as long as the Okanogan keeps growing beautiful fruit and making nice wine, the world is a winner. :) BTW, you are allowed to make quasi rants (even full rants) when you do it with integrity, and you appear to have that!
@pulsar22
4 жыл бұрын
The paper cited above is deliberately misleading. It says: "The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1-0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5,6,7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance." Note that CO2 is responsible for only 10% of the observed increase in downwelling IR. The 90% is not specified just says that it is mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration. This actually means in lay terms, water vapor. So, the actual major culprit for the rising trend in downwelling IR is water vapor and not CO2.
@fwcolb
3 жыл бұрын
The question is whether or not the correct statistical analysis has been conducted. analysis of time series is tricky and not many climate scientists seem to be aware of that.
@glike2
3 жыл бұрын
Important missing point: CO2 does not precipitate like water, hence always is a GHG unlike water vapor which is scarce in dry air polar regions, thus explaining why polar temperature is increasing faster
@glike2
3 жыл бұрын
Also elucidates how CO2 acts as a water vapor GHG effect multiplier
@maverickdisco4036
4 жыл бұрын
Evidence based science will be the only way to provide the answers to solve the issue. Great video off to do some research.
@Wkkbooks
4 жыл бұрын
Evidence is not proof. There's good evidence and bad evidence, and contradictory evidence. All evidence must be weighed, all science, good and bad, is based on some sort of evidence. 'Evidence-based' is a shibboleth. "Nearly 90 % of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record." Loikith, Lisa & Bauchwitz, Robert. (2016). Science and Engineering Ethics.
@maverickdisco4036
4 жыл бұрын
I agree with the 90%, however what I refer to by evidence is science conducted by relevant scientists and peer reviewed again by a relevant knowledgable peer group. There is too much bad science going on most of which is not reproducible and does not stand up to scrutiny.
@Wkkbooks
4 жыл бұрын
@@maverickdisco4036 There is a great misconception that peer-reviewed means true. Peer-review is usually no more than an expression of the biases of the reviewers. Often in practice taken as a substitute for replication, peer-review actually further discourages attempts to replicate. It is a myth that science has more integrity and less careerism than other fields of human activity. In fact, hiding behind the myth, the opposite may be true.
@maverickdisco4036
4 жыл бұрын
Mark Shulgasser I worked at a science establishment for over 30 years and during that time was involved in many many experiments. I was fortunate that we were only looking for facts and were not burdened with any prior bias or economic constraints. For science to be good and provide the correct answers scientists must be true to the values expected of them. Unfortunately in the current climate some scientists are as not as true to the values expected as perhaps they should be. I think we are actually in agreement, it is up to us all to call out bad science.
@NPipsqueak
4 жыл бұрын
I have a feeling Climate is so complex that we will never know no matter what changes we experience in our environment.
@clarkeslemon1312
4 жыл бұрын
The title is of course the brilliant part of the video.
@KENTEKELLER
4 жыл бұрын
Who is making the argument that CO2 is so small in concentration that it can't possibly have any effect at all? Who is making the argument that we can be drowning in CO2? This speaker is not representing his opponents accurately and building straw men. When he gets to the actual science, he is actually quite interesting.
@LouisEmery
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for bringing that information to the public. I didn't know about some of your references. When this scare came into being in the 90s, I explained the same thing too to my friends who needed to be reminded of H2O's and CO2's IR absorption spectrum. The expectation is that mid-layer temperature should be increasing.The problem for alarmists who want to shut down the economy is that the prediction of magnitude of the effect is very uncertain. Every few years the estimate of the magnitude decreases, which should be a good thing for alarmists since they can finally get a good night's sleep. And thank you for mentioning that O2 is absorbing UV. It is not all O3. Actually O3 is made from O2 that had just been ioinized by one UV photon. This was the atmospheric scare that preceded the CO2 one.
@empsirch7983
2 жыл бұрын
CO2 in your home at 1,000 PPM is considered Toxic. Our earth that supported human life was at 100 - 250 PPM, now our earth CO2 ranges at 411-600 PPM CO2 depending on where you are... that climbed in less than 40 years. can you do the math from here ?
@randomunavailable
4 жыл бұрын
We have water vapor to thank for the majority of greenhouse gas warming. Want to have an impact on greenhouse gases? Make less tea.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
4 жыл бұрын
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can, and does. Non-condensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
@8wayspeed505
4 жыл бұрын
What about coffee?
@randomunavailable
4 жыл бұрын
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 incorrect.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
4 жыл бұрын
@@randomunavailable I was quoting NASA, by the way. You should notify them how wrong they are.
@randomunavailable
4 жыл бұрын
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Keep thinking that.
@jwioo
4 жыл бұрын
An excellent presentation but how does this sit with past levels of CO2 when they were 10 times current levels?
@zxumwmki3604
3 жыл бұрын
Depends which era you're talking about and what was the mean temperature then? In the jurassic there were palm trees and crocodiles in the artic circle, and in the tropics the ocean water was >40°C. Hurricanes of burning methane were circling the tropical zone, also.
@douglasguenter9982
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for acknowledging that there are reasoned people on both sides of the debate. Very refreshing and educational.
@nternalPractice
3 жыл бұрын
Idiot... that's like saying their were "reasoned" people on both sides of the smoking debate (when it was discovered smoking causes cancer). There were two sides... science vs profit. Morons are ALWAYS looking for someone to justify just exactly what they want to believe.
@tc9634
3 жыл бұрын
This debate doesn't have sides. There are people who know what they are talking about and a lot of loud people who don't.
@greybone777
3 жыл бұрын
One side of the debate is a socialist led religion. The other side is actual science.
@nternalPractice
3 жыл бұрын
@@greybone777 Sadly, the world is becoming polarized into two distinct groups: A) a small minority of people who are (as a group) more intelligent, motivated and educated than has ever been seen in history B) the VAST majority of idiots who think that having an opinion is the same as actually using your brain to think and who (as a group) have been dumbed down to level also never before seen in history
@EchoTangoSuitcase
3 жыл бұрын
@@nternalPractice Let me guess... You believe yourself to be in the first group?
@kirklaird8345
Жыл бұрын
Nicely presented. A little too glib for my tastes. Here's my criticism(s). 1. I've never heard anyone claim that the CO2 radiative capture effect was "saturated". I've only heard (from the likes of Dr. Happer, Professor emeritus of Physics at Princeton) that there wasn't a whole lot of radiation that wasn't already being captured by CO2 and thus any additional effect would be small - an estimated 3%. 2. Your claim is that the CO2 impact has been readily measured (both outgoing and incoming) and therefore the greenhouse impact is unassailable. Thus, greenhouse warming is occurring and is substantive. Please explain, then, why, despite forecasts of rapidly accelerating sea level rise, tide gauges at ALL (well almost all) locations around the world continue to show linear sea level rise for more than 150 years. This is directly in contradiction with the global warming hypothesis. IE, Brest, Sydney, Honolulu, Key West, New York, Hoek van Holland, and many others. 3. You mentioned many uncertainties, yet the claim, for years, has been that climate science is a "settled science". Moreover, the climate models have been revised downwards several times (we are now at CMIP6) because the forecasts have greatly over-predicted the amount of warming.
@martinpring3129
4 жыл бұрын
Still no mention of the effect of solar cycles - which the IPCC also continues to ignore.
@grasonicus
4 жыл бұрын
Solar cycles are 11 years long and have been well-researched. We are now entering a low cycle - Maunder minimum. Solar cycles produce negligible global warming: climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate So now you know. You can now forget about solar cycles warming the Earth.
@uprightfossil6673
4 жыл бұрын
And the historical documentation for the last 100 years as well as the change of position from so many scientists from the 1970s "news ice age" scare. Seems like it is all just a variation of scare tactics... And what do you know... 2020 a virus makes all of this seem irrelevant as people panic for real about serious threat. Lol
@grasonicus
4 жыл бұрын
@@uprightfossil6673 And don't forget - if you rubbish climate change you can go on with your wasteful, irresponsible lifestyle. That's really the biggest reason not to believe in climate change.
@mikeb8342
4 жыл бұрын
@@grasonicus and if you look at your point in reverse..... scaring people with doomsday climate predictions can validate the idea that the population needs to stop using energy freely (what got us to such a prosperous state). Sounds like a perfect way to control people..... exactly what the control freaks known as politicians want. It's called power.
@mikeb8342
4 жыл бұрын
@Michael Markowsky wasn't the "hockey stick" graph peer reviewed? Perhaps you could spend a little time listening to scientists who are skeptical of the hysteria, including some who were part of the original IPCC, whose findings that don't support the hysteria are simply ignored in the summaries for policy makers. The only research that makes it into the summaries are the scary parts from those that earn their bread and butter from fat government grants...... that'll disappear if their findings don't support the control freaks. Contrary to popular belief there isn't a "97% consensus" that man is having a significant impact on the climate. It's not even 9.7%. And even if there was this consensus, consensus isn't science. I've been looking at both sides of the debate for years and only one side keeps failing to produce accurate climate models for future temperatures (not to mention that running them backwards doesn't match known measurements from historical data), cherry-picks measurements/data (Mann and his tree rings as one example) and "looses" raw measurements/data when moving from one office to another. Can you guess which side that is? Try reading Gregory Wrightstone's book "Inconvenient Facts" and see a reasoned argument for having a little more skepticism of the hysteria. At least you might get a better understanding of why there are skeptics out here. Or how about Phil Valentine's video "Inconsistent Truth" (admittedly a little silly/comedic) where he talks to some of the people I mentioned above? If all you do is listen to one argument and their attempt to silence or discredit all skeptics (the base of science I should mention) then of course you believe we'll boil away by 2100.
