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.
@deepthought54594 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.
@deepthought54594 жыл бұрын
mfr58 very interesting links. Ty.
@deepthought54594 жыл бұрын
mfr58 this follows Plancks Law... www.dropbox.com/s/yegvlmvsr39k7yg/CO2effectOnAtmospherePlanck.PNG?dl=0
@georgelet41324 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.
@georgelet41324 жыл бұрын
Twilight Zone Science Fiction. Your first sentence is baseless and Therefore the rest is also.
@ManScoutsofAmerica3 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.
@davidhunt74273 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
@bobbywise23133 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.
@doctordub45013 жыл бұрын
Bars!
@bertthompson47483 жыл бұрын
Im not arguing for either side. Im arguing for the scientific method
@newhampshirelifestyle42332 жыл бұрын
This is also a big difference between fact and opinion.
@longbowarcher1004 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.
@jwickerszh4 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.
@chrisclimo12654 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_654 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_654 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?
@TomLaios4 жыл бұрын
@@shermie_65 are you serious?All life evolved from early single-celled organisms to the dinosaurs.
@Ferreolus3 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
@miyu5453 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.
@nathanielgates28632 жыл бұрын
Agreed. Huge miss here and not just with your point.
@michaellopez-lq5fn2 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.
@teemulaulajainen94102 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 💯
@Deliquescentinsight4 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-Indy4 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.25054 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-Indy4 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.
@Deliquescentinsight4 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-Indy4 жыл бұрын
This is just paranoid ranting. You can provide no proof or evidence to support your wild assertions.
@stoppernz2294 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.
@ctrockstar71684 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!
@MallenBaker4 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.
@stoppernz2294 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.
@guitartinman4 жыл бұрын
@@MallenBaker Very poor analogy
@NapoleonGelignite4 жыл бұрын
kajestro m. - you are unsurprisingly ignorant that 7000 ppm would kill almost all the plants that are currently alive; the toxic limit for plants is about 2500 ppm. So using your simplistic logic CO2 is a deadly poison to plants.
@bradrowland76873 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.
@vladtepes4814 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.
@MICKEYISLOWD4 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.
@adamthompson92864 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 KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nuBxqKuryMvck4E.html Watch "The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m916abd6ncnHcas.html Watch "Are We Doomed?" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mJ56jdJnteDUc4k.html Watch "Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z-CimM14kr2tY4k.html 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 KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bdWgdtd9nbjHlKs.html Watch "Greenpeace Founder speaks about Climate Hoax" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nc2iZNl2ybmcY2Q.html Watch "TEDxVancouver - Patrick Moore - 11/21/09" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oa6KftJimK66YnU.html 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 KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mpaKaKmV3L3bj5c.html Watch "The Myth of the 97% Consensus" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nrClncVeu9TFc4E.html
@chapter4travels4 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.
@adamthompson92864 жыл бұрын
@@chapter4travels give it a watch. Watch "Dr. Patrick Moore: 12 Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jNtgo92LvKqWZY0.html
@nyoodmono46814 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
@tonystern30714 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.
@righteousindignation88794 жыл бұрын
The handwaving over water vapor alone is enough to raise an eyebrow.
@timoteojuans19644 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.
@trafalgarla4 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?
@elbuggo4 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?
@elbuggo4 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?
@cvb944 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.
@AdeToz4 жыл бұрын
This is the soundest comment by far.
@paularthur55634 жыл бұрын
good post
@slaphappyduplenty24364 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.
@jonclarke55684 жыл бұрын
Solid point
@Wakame444 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?
@paarsjesteep3 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-uj1iv2 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.
@egoncorneliscallery95356 ай бұрын
Indeed. That would be my first question to the man in the video.
@georgesdellopoulos58087 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?
@juliesteimle38674 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.
@levirussell24174 жыл бұрын
@Redzone 2119 and 200 meter higher sea levels, with giant plant and animal life. like in past.
@element59994 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.
@jeffwells3294 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.
@deepthought54594 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.
@MsBiggles514 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.
@bryanblatz20014 жыл бұрын
@@MsBiggles51 as Lex Graber said in his first sentence "Solar initiated warming that heats the oceans" …
@CryptoSurfer4 жыл бұрын
Point number4. Regardless of the cause, historically CO2 still lags temperature and therefore cannot be the driver of temperature
@petebateman1433 жыл бұрын
When do you publish your research for peer review? And in what publication?