@fredrickemp7242
4 жыл бұрын
As Far back as I can remember been told people are bad the world would be better off without us but I’m not stepping off anybody else willing to go ahead
@AbiFrench
3 жыл бұрын
Yes unfortunately they have been trying to make us believe that humans are the worst species, the same people who look after nature have been accused of destroying it, and now with covid they are teaching us to see others as carriers of deadly diseases. whom ma I talking about? Those who use and abuse the earth’ resources for their own benefit, pretend they want to save it and point the finger at us. Those who got us into these difficulties in the first place. How do you think ‘smart cities’ can be sustainable? ??
@mattw9764
4 жыл бұрын
A question answered "yes" by multiple lines of professional peer-reviewed scientific experiment over decades.
@jamescaley9942
4 жыл бұрын
There seems to be no consensus even on what the question is. Most of the claims I have heard are scientifically meaningless statements. Science requires a clear hypothesis that can be tested and can be falsified. Well many of the models have been falsified because they kept running hot. That is how science works: you reject the hypothesis. Note also that failure to reject the hypothesis is not the same as accepting the hypothesis. You don't fudge the model to fit the data, or find "legitimate statistical and scientific" ways to "hide the decline".
@mattw9764
4 жыл бұрын
@@jamescaley9942 Forget models. There are multiple lines of scientific observation and experiment that clearly, in the combined analysis of the scientific community worldwide, support climate change due to human caused emissions of greenhouse gases (and other human influences). I say again, stop spreading disinformation that the scientific conclusions are based on models (when they are based on measured data) and disinformation about there being no appropriately framed scientific investigation.
@johnweir1217
Жыл бұрын
Thank you Mallen - I took your advice to be more open-minded. I was struggling with the whole CO2 saturation question. I thought that CO2 saturation would not prevent significant temp rise. Then I discovered a paper by Lindzen and Happer, 2 very well-respected climate scientists. Total blew me away - now I realize that CO2 has a very minor impact as a GHG. This is all down to you. Thanks again.
@karelvandeschoor6313
Жыл бұрын
Willian Happer is not a climate scientist but a physicist (em.) at Princeton university. However, he's the one who re-researched the role of CO2, because all prior knowledge about it was gained during times when Quantum physics had not yet been discovered. Happer's research had nothing to do with climate: he was more interested in building lasers etc. However, after researching the subject, his conclusion was that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic. Haooer later took courses in climate physics, but he does not call himself a climatologist. His work was applied to climatology by Richard Lindzen, assisted by Happer himself. A lot of alarmists hate Happer and question his credibility because he's not a true climatologist, but he has published all his research in peer-reviewed scientific magazines, and to this day, nobody has found mistakes in his work or was able to disprove it.
@yulia628
3 жыл бұрын
It's a pleasure to meet a thinkful person with ANALYTICAL MIND
@jamiecrouch6387
3 жыл бұрын
I like your rational for free thinking and going with true evidence to base a rational thought
@billbrown3414
3 жыл бұрын
Un-addressed issue: At higher altitudes, the absorption bands for CO2 narrow and greatly decrease IR absorption-its effects quickly dwindle as altitude increases.
@mjParetoQuant
10 ай бұрын
Do the maths! It is an interresting topic. But this has been addressed multiple times. William Harper wrote a paper on detailled calculations taking every absorption lines of CO2 and water and other gases into account. He took also the temperature profile of the atmosphere into account. The Python package he used for the full transimission calculations do take linewidth into accouint which depends on temperature (Doppler effect). He found a descrease of a few percent in the emissions when doubling CO2 concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm. He concluded that this was neglible. He was wrong to conclude so fast. Because you always need to do the math, all the maths, ponly the maths. He did not calculate the impact on temperature. William Harper, like you, further believe that topic was not adressed. That's totally wrong. Read the IPCC Physical Science Basic report! You will find plenty of references on this topic. But it is only one topic among many others. William Harper for sure will dismiss the amplification effect cause bu water evaporation. Without doing the maths, again. Here on KZitem I remeber a slide of him talking about why the Le Chatelier principle makes this amplification impossible. He would not even get a C grade for such a stupid statement. (even clever people can be stupid sometimes) First of all because any small increase of temperature produces a rather large evaporation. The curve -let say- is exponential. Any HVAC engineer know that !!! But worse for a "distinguished professor in the academia", the Le Chatelier principle just doesn't apply to this problem. Why? Because this principle only applies to systrem which are at thermodynamic equilibrium and which are closed system. The earth atmosphere is not at thermodynamic equilibrium: its temperature is not uniform, for example. The earth atmospher is not a close system: it receives a lot of energy from the sun. Interresting topic anyway. But too many people not serious about it. Too many people totally un-professional.
@foroyalty
2 жыл бұрын
The reason why Clausius stated that, 'Heat only flows from hotter to colder' is that it was in light of the fact that he also stated, 'Entropy always increases'. I.e.,whereas the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy will be lost from a closed system it does not, however, having thereby ruled out the possibility of energy not leaving a system state whether or not energy lost from the system could possibly re-enter the system/whether the energy loss from the system is the result of a 'net outward energy transfer' or an exclusively 'externally-directed' energy transfer with no return of any energy lost from the system back into the system. Consequently, it is the purpose of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to clarify/extend the limited meaning of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in the particular aspect cited above. Therefore, the statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that 'Heat only flows from hotter to colder' must include in its meaning that there is absolutely no regaining/return of energy to a hotter surface from a colder surface instead of the statement simply meaning that the rate of energy transfer from the hotter surface must be greater than the rate of energy return into the hotter surface from the colder surface, - i.e., that there cannot be a 'net energy transfer into the hotter surface' - because the statement that, 'Entropy always increases in a closed system' means that after energy has been lost from where it is present in a higher concentration and has been deposited into where it was in a lower concentration this process of 'increased energy distribution/equalisation/'levelling up' cannot then occur in reverse which is precisely what it would constitute if infra-red light that had transferred from the ground to the air - which would constitute an increase in entropy - were to then 'back radiate' from the air and into the ground, i.e., re-absorption of the 'back-radiated radiative energy' by the ground would constitute an increase in enthalpy due to a reversal of entropy in a closed system which is impossible if the statement that, 'Entropy always increases in a closed system' is factually correct and this is, for the reasons explained above/nearer the top of this comment, 'ruled out', seemingly, by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
@natazer
4 жыл бұрын
I've never understood why averaging the global temp is considered an accurate assessment. Aren't there a million factors that would skew the results?
@jwickerszh
4 жыл бұрын
They don't actually average the global temperature .. yes it's a bit more complicated than that, but we do have a good assessment of the temperature trend.
@brucefrykman8295
4 жыл бұрын
@@jwickerszh Does saying it make it true? How many thermometers of historical record would be required to assess a 5,400,000 square mile continent's temperature 'anomaly' [sic] to a monthly accuracy of 0.01 degrees C?
@jwickerszh
4 жыл бұрын
@@brucefrykman8295 Math is hard but stats is counterintuitive sometimes. That's something you can figure out via experiments on a computer at home though.
@brucefrykman8295
4 жыл бұрын
@@jwickerszh Some math is difficult, some is easy, 100% of it is an abstraction of the real world. If the global temperature is indeed rising then only ONE thermometer of record would be needed to assess the temporal rise in Earth's "average" temperature over the decades and the centuries. If such a 'record' [sic] required both a comprehensive spatial and a temporal resolution then we have a very complex issue at hand. What exactly are we talking about in assessing "average" planetary historical temperature 'anomaly' [sic] (variation) purported to accuracy of 0.01 degrees C? Is it only the surface or the entire atmosphere (it moves all the time), does it include the seas (if so, to what depth) ? Aren't we talking about "heat" trapping gases anyway? As you know temperature says very little about heat energy. What makes you think the temperature scale is the right metric for assessing the 'heat' trapping properties of CO2? What is "average' for a month anyway? is it the daily high plus the daily lows divided by two or is it a comprehensive second by second fully integrated mean? What is it the standard ? Is it a uniform standard for the entire historical 'record' [sic]. Exclaiming 'math is hard' doesn't answer any of this. I need more and I can follow complexity as long as it is sensible. Unlike the other kinds of priests who pondered the precise number of angels that can dance upon the head of a pin. Real science demands theory and proofs I'll leave the UHIE out of the question for the moment just to keep it easier for now.
@brucefrykman8295
4 жыл бұрын
@@jwickerszh Regarding adequate spatial distribution of thermometers. I have a well located (shaded, ventilated, isolated and calibrated) thermometer on my property. Not two miles from me is a an official weather station of record for my larger community. Oddly my thermometer normally reads over 2 degrees colder in the winter and the over two degrees hotter in the summer. I have theorized that the official weather station is located not more than a couple of dozen feet from a sizeable (1000 acre) lake and that the lake moderates these extremes. Complicating this is the fact that the lake is only 35 years old. So much for 'historical records'
@duanemansel5704
4 жыл бұрын
It appears to me that historical climate data does not support your ideas.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Well, in fact, you are wrong. Historical climate DOES indeed support AGW (note, it is not Mallen's ideas), as evidenced by hundreds of peer reviewed published research findings.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Who are “them”?
@duanemansel5704
4 жыл бұрын
@@jeffgemv Amen to tony HELLER
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
@Sir Royston When you say historical, are you speaking geologic history, or last hundred years or thirty years ago? Do you trust the data from say 1940?
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
@Sir Royston Well I would submit to you that surface temperature measurements taken 50 even 100 years ago are very accurate - limited in certain areas for reasons of geography, but accurate nonetheless. It is these temperatures that worry most climate scientists (i.e., the sudden rise over the last 100 years, and more specifically, in the last 50 years). Remember, it is not the exact temperature of any given day that is important, but the change over time from a baseline. Source: www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
@paulchevin
3 жыл бұрын
This is an excellent explanation of a very complex subject. Well done!
@vladimpaler3498
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this analysis. I am very worn out listening to extremists on either side of this debate, most of which have little idea of science or mathematical modeling. One side argues that it can make no difference and the other believes we are all going to be extinct. I looked up the estimated CO2 numbers over the last million years and they seem to dip to ~150ppm and up to 300ppm as part of the 100,000 year earth cycle. It looks like our current state of ~400ppm is quite high, which would linearly equate to 33% more heating if no other effect changed. This originally made me very skeptical, but I do see that the mathematical simulations incorporate the logarithmic relationship. Since there was a period of cooling I assume there are other effects that can counter some of this. In fact, my son's school was teaching that there should be a cooling period and yet there is none. The end result is I think the models are not yet accounting for all significant factors, which is frightening since we do not know if these factors will compensate, or if they will ebb tomorrow leading to vastly increased warming.
@gazsibb
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent balanced piece and you're so right on the ridiculous tribalism. Thank you Mallen.
@kevingrove4379
4 жыл бұрын
Wikipedia “long term rise in earth’s temperature” yeah, no kidding generally a warming trend for about 13000 yrs now. Seems to be going into a minor cooling phase now, hopefully minor!
@MinhNguyen-wz2wn
4 жыл бұрын
Can you send me the link? I can not find it
@52marli
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheSeniorTaco i live in the midwest, it was usually 20-30 below every winter for a period of time. Last winter we barely got to zero. But last summer, we also didn't go over 100°. Usually we have several weeks well over 100°. I don't care what the official record says. I lived it. I do have to laugh though when I hear these 'experts' claim they want to take all forms of atmospheric Carbon to zero. At least there is some humor.
@stevemurray710
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheSeniorTaco Yes. The ice age. That's the true catastrophe waiting for us. Miles thick it will crush all our solar panels. Hard to grow crops too.
@EgilWar
3 жыл бұрын
When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
@stevendirks6239
3 жыл бұрын
This is also very true
@MrChosenmarine
3 жыл бұрын
you would make a terrible carpenter than
@dekhrahahoon
4 жыл бұрын
Just subscribed due to your refreshing approach to the importance of free speech. Very pleased to see that you are one of the few warmists who recognise that the critical change is in the upper atmosphere, not at ground level. There was a paper some time back on Joanne Nova's site analysing the IPCC equations, which showed that they input the effect of CO2 at ground level, not the upper atmosphere. So while your qualitative argument is right, it may be that quantitatively, you disagree with the IPCC, whether you know it or not? But also, the key difference betweem serious skeptics and the alarmists is not whether CO2 warms the planet, it is whether and how much there is feedback into water vapour, as H2O is the largest greenhouse gas by far. Lots of evidence that this is small, or maybe even negative, the most obvious being the lack of the tropospheric hotspot. Other less direct evidence includes the careful tracking of the climate temperatures and CO2 concentrations into and out of the ice ages, but with CO2 lagging temperatures by some hundreds of years. The argument "Yes, the temperature change starts the CO2 change, but then the CO2 change feeds back into the temperature" doesn't impress me. I invite anyone to make a simple computer feedback model where the supposed cause lags the supposed effect in this manner. Lastly you have to be careful criticising the plant food argument. The increase of planetary greenery by 11% in 28 years is real, past tense benefit: food for maybe 600 mil. people and countless wildlife, and in addition the poor will have less need to take over even more wildlife areas if their existing land will provide enough food. Add that to the fact that we are still a few degrees below the medieval climate _optimum_. I have yet to see an alarmist argument that starts from this point, and says "Yes, if we reduce CO2, we will be reducing the world's food supply, but this is necessary because ..." All propaganda I have seen simply pretends the food factors don't exist. Cheers, Ron House.
@robertallan6373
4 жыл бұрын
We simply live in a world today where everyone is whinging and panicking about just about anything.
@bonysminiatures3123
3 жыл бұрын
couldn't put it better
@sedigives
3 жыл бұрын
Yep, We know A.I. will wipe us out soon. This stuff is just filler.
@Tawny593
3 жыл бұрын
@@sedigives Stop with that Terminator nosense.
@sedigives
3 жыл бұрын
@@Tawny593 It's passion. Science has but one rival. Scientist that forget what bias is, and become Political. It's criminal that grants exist! Funding should never be an issue, it only offers s path to corruption. When "The Science is Settled" comment was made, I was surprised that no one spoke up. Every one should have said something and we all know it! Credibility was lost that day. We should be thinking about Oxygen & salt. A.I. as well. If we are going into a cooling period, Farming would be something to consider. Instead IPCC? Really?
@johnhewlett7025
4 жыл бұрын
You were doing quite well with your argument until you let slip the assumption of 2 to 4 degrees of warming expected.
@robertcabrera3989
4 жыл бұрын
I taught math and the language used was always a challenge or an impediment to getting the concepts across as an instructor. The narrator above is an example of this.
@ReasonablySane
4 жыл бұрын
The main problem with all this is that we now understand all the complicated interactions about as well as the medical profession understood germs back in the early 19th century. Some day we may know enough to take action that actually matters. But that is assuming we know enough to be able to say, with certainty, that action is actually NECESSARY. So far, I'm not seeing it. At all. Zip. Zero. Nada. Of course, I've not had television in my home since 1997 so I get no "pushed" news. It's been all "pulled" since then.
@fugoff8588
4 жыл бұрын
I'm curious about the apparent lack of correlation between C02 and temperature since precambrian to date. C02 levels were in the thousand ppm back then and shiftet around over time without seemingly affecting global temperature. Also at other times (eg medieval warm period) it was very warm and yet co2 levels were relatively low (no man made co2). Is there a legitimate reason for this disparity?
@davidwatson8118
4 жыл бұрын
Tell us about pre Cambrian life forms. ?
@fredneecher1746
4 жыл бұрын
@@davidwatson8118 Please explain your implied connection between high CO2 levels and low levels of life forms.
@fredneecher1746
4 жыл бұрын
@@davidwatson8118 Please explain your implied connection between high CO2 levels and underdevelopment of life forms.
@davidwatson8118
4 жыл бұрын
@@fredneecher1746 Nothing implied, its called paleontology and geology, the planet was a very different place 543 million years ago, with only simple aquatic lifeforms and no plants. Co2 is not man made.
@draugami
4 жыл бұрын
It would be interesting to see if historical events correlate with the previous warm periods. Volcanoes during the Roman period, or around 1000 AD. One thing is certain. Our historical temperatures were cyclical. Our bodies have an amazing ability to operate under a variety of pH conditions. If you drink lemonade, or milk of magnesia, the pH of your body will not change significantly. This buffering effect is also built into our eco system.
@Hotwire_RCTrix
4 жыл бұрын
So many errors in this lecture. We started with physics but ended with a model that had very little basis. The biggest hole is the reabsorption vs kinetic effects. You would need to do a lot more work to be vaguely convincing. ie take your own advice and think some more. With complex systems historic data is more useful.
@petervithus3971
4 жыл бұрын
Right on, this guy Mr. Baker and his home-baked hypothesis of continued reflection of heat even above CO2 IR absorption point most, most likely is a paid troll for the IPCC and their REAL agenda for control through submitting us to pay carbon tax. See here: Mark Carney - UN Climate Czar : Will Changing Global Currency Stop Climate Change?: kzitem.info/news/bejne/mZ9svJ-oo3t8faQ
@Hotwire_RCTrix
4 жыл бұрын
@@petervithus3971 It would be an easy theory to test. I expect it hasn't and won't.