@bradgrauer91483 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
@fwcolb3 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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q995n7yLkqebXWQ.html 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-gu7wr3 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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/abGbm7Wax6jQnIk.html
@fwcolb3 жыл бұрын
@@waynebow-gu7wr I share many of your sentiments. And it's hard work keeping up. But I have a professional interest.
@fivish3 жыл бұрын
Global average temperatures have gone DOWN according to NASA satelite data.
@fwcolb3 жыл бұрын
@@fivish Global average temperature wiggles up and down at all time scales, from days to millennia.
@saunders594 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!
@grahamlyons85224 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-kl5ej3 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.
@greenftechn3 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.
@xtremelemon86122 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
@mikev46212 жыл бұрын
@@xtremelemon8612 But when a CO2 molecule reflects sunlight , it doesn't suddenly orient itself to radiate upwards
@jonmoore17610 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.
@prieten492 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.
@adrianvance5562 жыл бұрын
You cannot understand it because it is not true.
@amylee92 жыл бұрын
@@adrianvance556 then explain what is true
@ronaldgarrison84784 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.
@andymacdonald8214 жыл бұрын
Ronald Garrison: It's simple: BOOST the co2.... MELT the ice.... MODERATE worldwide Climate... RESTORE the Biosphere..!!!
@ronaldgarrison84784 жыл бұрын
@@andymacdonald821 That's great, if you're an effen DINOSAUR. And it definitely sounds like you are.
@hayuwijayanti97904 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
@ronaldgarrison84784 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.
@DJRonnieG4 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.
@lawsonhannah4 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.
@ferkeap4 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.
@ASYLUMCUSTOMWOODWORKING4 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
@nickwf704 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.
@jwickerszh4 жыл бұрын
@@nickwf70 luckily there isn't a total lack of action.
@marynadononeill4 жыл бұрын
@David Bunney exactly right!!!
@LouisEmery4 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.
@empsirch79832 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 ?
@johnmarks2273 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.
@sedigives3 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.
@fwcolb3 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?
@sedigives3 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-uj1iv2 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.
@johnnursall4084 жыл бұрын
Modeling as I understand it is not "difficult" -- it is impossible.
@RJones-Indy4 жыл бұрын
Then you don’t understand it. Models are accurate.
@johnnursall4084 жыл бұрын
@@RJones-Indy I guess it depends on what you're calling accurate.
@RJones-Indy4 жыл бұрын
Sorry you are wrong again. See Hausfather et al 2019. Models are very accurate.
@johnnursall4084 жыл бұрын
@Rory Forbes Well said. But the greatest mistake of all is underestimating the complexity of the problem.
@righteousindignation88794 жыл бұрын
The models are so accurate that they are consistently incorrect.
@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.
@vladimpaler34983 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.
@congero1134 жыл бұрын
2-4 degrees rise is not based on Co2 but on unverified models which try to predict positive feedbacks involving water vapor. These models have been proven grossly wrong repeatedly. Co2 alone has been predicted to raise the global average temperature by 1-1.5 degrees C maximum, by which time, a hundred plus years hence, fossil fuels will have been effectively exhausted for widespread use and a natural transition to non- fossil fuels will have taken place. If the water vapor positive feedback loop was going to happen, we would have seen overwhelming evidence of it by now, but we haven’t.
@RJones-Indy4 жыл бұрын
Actually the models have been proven correct. Look it up.
@mortthomsonjr.25054 жыл бұрын
Mortskcab - I am a Mort too. Is that your given name?
@hillviewmews4 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.
@jordanwhisson54074 жыл бұрын
Hi Sky we have had 16 years of the hottest years on record in the last 16 years
@hillviewmews4 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.85403 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 "
@egoncorneliscallery95356 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..
@victorg48674 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?
@pdavid0003 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.
@sedigives3 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.
@BANKO0073 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.
@FanofMillan3 жыл бұрын
@@pdavid000 What other possible cause is warming the planet
@FanofMillan3 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?
@palbergstrom16 күн бұрын
Study: Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases "4.2 This finding supports the hypothesis that, as a result of saturation processes, emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature. Instead, it suggests that an increase in temperature likely leads to the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans."
@RussCR51874 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!
@jwickerszh4 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.