@petervithus3971
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, he’s hot air ! Please read my (a “bit” long) comment above, it has some good references
@tedwards7961
4 жыл бұрын
peter vithus he is a failed actor. He was offered a role pushing the fake narrative and most can see right thru it
@DrBustenHalter
4 жыл бұрын
The CO2 ppm statement is valid in the context of CO2 being a much weaker absorber of IR than H2O vapour (x20) - plus H2O absorbs over a much greater range of IR (total energy, x10) also at the CO2 band (95% saturated by H2O) hence coupled with their relative ppm concentrations (x10) makes CO2 fairly irrelevant (x1/20,000 vs H2O) as a heat regulator in the overall scheme of GHG theory and the relative contributors, and what further increased CO2 can actually do (logarithmically). That is what is hopefully implied by such a statement, but shortened for brevity. Let us not forget that such statements of contrary "fact" are continually repeated about CO2 AGW by the MSM *without question, reasoning or references* - always we see appeal to emotion, authority or "consensus". As such we can similarly dismiss such statements out of hand, by the same logic. Saying CO2 is plant food is trite but counters the emotional tactics employed by AGW proponents saying it is a poison, a pollutant or equating it with hazy pictures of downtown China as a toxic particulate. Even the BBC rolled out scare stories about "CO2 poisoning" - what they neglected to mention was the concentration of 10-20%, not 400ppm. *Even oxygen is toxic at higher concentrations.* So we see blatant deception and lies by omission laid out bare. Yet the AGW proponents get away with such intellectual dishonesty and emotional manipulation *constantly.* It is 1984, literally. CO2 is plant food, not a toxic particulate... in the context of countering disinformation and that statement - it is the correct position. Below 150ppm and we all die - so it's all about context. Another reasoned argument is that we should find a very complex temperature profile with altitude which is strongly dependent on the _infrared-active gas concentrations_ at certain altitudes. Instead, we see the temperature profile is *completely independent of the infrared-active gases* and purely a function of overall gas pressure (molar pressure). This implies a global thermodynamic equilibrium, not a local equilibrium as required by GHG theory. The above is quite a shocking result. The man-made global warming theory assumes that increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will cause global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect. So, if there is zero measurable greenhouse effect as a function of greenhouse gas concentration, this effectively disproves the man-made global warming theory...? Not to mention, CO2 theory cannot predict warming or cooling periods throughout history that happen independently of CO2 and cooling periods e.g. post-1940-75 that accompanied increasing CO2. As such if you were a half-decent data scientist, you would ignore it as a rogue parameter. Correlation is not (always) causation and we know CO2 naturally *follows* temp, has little feedback, and does not appear to impact a down-trend in temps of 40 years while direct atmospheric concentrations increased, or explain warming when CO2 concentrations remained flat. Indeed, CO2 lags temperature by some 500 years due to slow degassing - the increased CO2 we see may well (also) be due to natural global warming since emerging out of the LIA in ~1650. However, as in the past it has no significant feedback. It is simply not a driver of temperature - the only debate is its potential as a very minor GHG. The evidence against CO2 far outweighs the evidence for it as a significant climate variable. We do need to tackle *real pollution, sustainable energy and agriculture* - not to mention a sustainable economy - but that transition needs to work in tandem with carbon fuels, so we could sensibly transition over a 100 year period perhaps. If anything, more CO2 will enable more crop procuction in a time of ever-increasing population, and protect agriculture somewhat against the larger ongoing interglacial (10,000 year) cooling trend we are currently near the end of. This will descend further into extreme cold as we exit this interglacial over the next few hundred years. CO2 levels will naturally revert to ~150-200ppm. What then for agriculture? As ever, climate depends on your context. By then - with this ship of fools - it will probaly be too late for us to survive such an event. When it comes to research I would always listen to those who have no skin in the game - such as retired Professors or self-funded philanthropists who just want to see due diligence in science, and not blag funding just to keep the lights on. It's obvious there is far more funding by several thousand magnitudes invested in proving CO2 AGW. This is why you *never* see a balanced debate in the media. *If the science is settled, then it should not fear inspection or debate, it should welcome it to test its hypothesis.* Hell, it should even relish it. Yet we do not see this - we see aggressive language and behaviour not seen since the Inquisition of heretics. Again, it all rings alarm bells. I hope that real debate shows us a genuine consensus position on CO2, scientifically (but maybe never politically...).
@elbuggo
4 жыл бұрын
Well said there. I use to study those things to some years ago, but lost interest in all de (irrelevant) details when I found the oceans role in maintaining the CO2 concentration in the air. The ocean is a huge chemical plant that can convert to and from CO2 as need be. Doesn't really matter what we say or do, the ocean will decide anyway. Re: We do need to tackle real pollution, sustainable energy and agriculture - not to mention a sustainable economy Demography is far more important. In Africa and South America the people to the left on the Bell curve are doubling every 10 years or so, while the people to the right on the Bell-curve aren't multiplying at all. Will we run into a severe global IQ deficiency in not so long?
@bjornlundberg552
3 жыл бұрын
So there's an increase of 0.2 W/m2 over 10 years. In Sweden we have a yearly average of about 115 W/m2. That is 0.17% increase over 10 year. I don't know what the average for the whole planet is. The question is, Does these 0.2 W/m2 correlate with registered global temperature change?
@TS-jj1wi
4 жыл бұрын
So how did it take place in the past, as it did several times, when humans weren't around to contribute.
@davidwatson8118
4 жыл бұрын
Google
@tonyclif1
4 жыл бұрын
Thomas Smith , most importantly, it happened SLOWLY. Now it is happening at an unprecedented rate.
@bobcrawley3580
4 жыл бұрын
@@tonyclif1 less than 1 deg last one hundred & twenty years. No one knows accurately what the previous hundred years were like as only proxies used
@tonyclif1
4 жыл бұрын
Bob Crawley , two amateurs with opinions means nothing. Put up your supporting data and studies after you’ve had a read of some of mine ;) The following, including about 500 studies is a start for you. Climate change (Almost all links that aren’t actual studies contain links to the studies involved. Most articles contain multiple study citation) 420 peer reviewed studies Oct 2018 lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/Climate%20references%20Oct%202019.pdf?token=AWxSn3fRVGn08dghQiZqFqyDm70xzvejsXWr-3lptgsiOc_piDFIOdcG3wEeraXb1nqiNMnmIvd2JZm1EG5BufFwGjaOCmsDKSmENeWbp1PJJinpQUbSQX50OjW4Mpsrftqfsu_bHjaSC-k6JQ8UA6cUcTpaoipDiirpICPQVcnytoA1VDTQYQ1mgPtEebMu0Fl0hlbWcQSerRZ1hK49uCqh earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2016/01/25/four-graphics-and-a-book-that-help-explain-climate-change/ Myths and bad arguments about climate change thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/17/25-myths-and-bad-arguments-about-climate-change/ (Short version of above article) thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/18/debunking-25-arguments-against-climate-change-in-5-sentences-or-less-each/ 97% consensus skepticalscience.com/97-consensus-study-hits-million-downloads.html qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/ (Video re 97%) facebook.com/itsokaytobesmartpbs/videos/2085779345012821/ Natural vs anthropogenic climate change Scientists have evaluated all natural forcings and factors capable of driving the Earth's climate to change and it is only when the anthropogenic forcing is included that the observed warming can be explained. Natural vs Anthropogenic Climate Forcings, per the NCA4, Volume 2: nca2018.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure2_1.png skeptoid.com/episodes/4549 CO2 Impact skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html Summary 1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, Indicating climate change is anthropogenic; 2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, Indicating climate change is anthropogenic; 3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, Indicating climate change is anthropogenic; 4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source); 5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic; 6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic; 7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing; 8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic; 9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and 10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing. 11. Solar output has been at its dimmest yet global temperatures continue to rise therefore its not solar output. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50668 www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/2014/images/fig12.png www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/2014/ skepticalscience.com/From-eMail-Bag-Carbon-Isotopes-Part-1.html www.skepticalscience.com/From-eMail-Bag-Carbon-Isotopes-Part-2.html Global atmospheric temperature change facebook.com/ed.hawkins.climate/photos/a.1784710925132759/2425738901029955/?type=3 Climate Models www.sciencealert.com/decades-old-climate-models-did-make-accurate-predictions www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction Sea Level iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011 Oil company collusion facebook.com/groups/492828914218702/permalink/1378795532288698/ There is no climate emergency facebook.com/317015763334/posts/10156854683948335/ www.smh.com.au/business/companies/we-knew-ex-oil-boss-says-climate-change-with-us-forevermore-20191101-p536fb.html Ocean related climate change info www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190819164340.htm Unparalleled level of climate change www.carbonbrief.org/global-extent-of-climate-change-is-unparalleled-in-past-2000-years www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/climate/nyt-climate-newsletter-thanksgiving.html Amazing list of scientific resources - includes section on climate change and climate science textbooks facebook.com/119810451513415/posts/1410063932488054/ More climate science info and resources facebook.com/119810451513415/posts/1394723090688805/ More info from a climate scientist, with LOTS of citations facebook.com/groups/492828914218702/permalink/1289077461260506/ facebook.com/groups/492828914218702/permalink/1277633855738200/
@TS-jj1wi
4 жыл бұрын
@@tonyclif1 Thank you much, trying to consider and learn both sides of the argument. Appreciate it....
@millygnvr3507
4 жыл бұрын
First off, like the video; am reading some of the links. I will particularly need to read the argument pertaining to CO2 *not* being at saturation point, as I had come to accept that position from some other readings. That CO2 influences water vapour and thus ultimately the warming, I accept. However, my own investigations over the past few weeks have lead me to swap positions to the other side. There's several reasons, but probably the main one is the temperature v CO2 concentration 'lag'. It would appear that CO2 was some tenfold higher in the past, yet we were plunged into ice age. Likewise, CO2 was low whilst temperatures climbed out of ice ages. My current simplification is that CO2 is like a jumper/sweater - it keeps you warmer. A jumper/sweater doesn't stop you getting cold, nor stop you sweltering, depending upon other environmental factors. I'm thinking CO2 is similar and there's another major factor that is doing the influencing; possibly the solar variances or the Earths wobbles. It might well be that the solution is 'take off the jumper' and reduce CO2, but we better be sure the 'major factor' is in long term warming. Case in point, the temperature 'pause' over the 90's & 00's whilst CO2 continued to increase. Did you also come across the 'lag' in your research, and how did you rationalise it? (eg, short term: joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ longer-term [didn't keep track of links so here's an example] www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
The CO2 lag issue has been dealt with numerous times. See a good review (with links to references) by Potholer54. kzitem.info/news/bejne/24dptq6PjmN_anY.
@ellbee2439
4 жыл бұрын
Perhaps you are missing what factors were in play during those early years you mention about ice ages. Those were pre-industrial times where it makes sense that temperatures rising resulted in increasing levels of CO2. However, in industrial times we see the opposite occurring, CO2 levels increasing followed by temperatures. (see video by Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center responding to a Twitter questions in 2013) kzitem.info/news/bejne/mIWdt3aig5uehm0 You also seem to have been taken in by the right wing bloggers who think that there was a "temperature 'pause' "in the "90's & 00's". There was no pause, perhaps a lessening in the rate of warming but certainly no pause. For that I will defer to these two sites for the scientific rationalizations. skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998 With regards to your _"...there's another major factor that is doing the influencing; possibly the solar variances..."_ solar output has been shown to be decreasing over the period you are talking about here so it's influence on atmospheric temperatures today would probably be considered to be negligible. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdr/atmospheric/total-solar-irradiance tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/sunspots-and-solar-output/ Right wing blogs are not the best places to get accurate scientific information from as very honestly shown here by Mallen Baker, as well as _potholer54_ on his channel. In fact, potholer54 has a video covering most of Mallen's points here and perhaps some more comprehensive topics related to your comment. It's well worth a look. kzitem.info/news/bejne/pJmjqXabraGDZG0
@millygnvr3507
4 жыл бұрын
@@RJones-Indy Thanks. More to ponder. The lag is also mentioned in the last link that Mallen provides (to aip.org).
@stonehavenjc1221
4 жыл бұрын
@@ellbee2439 Nobody really knows what the temperature was or even is exactly right now. Good temperature records are not very old, except in the USA, which shows cooling. We have been warming since coming out of the little ice age. Warmed 1 degree until about 1940, then cooled to 1980 (science was sure of a new ice age) now warming again, all a continuation of coming out of the little ice age.
@ellbee2439
4 жыл бұрын
@@stonehavenjc1221 - You obviously have not done a very thorough investigation of global temperatures and how scientists have calculated them, from the paleoclimatological records to the present. Nor do you understand how those records are compiled or interpreted. And before you say that the records have been altered, adjusted or otherwise manipulated to fit the scientific community's narrative, consider that those same records are what you are basing your comment on so understanding them is important to your arguments. The entire topic of "global climate change" is what the sciences that study it are based on, "global" data! Local weather reports or regional weather anomalies are factored into the whole "big picture" view of the climate, neither taken in isolation. When considering global climate change, what happened in your backyard yesterday or today won't make it into the data banks of the scientists for many years yet to come.
@lrvogt1257
4 жыл бұрын
Well, I agree and you just did make the case-very strongly-for one side; the side of science and not the science deniers.
@m.chumakov1033
3 жыл бұрын
Very few deniers deny it "just because". All arguments of so called deniers are also backed by science. The difference is there is no political agenda behind their arguments and statements.
@lrvogt1257
3 жыл бұрын
@@m.chumakov1033 : No. There are no legitimate scientific organization in the world that agree with the denier claims. It's complete rubbish. The science has been well documented and well established for decades. Saying it isn't or referencing kooks, outliers and shills for the fossil fuel industry doesn't cut it.
@petebateman143
3 жыл бұрын
When do you publish your research for peer review? And in what publication?
@jianhuihong1
4 жыл бұрын
Mallen, could you do a show on the time lag between temperature rise and CO2 level rise in geological time scales? This has often been raised to argue that temp is the cause and CO2 is the effects, not the other way around.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
See El Bee post above for some good links.
@lugodoc
4 жыл бұрын
9:11 You seem to be making this argument: 1 CO2 absorbs more infrared from the Earth 2 This energy causes the CO2 to get hotter 3 As the CO2 gets hotter it rises towards the upper atmosphere. 1&2 are correct. 3 would be correct if the CO2 molecules held onto their extra energy, but they don't. They pass it on to all the other molecules of the other atmospheric gases through collision. The mean free time between collisions is the same for all air molecules at STP, 0.07 nanoseconds, so the CO2 will lose that extra energy real quick. Then it will just sink down again. Because CO2 is heavier than air. All the gases in a gas mixture will always be at the same temperature, although they may have different partial pressures.
@brucefrykman8295
4 жыл бұрын
Does it matter which molecule hold's the heat as its carried away to the stratosphere by convection? Is it heat that's the presumed villain or is it CO2?
@mrofnocnon
4 жыл бұрын
@@brucefrykman8295 Any gas released as a product of combustion is of course really easy to tax, end of story. C02 is totally harmless and in fact at 0.04% of the atmosphere, yes that's right 0.04%! C02 Is in fact too low and plant growth has been suffering.
@Gismotronics
4 жыл бұрын
I'm surprised Mallen ridiculed a few very important points at the beginning of the video. According to ice-core data, there has been cycles of global temperature change and CO2 levels going back millions of years and sometimes there appears to a correlation between CO2 and temperature and sometimes not. We can also see that there have been times in Earth's history when temperature and CO2 has been much higher than they are now. The trend does appear to be cooling overall and, despite a recent uptick in atmospheric CO2, CO2 levels are still at some of the lowest levels the planet has ever experienced. It also seems surprising that Mallen poo-pooed the nation that there are benefits of CO2 that are not taken into account... It's serious point because the climate alarmist position is that CO2 a polluting substance and the benefits of CO2 are never mentioned. Yes, too much of anything is a bad thing but the world does not have an alarming amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and, as mentioned above, there has been considerably more CO2 in the past. So how does the argument standup that 'too much of anything is bad for you' when we have quite low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Question: How much of the Atmosphere is made up of CO2 and what percentage of that is man made?
@yvesguyot8916
3 жыл бұрын
Proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere : 0,04% Man made 6% of these 0,04%
@colinosborne3877
4 жыл бұрын
So why does data from the past show CO2 increasing while temperature falls and vice versa?
@tedolphbundler724
3 жыл бұрын
This is the problem. The climate is far more complicated than the presenter indicates. Moreover, the Earth has a tendency to get dangerously cold. We can easily adapt to a few degrees rise in temperature, and when this has happened in the past the Earth was a very pleasant place. Drop global temperatures by a few degrees from where we are now and we are in an ice age for the next 100,000 years. Billions will die within three years.
@mattw9764
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Mallen. A good explanation, pitched exactly at the right level.
@modavis6710
4 жыл бұрын
It’s all abut taxes and control
@samuelzev4076
3 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/0YaIyml9jWKnY34
@bertthompson4748
3 жыл бұрын
Or the record heat, drought, fires, arctic blasts, hurricanes, floods and famines that are caused by anthropogenic climate change.
@thomasj4370
3 жыл бұрын
To me this question feels like sitting in a speeding race car without seatbelts targeting a concrete wall whilst the driver asks for arguments this massive wall might probably just be an optical illusion.
@GeorgiosD90
3 жыл бұрын
More like the wall women hit at 30 and still pretend it does not exist, right?
@thomasj4370
3 жыл бұрын
@@GeorgiosD90 I got to confess: stupid me can not copy for proper decoding your phrase. Where do these women all of a sudden come from? Is it some kind of insider menopause joke? But there’s fertility beyond the 30ies! Formula too complex. Can not proceed.
@GeorgiosD90
3 жыл бұрын
@@thomasj4370 Yes, it is a joke for the fertility with the first guy they can secure bc there is nothing else left.