@petervithus39714 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-uj1iv2 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.
@petervithus39712 жыл бұрын
@@nn-uj1iv hmm, possible, But I lean more towards him being a AGW/IPCC shill !
@gufpott4 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.
@muratgurol4464 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this great information
@foroyalty2 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.
@billbrown34143 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.
@mjParetoQuant10 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 KZfaq 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.
@paddydiddles44154 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-qr6zr4 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?
@egoncorneliscallery95356 ай бұрын
Easy, you devise models dat run linear and supposes initial states of elements and variables. And there goes the graph!
@l337g0g05 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.
@BlueShadow7774 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 KZfaq) 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: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n9J0acSK27O0iqs.html 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.
@CC888114 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.
@elliegreen47384 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.
@BlueShadow7774 жыл бұрын
Ellie Green Thanks for the links... will check ‘em out.
@swiftlytiltingplanet84814 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.
@swiftlytiltingplanet84814 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.
@davyjones991711 ай бұрын
Hi, I hope you can answer my question. An recent observation by Tom Shula seems to pose a serious challenge to the fundamental theory of climate change due to c02. He points out that at 1 atmosphere, a Pirani gun demonstrates that 99.6% of heat transfer is by thermal conduction, and only .04 by IR radiation. At 25 km the relative contribution of each is 50/50. This means that radiation is a delivery and exhaust mechanism for the climate and atmosphere, and has no significant effect on temperature. Can you respond to this assertion which I note was publicised after this presentation.
@ReasonablySane4 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.
@natazer4 жыл бұрын
Your advice to stay open minded instead of finding ammunition is so on point it seems almost alien at this point.
@useodyseeorbitchute94503 жыл бұрын
Yeah, what's wrong with that dude? ;)
@jamescaley99424 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.
@byrnemeister20084 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.
@muratgurol4464 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.
@muratgurol4464 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.
@byrnemeister20084 жыл бұрын
Murat Gurol Where are you getting your data from?
@muratgurol4464 жыл бұрын
@@byrnemeister2008 I worked for 13 years in the utilities industry
@petersteenkamp4 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.
@petersteenkamp4 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
@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.
@warrenpeece17264 жыл бұрын
The problem is that a correlation is being marketed as cause and effect.
@pdoylemi4 жыл бұрын
No, that is not the problem - the cause is demonstrable.
@pdoylemi4 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.
@555atU4 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?
@pdoylemi4 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.
@555atU4 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?
@Echidna70954 жыл бұрын
"Co2 is plant food" is a bad argument because I say it is a bad argument.
@spillarge4 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.
@jeroenkeijdener78654 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.
@spillarge4 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?
@jeroenkeijdener78654 жыл бұрын
@@spillarge No, I meant that emitting CO2 is a good thing. It is saving life on earth, not killing it.
@spillarge4 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.
@glike23 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
@glike23 жыл бұрын
Also elucidates how CO2 acts as a water vapor GHG effect multiplier
@douglasguenter99823 жыл бұрын
Thank you for acknowledging that there are reasoned people on both sides of the debate. Very refreshing and educational.
@nternalPractice3 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.
@tc96343 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.
@greybone7773 жыл бұрын
One side of the debate is a socialist led religion. The other side is actual science.
@nternalPractice3 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
@EchoTangoSuitcase3 жыл бұрын
@@nternalPractice Let me guess... You believe yourself to be in the first group?
@dwightehowell81794 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? 😂🤣😉
@mikemcgarrity75724 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.
@NapoleonGelignite4 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??
@NapoleonGelignite4 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?
@mikemcgarrity75724 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.
@elbuggo4 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
@ddee25014 жыл бұрын
You cannot model a complex system such as the Earths atmosphere without introducing huge errors.
@RodMartinJr3 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._*
@rodkeh3 жыл бұрын
@@RodMartinJr Climate has nothing whatsoever to with CO2 so the models are meaningless.
@RodMartinJr3 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!
@rodkeh3 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.
@MUSTASCH1O3 жыл бұрын
@@rodkeh What theory or evidence do you have that CO2 has no impact on the rising global average temperature?
@bjornlundberg5523 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?