@thomasj4370
3 жыл бұрын
@@GeorgiosD90 I do hope women get their eggs frozen for planned parenthood. Our lifespans are quite longer as they used to be so making this tech work to create such possibilities should be on our shortlist.
@cactusjack8057
2 жыл бұрын
The discussion about whether CO2 is saturated, particularly in the 15 micron IR band where water does not compete, has been going on, since the time of Arhenius. But as I will demonstrate, it is a bit of a moot point:- Everybody seems to have forgotten about Beer’s Law! The Beer-Lambert equation which can be written I=Io e -ԐBC where,Io=initial intensity, I=final intensity, Ԑ is the absorption coefficient of CO2 at 15micron at 1ATM, C=concentration, 410ppm, B=pathlength. The extinction pathlength occurs around 10-12m where collisional broadening with neighboring O2 and N2 molecules will dilute this heat into that volume of air. Why is this important? According to thermodynamics, all molecules of air in this instance emit photons unidirectionally to the fourth power of their temperature (we can use Stefan-Boltzmann’s equation), but an adjacent 10-12m layer of air above the first will less than 0.5C cooler than the layer below it. This means net radiative heat transfer will be very small, and it is convective heat transfer that moves heat through the troposphere and is responsible for the lapse rate. Because convective and conductive heat transfer are thousands of times more effective at transferring heat, especially when temperature differences are small across the total pathlength, radiative only starts to be more significant in the stratosphere. Secondly, the concept of a time-independent equilibrium has proliferated our thinking to such an extent, that the 0 dimensional Energy balance model ( 0dEBM) which marks the cornerstone of most climate models and underpins all the theories, including the IPCC’s ECS and radiative forcing calculations consider this fundamental : What goes in (Solar), must go out. However, when you have a huge capacitive element; all bodies of water on the planet, coupled with the fact that when that heat does much later, it does so by mostly convective means, then we have to abandon the concept of total radiative forcing (including feedbacks). Water is such a good conductor of heat that it will instantly dilute the same amount of incoming solar on a hot day, when an asphalt/tarmac'd road nearby would be heated to a bare-foot scorching 90C. (Paddling, in the local sea would be in sharp contrast nice and cooling, despite both receiving the same amount of incoming solar.) The concept of ‘insulating blanket’ over the atmosphere is highly misleading, especially for non-scientists. But treating the atmosphere as one optically thick layer, or as many scientists refer to as ‘effective emission height’ is also inaccurate for the same reasons; time independence. The effective emission height, is the same as photon path length; the average amount of interactions and re-emissions up or down, before finally leaving the atmosphere. Each interaction of absorption, collisional broadening, re-emission happens in micro-seconds, so a more accurate way of thinking is the photons are delayed slightly in leaving. This may be equivalent to effective emission height, but only during the day when the sun is shining. At night, the delay is ‘cleared’ in 6-8 hours of darkness, as your total photon transition time will be minutes at most, so the night time temperature at the top of the atmosphere is independent to the CO2 concentration. Because of the day/night cycle you cannot rely on a time-independent ‘total emission height’ to give you a temperature prediction at the TOA - you have to average it with the night time temperature. Just as we have to abandon the easier concept of a time-independent energy balance across the planet, we also have to abandon the concept of total optical thickness and effective emission height, and adopt instead, time-dependent balances, as well as consider other more dominant forms of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere, and not just CO2 absorption, if we really want to see how heat moves across the planet. It means the calculated ECS range of 2-5C (updated AR6 IPCC report) also cannot be correct. All this shows us that CO2 and H2O cannot be held solely accountable for any warming. The positive feedback mechanism of water vapor causing run-away effect, can also be dismissed, if than for no reason the humidity does not blinding follow isometric charts, but is influenced by dozens of factors at the very least. Most cause and effect/ correlations/relationships in the universe are multivariate, despite us humans preferring them to be univariate, as it makes the universe less incomprehensible that way.
@zhugnachaz8709
Жыл бұрын
"The discussion about whether CO2 is saturated, particularly in the 15 micron IR band where water does not compete, has been going on, since the time of Arhenius." It has been settled since the introduction of quantum mechanics and modern spectroscopy. By the way, if you start your presentation of your understanding of physics with something as simple as Lambert-Beer (which Scientists still remember, teach and use) you should at least use it correctly.
@cactusjack8057
Жыл бұрын
@@zhugnachaz8709 OK, well, if you think I am using the Beer-Lambert equation incorrectly, please explain how
@zhugnachaz8709
Жыл бұрын
@@cactusjack8057 Using ppm in Lambert-Beer shows a fundamental lack of understanding. If you would have ever actually used it to calculate anything, you would see that your resulting unit makes no sense. It's just an instant red-bullshit-flag.
@zhugnachaz8709
Жыл бұрын
@@cactusjack8057 Ok let me explain this with an analogy: Imagine your task is to manage plane traffic at an airport in an area of 10km^2. Let us assume for every 100 cars driving in this area on average there is 1 plane in the air. Although the cars have no impact on plane traffic in the air or at the airport we could say the concentration of planes in relation to cars is 1%. The problem is that this type of concentration is useless for our task. Imagine I double both, cars and planes. The concentration of planes in relation to cars is still the same, 1%. But the reality is that the amount of planes the airport has to manage has doubled. That is what you are doing by using 410 ppm as concentration in the Lambert-Beer equation. You need the total amount of absorbers not some relation to molecules that have no impact on the problem.
@frankrobinson9124
4 жыл бұрын
Mr. Baker: I listened to your vid over again this morning. I notice that at 12:15 you said - "when people says things like .... 'you can't definitively prove that CO2 is to blame'." Then at 12:37, you said - "by the way, if you think that CO2 wasn't logarithmic, if it acted irrespective of wavelength, then according to professor Pierre Humbert (sp?) doubling CO2 would warm the earth by about 50 C rather that the 2 - 4 C, which will be quite bad for us to deal with, thank-you very much." But many people like myself, would say, in response, that Mr. Baker, you are again missing the point (which it seems to me that the vast majority of people miss the critical point in the same way you do). The critical point is - ..... that if you CANNOT definitively iron out what the secondary feedback loop effects upon climate, of added atmospheric CO2, are (and these secondary feedback loop effects operate in both the positive and the negative direction), by way of how an average global surface temperature increase affects other earth climate system variables that also affect climate, and as well, by way of how increased atmospheric CO2 affects other earth climate system variables that also affect climate, ..... then, ...... within the context of the larger issue of the natural 100,000 year cyclization of deglaciation (10-15% of the 100,000 year cycle) followed by reglaciation (80-85% of the 100,000 year cycle), of which reglaciation we are now on the cusp of ..... well, what this means is you CAN, with confidence say, that within the narrower context of just what is definitively known about the primary GHG radiative forcing effect of increased atmospheric CO2, (which as per basic physics we know to be approx. a 1.0 C increase in average global surface temperature for a doubling of atmospheric CO2), .... that yes, within this narrower context, atmospheric CO2 is definitively to blame for some of the global warming, but this is definitive only within smallish time horizons (within 100 years - yes, and perhaps, with much lower certainty, within time horizons as long as 2,000 years), but ...... furthermore, what this also means, is that you CANNOT, with any confidence say, that within the wider context of what is definitively known about the secondary feedback loop effects upon climate, of added atmospheric CO2 (i.e. - what is definitively known at this current time is that there is no scientific consensus, Mr. Baker, with regards to the sum total size of the all the secondary feedback loop effects taken together, despite your insinuation that there is, as per your Professor Pierre Humbert (sp?) quote as provided above), ..... that CO2 is definitively to blame for some of the global warming, within the larger time horizons upon which the earth has been naturally experiencing the largest range of average global surface temperature swings (currently approx. 100,000 years), and as such, for time horizons in the neighbourhood of what our current state of knowledge is, with respect to precise timing of the deglaciation/reglaciation cusps (current state of knowledge resolves the timing of these cusps, as per Milankovitch cyclization sensitizing various earth climate system variables towards causing these turning points, to windows of no better than 2,000 years), we currently don't know if atmospheric CO2 is definitively the cause of global warming (or better said - we currently don't know if atmospheric CO2 levels are definitively to blame for the current state of average global surface temperature), within time horizons of 2,000 years or more. After all, upon all the previous cusps turning towards reglaciation ..... ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WAS STILL RISING. Now here is the kicker to all this: If the probable date of the current cusp towards reglaciation (if there was no human-caused addition of atmospheric CO2), is 1500 AD - 3500 AD ..... well then, the UNCERTAINTY attached to the claim that - 'atmospheric CO2 levels definitively are to blame for the current state of average global surface temperature' ..... is very high for measurements taken at intervals of 2,000 years. The uncertainty of this claim is reduced as one progresses to smaller and smaller time horizons of less than 2,000 years ...... and then when one progresses to the smallish time horizon of 100 years, the uncertainty of this claim is reduced to the point, that one could make this claim with confidence. Earth's climate system is obviously a very complex multi-variable problem, with many many variables acting over a huge range of time horizons, with all these variables thereby interplaying in very complicated ways. Mr. Baker - I'm gonna put this in another way, shorthand-wise, to cut through all the obfuscating fluff constantly being interjected into this climate change conundrum public debate.. The climate change scientific community has not been focusing on and attempting to answer two hyper-critical questions, that if we definitively knew the answers to, would then make the whole climate change conundrum more definitive all round, to the point that we could actually start to make cogent policy based on definitive facts and theories (unlike what is occurring now - policy is currently being made, based upon an uncertain, and probably inaccurate narrative). Here are those two questions: 1) For the current deglaciation/reglaciation cycle, when is (was) the reglaciation turning point, under the non-anthropogenic scenario? (Look - personally, I am focusing on this question, and finding some answers buried in the climate change literature, but as well, what I see is that efforts to focus on finding the definitive answer to this question within the climate change science community is underwhelming, ..... and I gotta wonder why that is, since it is obvious we are not gonna get anywhere until we know the answer, which I think is probably 1500 - 3500 AD. The whole topic of the probable future of earth's climate, cannot be understood, at all, without proper focus on this over-arching question). 2) At a given atmospheric CO2 concentration (say 700 ppm), when will the new reglaciation turning point occur? And what will the average global surface temperature be at that turning point? (I can't find anything at all in the literature that attempts to address this hyper-critical question. Why is that?) Until the climate change scientific community gets properly focused on answering these two questions, for which laypeople like myself should then be able to see some evidence of said focus within the climate change culture, ..... the whole discipline is really just spinning it's wheels. It's time for the public to demand this wheel-spinning stops, and demand that the climate change science/policy culture be revamped, to primarily address these two hypercritical questions. Until that happens, and I see the signal of that in the culture, I will continue to think that the state of the debate, as it currently stands, is exceedingly silly. In a very very bizarre way, the entire climate change science/policy culture seems to be in a state of deglaciation/reglaciation avoidance, even though almost all of the evidence for the future climate change expectations as currently promulgated in the larger culture, is contingent on the ice core data, and other historical climate proxy datasets, that provided us with the knowledge about the deglaciation/reglaciation cycles. Strange that. No wonder alot of people think we are being hoodwinked. Perhaps we are. Or perhaps it's just a matter of misplaced human hubris having it's day but yet again, like so many other times in the past. Mr. Baker - to summarize - in this vid - you did two weird things: A) You insinuated that there is a scientific consensus with regards to the sum total size, taken together, of the all the secondary feedback loop effects (of the primary GHG radiative forcing effect). But there is no such consensus. B) You present many of your arguments in terms of atmospheric CO2 being a governor of average global surface temperature. It is only within narrow constraints (time horizon wise). On longer time horizons, it is not a governor. Instead on longer time horizons it's a modulator (like all the other earth climate system variables involved). Mr. Baker - I don't know that much about you, as I just started to look at your site a few days ago. But I hope you are true to your word and indeed are looking for holes in your own arguments. I guess I'll wait to see how you respond to this before I decide if following your blogspot further, is wothwhile or not. But for now, I am rooting for you, to get to the bottom of some of the irrationality on display within the climate change conundrum debate. I hope you do address where I think you have gone wrong in your reasoning.
@jwickerszh
4 жыл бұрын
A) There is a "consensus" that's why he cited the range 2-4c 1) glaciation cycles are governed by the sum of various factors like astronomical cycles, dust/albedo, GHG .. you can find a lot of resources on that even just on KZitem, but basically the Milankovitch cycle increases insolation at the high latitude and if there is enough dust on the ice to amplify that it causes melting causing enough of an albedo change to amplify and causing release of GHG which also amplify.
@ausforaus7617
4 жыл бұрын
When periods of 10 years, 100 years, even 1,000 years are cited, I stop listening. At this point in time the climate is within long term, 10,000s + years, cycles. Nobody knows if it will go outside the established range and if it does, is CO2 the cause or some other factor. In the mean time we should concentrate on problems we can have some influence over, like how to reduce the intensity of bush fires in Australia. Also, research and development of sources of energy other than fossil fuels should go on, that is just common sense.
@jwickerszh
4 жыл бұрын
@@ausforaus7617 Easy, go back in time 50 years, take global action on reducing emissions back then .. then 50 years later when this got worse, again, these comments will apply exactly the same.
@richardchurch9709
3 жыл бұрын
Frank, I do hope you are not still waiting for a reply from this man, you won't get one.
@billsmith-qq9pt
4 жыл бұрын
One doesn't need scientists to claim to have evidence of their theory, when we know evidence that prove an argument conclusively. Evidence has been clearly shown that demonstrates fudging of historical temperature figure and of continued measurements that are taken in situations that very deliberately exaggerate temperatures to push the argument. The levels of CO2 have been both higher and lower in the past, and when higher it has been both warmer and colder, indicating other factors. CO2 levels rise when ocean temperatures rise, but the considerable variations seen in the past indicates a considerable number of other factors drive climate in far more dynamic ways, eg water vapour and cloud cover. We are heading to Solar Grand minimum and our magnetosphere is losing strength at an increasing rate, both these factors and the proven lack of credibility of pushers of the UN agenda 2030 global warming religion, leaves rational thinkers trusting scientists less and less by the day.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Please provide proof of your "evidence" of fudging. Who did it and when?
@billsmith-qq9pt
4 жыл бұрын
@@RJones-Indy 1)even MSM reported the climategate fraud out of the Uni of East Anglia. 2)the likes of NASA have taken historical records and regularly lowered them. The argument for doing so, is unconvincing. In fact a mercury max/minimum thermometer being slower to react will not show spurious spikes one way or the other. 3) the measurements are now taken from concrete jungles like large modern airports whereas airfields of the past were in the countryside and therefore record cooler temperatures, making their "corrections upwards" fraudulent.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
@@billsmith-qq9pt so, you have no proof, you are just "unconvinced" of how or why they were done. Please review the FAQ page at NASA and let us know specifically which adjustments you feel are inappropriate and why. Climategate (so called) was a hoax that has been debunked a dozen times by independent reviews. The whole UHI issue has also been debunked by numerous reports. You should look this stuff up before you post it.
@billsmith-qq9pt
4 жыл бұрын
@@RJones-Indy having read through the various examples that were as freely available to you as they were to me, if you had a real interest in the truth rather than shilling, you can look them up yourself.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
@@billsmith-qq9pt Ask yourself this question Mr. Smith. If NOAA were trying to hide or inappropriately fudge their data, why would they put the raw data right next to the adjusted data, and a lengthy description about how and why it was revised right on the web for everyone (including you and me) to review and question? Why would their data generally align with other data/observations by other agencies? Why would other lines of inquiry all align with the observations as well? Okay, that is three questions but you get the picture.
@redbeard1066
3 жыл бұрын
Well done sir. Although I don't believe that CO2 is a problem or that humans can control the climate I do like the clarity with which you explained CO2's role on atmospheric temperatures as you understand it now. Thank you.
@murraygrigg
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video and references. I have not studied then yet but I will study them. I have often side stepped this subject as to the causative reason for climate change and just looked at the effects which we do see and can document such as the thinning of arctic sea ice and the dramatic reduction of arctic sea ice. The volume reduction of ice in the world at least documented in the Arctic is stunning due to the speed of change. We normally think of geological processes in millions of years and this year is occurring in a heart beat of a human life time. I visited the columbia icefield in 1980 and again in 2005 approximately and I was stunned by the change with the massive retreat in 25 years. I was also struck by the many writings of Natalia Shakhova which have also been confirmed by USA and CDN teams of the warming particularly of the article shelf and the visible release of methane. I remember seeing estimates of the amounts of methane and the dramatic changes over her 16 years of successive observations. Even although science wants to understand causation of change as it leads to a predictive mechanism I think we can observed the dramatic Arctic change. ( Antarctic also but I am less familiar with literature). The beautiful part of the water molecule is that the latent heat is very large and it is melting then there is strong evidence of enormous energy change over a very short period of time. So nice the area involved is also very large compared to the scale of the world then the power change year to year is staggering. If we carry this to the point when all the ice is gone then the temperature changes per year will be staggering. We still have an ice box to the north and south which keep us cool for another couple hundred years. The methane release of all the organic gas in the near surface of the Arctic have not been factored in but I understand this to be an effect not yet modeled. Open water in the Arctic will reflect less of the Sun’s energy. In summary the net energy balance change year to year is alarming based on observed volume of ice! It is the rate of change we have documented with ice thicknesses and area of sea ice each summer.
@jacksmith8466
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the research, but a threshold issue is the question of increased global warming, for whatever reasons. I guess it is occurring, but I would appreciate a more rigorous review of the theory and evidence.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Read the IPCC reports. They are full of explanation and sourced by relevant scientific analysis.