@ClimateRealism9 ай бұрын
I found your video interesting. let me make this clear, as a sceptic, I think:- 1. CO2 is an excellent 'Greenhouse Gas'. 2. The earth would be to cold for most life without it. So I support none of the straw man arguments you started the video with- we are on the same side with those. However, I begin to depart from of your excellent video as we look into the CO2 saturation matter. For a start William Happer and the IPCC agree that a doubling of CO2 would increase the earth's temperature by about 0.7C. They depart only on the IPCC feedback element which is based on more water vapour and is a positive feedback. Can we start from that point please? Do you agree?
@seanremington58234 жыл бұрын
Why are we afraid of a climate similar to the medieval warming period?
@matthewvaughan81924 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.
@danieldjz4 жыл бұрын
@@matthewvaughan8192 Like humans are really advanced enough to manage any change, pfft
@matthewvaughan81924 жыл бұрын
@@danieldjz You base that on what exactly?
@danieldjz4 жыл бұрын
@@matthewvaughan8192 climate changes without human intervension. Look it up.
@matthewvaughan81924 жыл бұрын
@@danieldjz Have done many times. Little substance to it & the overwhelming scientific evidence says otherwise
@ssm594 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.
@grumpyaustralian66314 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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gN9pjaykq9fTYpc.html
@ssm594 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
@grumpyaustralian66314 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 😅
@ssm594 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.
@grumpyaustralian66314 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.
@stevendirks62393 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
@Tengooda3 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.
@yulia6283 жыл бұрын
It's a pleasure to meet a thinkful person with ANALYTICAL MIND
@fredrickemp72424 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
@AbiFrench3 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? ??
@marlogue534 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!
@davidwatson81184 жыл бұрын
So what. We would also like to see some references for those assertions.
@naughtynat824 жыл бұрын
@@davidwatson8118 check this as one reference. I am sure you can find others. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/erhmqsekxNLdYqc.html
@johnnyjones33624 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.
@davidwatson81184 жыл бұрын
@@naughtynat82 Wow, what a stunning reference. A history teacher talking about stuff he knows bugger all about.
@davidwatson81184 жыл бұрын
@@johnnyjones3362 Maldives? You guys can't help spouting the same debunked rubbish.
@JoeMama-hj1zk4 жыл бұрын
A few other agreements I’ve created: 1. Algae, already inhaling half of all the co2 that’s being inhaled and having exponential growth and the entire ocean to grow, may out grow co2 emissions ( I cant find a lot of studies on algae that can prove/disprove this but it would be fairly easy to test this, I think) 2. The sun, emitting different frequencies of light, emits different “amounts” of different frequencies when their are more or less sunspots on the surface. Although the total solar irradiance seems to be hightened by the decrease of sunspots as shown by NASA, their is still the possibility that the lowering number of sunspots has caused frequency shifting in the light coming from the sun, and therefore more light could be absorbed at the surface of the earth where it is “trapped” better than inside higher layers of the atmosphere. Frequency shifting could potentially warm the earth in many other ways. 3. The earths magnetic dipole are moving away from true north and south, which may cause more charged particles to enter the atmosphere and heat the earth. This may not seem obvious because true north seems perpindicular to the direction the suns light is coming from, however it is more obvious when you notice that true north is actually slanted and is not completely perpindicular. This is relevant because magnet poles and other areas of a magnetic field are stronger than others, and so stronger areas of earths magnetic field will be better at stopping charged particles than others.
@Dundoril4 жыл бұрын
So maybe actually find proof for any of this and publish it...
@murraygrigg3 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.
@plinkbottle4 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.
@NapoleonGelignite4 жыл бұрын
Charles Rablin - compare the temperatures at which CO2 and water condense. And CO2 is not a layer.
@toby99994 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 KZfaq.
@NapoleonGelignite4 жыл бұрын
MrToby -yes I am a scientist and I have read the literature, I don’t think Charles is though.
@catvapecult58764 жыл бұрын
Co2 could last about 2 centuries in the atmosphere and water vapour last about 9 days in the amosphere.
@ElazarusWills4 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
@pulsar224 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.
@fwcolb3 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.
@jamiecrouch63873 жыл бұрын
I like your rational for free thinking and going with true evidence to base a rational thought
@paulchevin3 жыл бұрын
This is an excellent explanation of a very complex subject. Well done!
@muratgurol4464 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_
@stevevogel22644 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.
@BwanaFinklestein4 жыл бұрын
Yes!
@brucefrykman82954 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
@dannynewton39884 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?
@jwioo4 жыл бұрын
An excellent presentation but how does this sit with past levels of CO2 when they were 10 times current levels?
@zxumwmki36043 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.
@johncarden89854 жыл бұрын
Reducing energy use, emissions and installation of renewables have been incentivised by governments long before climate change was commonly known about. And for good reasons. These include pollution, security of supply, conservation of resources, reduction of costs, protection from rapid price increases etc. I am a chartered energy engineer and the energy saving projects that I am involved in are very cost effective. The returns are 20 times what you would get from a similar investment at the bank. Now there is a striking relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature since the industrial revolution. But even if you disbelieve man-made climate change, the case is made for energy management and renewables.
@johncarden89854 жыл бұрын
@SuperRinickulous Einstein did not say that electric vehicles were amongst his projects, Mr Angry. Read before responding is a reasonable principle to adopt in discussion.
@cactusjack8057 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.
@KENTEKELLER4 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.
@jrb_sland50664 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?
@tonyclif14 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_sland50664 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
@tonyclif14 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_sland50664 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!
@tonyclif14 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!
@EgilWar3 жыл бұрын
When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
@stevendirks62393 жыл бұрын
This is also very true
@MrChosenmarine3 жыл бұрын
you would make a terrible carpenter than
@wynnjames27973 жыл бұрын
The only valid debate on climate change is whether or not there is a debate on climate change.
@mattw97644 жыл бұрын
A question answered "yes" by multiple lines of professional peer-reviewed scientific experiment over decades.
@jamescaley99424 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".
@mattw97644 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.
@clarkeslemon13124 жыл бұрын
The title is of course the brilliant part of the video.
@stauffap3 жыл бұрын
The saturation argument is actually quite sophisticated, since it comes from a knowledge of at least the Beer-Lambert-law and being able to use it to calculate the transmittance of the atmosphere. And it's correct that only using the Beer-Lambert-law would predict that the effect of CO2 is saturated. But the Beer-Lambert-law assumes that the atmosphere only absorbs thermal radiation and doesn't emit it. So to take the emission into account as well you would have to use something called radiative transfer equations. Then you get the right answer, that also describes the longwave radiation spectrum of both the downwelling radiation and outgoing radiation correctly. But it's actually far easier to debunk the saturation argument. Just look at the measurements from satellites of the outgoing longwave radiation spectrum. The bite that CO2 takes out of the spectrum doesn't go all the way to the bottom, so clearly CO2 could take a bigger bite out of the spectrum, so the effect is not saturated. It's really that simple for the people who can't do the math. I mean, if you think about it it is quite astonishing. Look at how complicated and full of details for example the outgoing longwave radiation spectrum is and we've already been able to calcualte this spectrum correctly about 50 years ago. So to me it's quite clear, that radiation in the atmosphere is not a mystery anymore. That part has been figured out quite a long time ago and it's actually something quite accessible with a bit of matlab knowledge, access to the full absorption spectrum of CO2, a knowledge of radiative transfer equations, pressure and temperature broadening etc. What this means is that we can be very certain about the radiative forcing from CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Those figures are understood (the same goes for the radiative forcing of the sun, which is way to small - not even close to explain the observed warming). It's quite important to understand that those things are understood with a high degree of accuracy. The inaccuracies come with the climate sensitivity. This is where it gets more complicated with all the possible positive feedback loops and uncertainties like how fast the ice shields melt, how much methane is released by permafrost etc. I don't get why people think that uncertainties are somehow so comforting that we don't have to do anything about global warming. Uncertainties mean that we are not able some very dire scenarios. How is that comforting enough to lean back and not cut CO2 emissons? Doesn't make sense to me.
@TheSpecio3 жыл бұрын
Although this film is only an incomplete treatment of the subject, it correctly shows what CO2 does in detail. The fact that 'climate' is a chaotic and therefore unpredictable system was at least touched upon (water vapour, convection etc). I also think that the whole discussion cannot be conveyed in a single short lecture. That gives it a good grade overall. But what I really liked was the emphasis on forming one's own open, unideological opinions: Well done! We need more of that!
@lugodoc4 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.
@brucefrykman82954 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?
@mrofnocnon4 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.
@randomunavailable4 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.
@swiftlytiltingplanet84814 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.
@8wayspeed5054 жыл бұрын
What about coffee?