@elliegreen4738
4 жыл бұрын
Robert Jones To discover the origins of global warming go to duckduckgo and type in: Aurelio Peccei quote on global warming 1968 This will tell you all you need to know about global warming. Tony Hellers videos and Michelle Stirling Friends of Science are excellent KZitem videos to watch, also Piers Corbyn.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
@@elliegreen4738Why would you tell Jack to get his scientific analysis from someone (TH) who has absolutely NO qualifications in the field and is a proven liar? Friends of Science is a front for right-wing politicians to pay for shills like Tim Ball and lobby for conservative politicians. These people are not interested in science but in promoting their agenda.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
@Rory Forbes Yes, Lindzen got mad, through his toys and went home because he didn't get his way. He has since been dis-owned by his old school MIT (they put out a statement about him). He is mad because other scientists dared to point out his mistakes and his Iris theory has been soundly discredited. The IPCC referenced over 6,000 peer reviewed publications that support AGW. You've got crack-pot Tim Ball and retired professor Lindzen on your side. Read the 2019 IPCC Report Technical Volume then come back here and let us know what you learned.
@RJones-Indy
4 жыл бұрын
Mallen Baker has several good videos about global warming, as well as Potholer54, and drkstrong. They actually list their sources so you can check them out yourself (something you will never find on most climate denier videos). Get your science from real scientists. If you have more than a 9th grade education, you can figure this out by reading what the actual people who what the hell they are talking about are saying and proving with real research.
@loganivey2048
4 жыл бұрын
In the meantime its been 23 years since the last record high has been recorded for any day where I live
@tepetti
4 жыл бұрын
Logan Ivey Global warming means that the average temperature of our globe will be warmer. That doesn’t neceserely mean it will be warmer in your city or country.
@brucefrykman8295
4 жыл бұрын
@@tepetti Which areas will get colder according to theory? I Want to have all my options open.
@john.harrison
3 жыл бұрын
And that would be the difference between climate and local whether. Considering you live on earth should you not be concerned with records being broken across the globe? Not just your small apparently very stable part of it?
@kunalkashyap863
3 жыл бұрын
There is a difference between climate and weather, if you understand that then this comment is answered.
@ericanderson7346
3 жыл бұрын
Imagine the egocentricity of believing your home is the bellwether for the entire world. And the complete inability to read a trend line
@timwilcox960
4 жыл бұрын
Hi Mallen, Focusing on the evidence and leaving aside all the 'tribal stuff' sounds great in theory but, in practice, is difficult to do. The argument you put forward here - although clearly explained - is right on the edge of what I'm able to comprehend. Now, while I freely admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, by the same token I'm not a complete idiot. So, what to do? Answer, I find someone else offering a credible counter argument and see if s/he makes more sense than you. Someone like Prof's William Happer and Freeman Dyson - who both make the scientific argument that you've rebutted with your science here. Now, here's the rub, given that they are both actual scientists and, as far as I'm aware you're not (please correct me if I'm wrong about that), why should I believe you rather than them?
@JanHogstrom
4 жыл бұрын
When I see a respectable guy like Freeman Dyson chuckle at climate alarmism I don't worry about a thing. :)
@tonyclif1
4 жыл бұрын
Tim Wilcox , a great point about qualifications. To me, Mallen gets credibility because he cites all of his sources. He isn’t just MSU (making shit up). If his citations are from the scientific consensus, and individual scientists are outliers, they need to provide strong, credible evidence that the consensus is wrong. They can’t do this with anything but actual studies, well designed, peer reviewed etc. if they don’t do that, they are really just attention seekers. (I’m no scientist either, but I’m confident my opinion is how most true scientists would see it)
@roartary
4 жыл бұрын
Tony Clifford scientific consensus is not fact, it is political rubbish.
@tonyclif1
4 жыл бұрын
Roartary , you, like any outlier, needs to provide strong, credible evidence - or even SOME evidence. If you simply make conspiracy claims, you add nothing of value.
@timwilcox960
4 жыл бұрын
@@tonyclif1 Thanks for your comments Tony - and I agree with you 100%. Now, here's the thing: so would Profs Happer and Dyson! It is climate sceptics like them who claim to practice 'real science', based on verifiable observed data. By contrast, the bulk of the science produced by the global warming alarmists is 'phoney science'; based on flawed climate models which are curve fitted using selected data sets to produce the results they want. Like you, I'm no scientist, but I do understand the 'scientific method' which, in general, the sceptics adhere to rather better than the alarmists do.
@stevendirks6239
3 жыл бұрын
Questions: 1)How do forests and plants actually use CO2 and does deforestation affect the CO2 levels? 2) Do solar flares and the suns flucuations fit into this anywhere and have you done any videos on these topics? 3) I cannot rember who mentioned this but do ocenas emit CO2 as well? Thank you. It's a lot for my humble brain to take in but interesting non the less. Steve
@Tengooda
3 жыл бұрын
1. i) via photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O => C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6O2 ii) Yes. Deforestation increases atmospheric CO2. 2. Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf have calculated how global average surface temperatures would have changed in the absence of such other factors, including solar variations (+ volcanic eruptions and ENSO): iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022 This is the result: cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg 3. Oceans do emit CO2, but in recent centuries, as human emissions of CO2 have added CO2 to the atmosphere, oceans have ABSORBED far more CO2 than they emit. That has resulted in an increase of around 30% in ocean acidity (hydrogen ion concentration). The facts are these: 1. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from c.277ppmv in 1750 to c.415ppmv now (after having been more or less stable for several thousand years). That is an increase of nearly 50%. See: www.co2levels.org/ 2. An increase of atmospheric CO2 by 1ppmv requires 7.83 billion tonnes of CO2 (that is an entirely uncontroversial figure - you will find it in any encyclopedia), so the increase from 277 to 415, ie 138ppmv required 1080 billion tonnes of CO2. 3. Records have been kept of the amount of fossil fuels burnt. They are collated by the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, in the USA. They show that, between 1750 and 2014, humans emitted 1580 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels alone. ((The CDIAC records stop after 2014) 4. So the increase in atmospheric CO2 is 1080 billion tonnes, and the amount that humans have emitted (just from burning fossil fuels) is considerably more than that, at 1580 billion tonnes. From those two facts, two conclusions are inevitable: A) humans have emitted more than enough CO2 from fossil fuel burning alone to account for all the rise in atmospheric CO2. B) natural systems (the oceans and terrestrial biosphere) have acted as SINKS for CO2 - they have absorbed MORE than they have emitted.
@Peter_Riis_DK
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah, that open mind Baker speaks of at the end last until about a minute and twenty seconds into the video.
@robertkeime4907
4 жыл бұрын
The fluctuations have occurred for thousands of years .... mostly without the presence of man. Why do many of these studies fail to start in the 1920 and 30's when temperatures were much higher than the 70's. In the 70's it was a cool period and the discussion was global cooling. The basic input numbers are false thereof the results are false Doubter ....check past predictions with actual temperature results .... miserable failure. Miserable results means miserable predictions.
@Dundoril
4 жыл бұрын
1920 was not warmer than today... Who makes this shit up?
@michaelx9079
4 жыл бұрын
The CO2 worryists invoke some potentiating effect of IR absorption in water with increased CO2....I've tried to get to the bottom of the proposed mechanism but even as a former spectroscopist it doesn't make much much sense to me The argument that CO2 levels have to follow temperature by desorption from the oceans is pretty strong too....basically according to ice core data the system has to be self correcting or we would have had several runaway greenhouse effects like we are told we are going to cause
@zoephin6205
4 жыл бұрын
If you were a spectroscopist, you may know that GHGs can't raise temperature. "More precisely, temperature is a measure of the average translational kinetic energy of the individual molecules in a gas or liquid. (Kinetic energy refers to energy of motion. Translational kinetic energy refers to the energy of motion as an object moves from one place to another.) As the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules increase, temperature increases, and as the average translational kinetic energy of the molecules decrease, temperature decreases. (The temperature of a solid will be defined later.) It is also important to recognize that particles can have energy in forms besides translational kinetic energy. As molecules move around, they may also be spinning or rotating, or the atoms making up the molecules may be wiggling about as if they were connected to each other by springs. (In fact, the atoms in a solid are basically fixed in one location. Their only motion is to vibrate back and forth.) These motions are referred to as internal motions. Suppose, as way of illustration, that students wanted to represent the motion of gas molecules by moving about a room. The students’ translational kinetic energy would be the energy associated with their movement from place to place in the room. The temperature of the gas would be a measure of this energy. But, as the students walked about, they could also be spinning around and waving their arms and legs (perhaps performing some unusual dance). All of these internal motions would have energy associated with them, and so the total energy of the students would include more than just the translational kinetic energy. However, the temperature would depend only on their translational kinetic energy." In other words, EM absorption by a GAS (not solid or liquid) can not raise temperature. Period. What do you think?
@michaelx9079
4 жыл бұрын
Zoe Phin I'd not thought of it in those terms before....to be honest I believed a lot of the nonsense about greenhouse effect until the last few years when I stopped listening to the obvious propaganda and started to actually think about it.....but yes that seems to make sense....at the end of the day energy absorbed by a molecule has to be released so you can only have a net gain in temperature if the total energy being received from the sun increases....at least that's how it seems to me
Пікірлер: 8 М.