@randomunavailable4 жыл бұрын
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 incorrect.
@swiftlytiltingplanet84814 жыл бұрын
@@randomunavailable I was quoting NASA, by the way. You should notify them how wrong they are.
@randomunavailable4 жыл бұрын
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Keep thinking that.
@anthonymorris5084 Жыл бұрын
Your objectivity was a breath of fresh air, but I found it difficult to really understand your final conclusion. I believe you are saying that adding more Co2 will continue to lead to more warming, is this correct?
@giorgiocooper90233 жыл бұрын
And yes !!!! CO2 is not only one of the most important building blocks of life on earth, but also one of the most important « fertilizer » or plant food ! Its for very good reasons greenhouse owners / growers inject up to 1200 ppm of CO2 into their green houses. And yes, the increase from ~ 260ppm of CO2 ~200 year ago to ~430ppm today allows for an increase of food production of at least 15% on this planet ! And it doesn’t matter if its natural CO2 or human produced CO2 . It’s high time to stop treating CO2 as if its a poison or a pollutant !!!!!!!
@MallenBaker3 жыл бұрын
I talk about that in this video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/arZydsh-t8qWg6M.html If you want to go beyond the level of sloganeering on it, I recommend it.
@grassabrutta4 жыл бұрын
@Mallen Baker, what is the extent of 'over warming' created by the secondary heat entrapment by the CO2 as you describe it ?
@geraldfrost47103 жыл бұрын
How much of the earth's surface air temperature is due to adiabatic heating? If the atmosphere were one atm of pure nitrogen, would we have the same temperature as the moon? Adiabatic heating has nothing to do with carbon-dioxide. Second point: water vapor is 25 times as prevalent as carbon-dioxide, and covers a wider spectrum of absorption. Heating the atmosphere causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, and the extra water vapor causes more heating. That would be a catastrophic tipping point indeed! It doesn't happen because of rain; rain is one of the ways that heat is transferred up in our atmosphere and cold is transferred down. In other words, by adding more water vapor, it helps to cool the world. Point being it's very complicated. When someone says it's simple science, they are not being honest.
@Gismotronics4 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?
@yvesguyot89163 жыл бұрын
Proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere : 0,04% Man made 6% of these 0,04%
@shermonspond3 ай бұрын
It would be convincing if the climate modellers started by testing a null hypothesis, which would be "recent climate change is natural" and disproving that. Based on many periods of rapid change in geological history that might be quite a challenge.
@Frederer594 жыл бұрын
That CO2 is plant food and is largely inconsequential to global warming are perfectly worthy points to cite. They both demonstrate that runaway global warming due to CO2 is next to impossible on earth. Occam's Razor arguments are just fine. Most people's eyes glaze over if you start a discussion with complexity. Better to start with the simple and then progress to the complex.
@maverickdisco40364 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.
@Wkkbooks4 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.
@maverickdisco40364 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.
@Wkkbooks4 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.
@maverickdisco40364 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.
@NPipsqueak4 жыл бұрын
I have a feeling Climate is so complex that we will never know no matter what changes we experience in our environment.
@johnhewlett70254 жыл бұрын
You were doing quite well with your argument until you let slip the assumption of 2 to 4 degrees of warming expected.
@Quietus313 жыл бұрын
Dear Mallen Baker. Thanks for being crystal clear and understandable in your findings. I love your channel and the way you put things. Can I ask you why you put the "plant food" thesis so easily with the "rubbish arguments" pile? We have a long record on CO2 usage in economic plant growth stimulation. I always thought the fact we raised the concentration of CO2 in our athmosphere, would be kind of "buffered" by increased plant growth worldwide and also having a slow diminishing effect on the actual concentration over time? Don't get me wrong: I never claimed it couldnt be true because CO2 "is plant food - period", but I always thought the factor of plants that use CO2 as their building blocks played a great role in the buffering of changes in the Co2 concentration - both ways. Since there was very little human CO2 production before the industrial revolution it could also better explain why Earth survived the large CO2 fluctuations throug time? Greetings from Belgium - not native English btw...
@MallenBaker3 жыл бұрын
Thanks - and I hope things are good with you in Belgium in spite of the current situation. A few others kicked back on the same subject, so I made a separate video looking at the topic more seriously. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/arZydsh-t8qWg6M.html
@pearldiver73 жыл бұрын
Nicely explained - a great balance between technical and layman that made understanding the topic, if not easy, at least possible.
@DrBustenHalter4 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...).
@elbuggo4 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?
@robertallan63734 жыл бұрын
We simply live in a world today where everyone is whinging and panicking about just about anything.
@bonysminiatures31233 жыл бұрын
couldn't put it better
@sedigives3 жыл бұрын
Yep, We know A.I. will wipe us out soon. This stuff is just filler.
@Tawny5933 жыл бұрын
@@sedigives Stop with that Terminator nosense.
@sedigives3 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?
@jamesfairmind22472 ай бұрын
Here is a question, if the rapidly approaching WW3 wipes out 90 percent of humankind, and those 10 percent who are left alive are in no position to produce any Co2 emissions as they are now surviving on a very basic level, what will the Co2 levels be on this Earth in 1000 years time? Will they be lower than today, or bearing in mind that mankind for all his faults still only produces 3 or 4 percent of Co2 will they be in fact considerably higher? Serious question, higher or lower?
@doorran3 жыл бұрын
no it's not. this isn't even about science. it's about power.
@kevingrove43794 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-wz2wn4 жыл бұрын
Can you send me the link? I can not find it
@52marli3 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.
@stevemurray7103 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.
@robertcabrera39894 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.
@foroyalty3 жыл бұрын
If opening a fridge door causes the cold air inside it to 'fall' out of the fridge cabinet - and warm air to rush into the cabinet - then couldn't a 'suction fan' positioned inside the fridge - and attached via a pipe to an 'air collection chamber', perhaps 'encasing'/'encapsulating' the entire fridge cabinet for the 'space saving' benefit associated with this design - be switched on whenever the fridge door was opened in order to draw cold air out of the fridge cabinet and into storage when the fridge door was opened and to 'pump' the cold air back into the fridge cabinet - while warm air was also 'pumped' out - after the fridge door was closed (i.e. to save energy by reducing the extent to which warm air 'chilling'/'air re-frigeration' inside the fridge cabinet would be necessary)? Or, would this not be viable because it would require an equal/greater energy input to displace the cold/warm air in the fridge cabinet compared with the amount of energy input that would be required to compress the refrigerator's 'coolant fluid' for the removal of heat from inside the fridge cabinet?
@RisingSun02034 жыл бұрын
So what’s your reco? I quit at the 2/3rd point.
@ytusersumone3 жыл бұрын
Who cares. He's being intellectually dishonest here. Not very scientific thinking but a lot of projections and assumptions. Back to PhD Frolly1000.
@frededwards49044 жыл бұрын
I appreciate your approach to the question and your effort to get into the details of the physics. I have been following the controversy over climate alarmism for many years and have been struck by the paucity of technical argument from the alarmist climate scientists. Instead of addressing the questions of the skeptics directly they simply argue that “we are scientists, more of us agree AGW is actual than skeptics.” For those of us who know the history of science and some of the mistakes of scientific consensus in the past these arguments to “authority” are unsatisfactory. I would like to see a debate between the best from both sides with each answering the others’ questions. I can then make up my own mind about who has the best evidence.
@brucefrykman82954 жыл бұрын
You will not see one. Years ago the pied pipers of alarmism agreed to one on 'intelligence squared' and and hand their butts handed to them. Since then is has been policy NEVER to debate the science since it is "settled"
@mikegrigg71314 жыл бұрын
Bruce Frykman o
@gazsibb4 жыл бұрын
Excellent balanced piece and you're so right on the ridiculous tribalism. Thank you Mallen.
@pergamX3 жыл бұрын
(edit-spelling) "CO2 is plant food" argument is about contextualizing that there is a feedback loop on the planet, that over the long run is capable of achieving balance when it comes to CO2. By stimulating plant growth, thus enabling carbon capture - it enables ecosystems to realign. The question is how long is "in the long run". Well, within that context, it is rather crucial that CO2 would be present at such trace concentrations - which implies that the feedback loop ought to be able to balance things out sooner rather than later (ie 50 years vs. 500 years).That is not to say CO2 is not (partially) causing the warming, rather that CO2 is (due to such trace concentrations) - probably a self-regulating issue. Now when i step back and look at it from a wider angle, it makes (philosophical) sense that the earth's ecosystems and feedback loops would be able to regulate any disruption caused by using up the resources acquired by natural processes over millennia on the planet itself. It would also makse sense that if we used up all the carbon on earth, and then started getting carbon from space and started burning it up on this planet, well, that it might quickly overbear the feedback loops and the ability of ecosystems to adapt and self-regulate. Not denying, just trying to get the widest perspective. If CO2 is in such minute concentrations, and if it's capturable within the context of the ecosystem (and if it itself stimulates the feedback loop too) - then it ought to NOT be a MAJOR issue. I am SURE, calculations could be made on how much CO2 could be sequestered over the next 100 years by massive greening efforts (i.e planting billions of trees that ought to grow exponentially faster up to a point of saturation where they would be sequestering more CO2 than what is being added). My informed understanding tells me that while CO2 certainly plays a role, and that 2-4 degrees warming would not be the end of it all - rather temporary especially if the CO2 was the primary driver of the increase.
@RN14413 жыл бұрын
I was intrigued so I went and read the referenced paper from 11:28 titled "Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010" since I wanted to know more about the impact of CO2 forcing on surface temperature. The paper comes up with the number of 0.2 watts per squared meter per decade give or take an error margin of 0.06. According to NASA solar irradiance is on average 1360 watts per square metre, so at this rate it will take 68 decades (ignoring the logarithmic roll off) of increasing CO2 to cause a 0.1% shift in total irradiance. Am I missing something important?
@Tengooda3 жыл бұрын
I am only able to access the abstract of that Nature paper, as perhaps you are also. The figure of 1360W/m^2 is the radiant energy per square metre from the sun arriving at the distance of the Earth from the sun. But that is not the average solar energy absorbed by the Earth since the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, so only half of it faces the sun at any one time, and also the area of the hemisphere facing the sun is twice the area of the disc upon which it is based, so the average solar radiation received by the Earth is 1360/2/2 = 340W/m^2. Moreover, about 30% of that solar radiation is simply reflected back into space, so the average solar radiation actually absorbed by the Earth is around 239W/m^2. If the sun wasn't there then the Earth's surface temperature would be close to that of space (very slightly warmer due to heat from the Earth's interior), which is around 3K. In other words, that 239W/m^2 has warmed the Earth's surface from around 3K to 273+15 = 288K. In other words, 239W/m^2 results in an increase in temperature of the earth's surface of around 285K, or, very roughly, 1K per 1W/m^2. (I'm not suggesting the relationship is purely linear). So, with that very basic understanding, we might agree that an increase in heat absorbed at the Earth's surface of 0.2W/m^2/decade should result in an increase in the Earth's average surface temperature of around 0.2degC/decade. So, let's see what actually happened. Of course, there are other strong influences on Earth's average surface temperature, notably the El Nino (warming) and La Nina (cooling) episodes in the Pacific, which change the decadal rate, but they more or less cancel one another out over thirty years. So, let's look at the rate of warming over the thirty years centred on the decade in question (2000 to 2010). Here is the average of the two main surface and two main satellite global average temperature series from 1990 to 2020: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2020/plot/wti/from:1990/to:2020/trend If you click on "Raw Data" and scroll down you will find that the average rate of increase of Earth's average global surface temperature during that period was 0.19degC/decade (precisely 0.0188711 per year), which is in pretty good agreement with the "expected" c.0.2degC/decade.
@Tengooda3 жыл бұрын
Another way of considering the effect of that 0.2W/m^2/decade average increase in absorption of solar energy by the Earth is to realise that that is, of course, the average increase in heat absorption for every square metre on the surface of the Earth. The old fashioned one-bar electric fires used to heat rooms produced heat at a rate of 1kW or 1000W, or equivalent to an increased absorption of 0.2W applied to 5000m^2, or 0.5hectares. So, that increase of 0.2W/m^2 is equivalent to having two 1kW electric fires burning continuously, day and night, 24/7, on every hectare of land and sea throughout the planet. The USA, for example, has an area of 9,160,454 square kilometres, or 916,045,400 hectares. So, that 0.2W/m^2/decade mean adding 1,832 MILLION extra one bar electric fires every decade, just for the contiguous USA. That's 5.5 extra one bar electric fires for every person, man, woman and child, in the USA added per decade - and that is just the USA, which is just 1.6% of the Earth's surface. No wonder we are getting warmer.