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.

mfr58 very interesting links. Ty.

mfr58 this follows Plancks Law... www.dropbox.com/s/yegvlmvsr39k7yg/CO2effectOnAtmospherePlanck.PNG?dl=0

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.

Twilight Zone Science Fiction. Your first sentence is baseless and Therefore the rest is also.

*_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

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.

Bars!

Im not arguing for either side. Im arguing for the scientific method

This is also a big difference between fact and opinion.

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.

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

@@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...

@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?

@@shermie_65 are you serious?All life evolved from early single-celled organisms to the dinosaurs.

Agreed. Huge miss here and not just with your point.

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.

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.

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

Absolutely 💯

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?

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.

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.

@@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.

This is just paranoid ranting. You can provide no proof or evidence to support your wild assertions.

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!

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.

@@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.

@@MallenBaker Very poor analogy

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.

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.

@@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

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.

@@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

@@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

The handwaving over water vapor alone is enough to raise an eyebrow.

@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.

@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?

@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?

@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?

This is the soundest comment by far.

good post

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.

Solid point

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?

That is photons from light being converted to energy on the way in. The "back radiation" fairytale defies the second law of thermodynamics.

Indeed. That would be my first question to the man in the video.

@Redzone 2119 and 200 meter higher sea levels, with giant plant and animal life. like in past.

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.

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.

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.

@@MsBiggles51 as Lex Graber said in his first sentence "Solar initiated warming that heats the oceans" …

Point number4. Regardless of the cause, historically CO2 still lags temperature and therefore cannot be the driver of temperature

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.

@@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

@@waynebow-gu7wr I share many of your sentiments. And it's hard work keeping up. But I have a professional interest.

Global average temperatures have gone DOWN according to NASA satelite data.

@@fivish Global average temperature wiggles up and down at all time scales, from days to millennia.

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.

@@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.

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

@@xtremelemon8612 But when a CO2 molecule reflects sunlight , it doesn't suddenly orient itself to radiate upwards

You cannot understand it because it is not true.

@@adrianvance556 then explain what is true

Ronald Garrison: It's simple: BOOST the co2.... MELT the ice.... MODERATE worldwide Climate... RESTORE the Biosphere..!!!

@@andymacdonald821 That's great, if you're an effen DINOSAUR. And it definitely sounds like you are.

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

@@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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@@nickwf70 luckily there isn't a total lack of action.

@David Bunney exactly right!!!

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 ?

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.

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?

@@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.

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.

Then you don’t understand it. Models are accurate.

@@RJones-Indy I guess it depends on what you're calling accurate.

Sorry you are wrong again. See Hausfather et al 2019. Models are very accurate.

@Rory Forbes Well said. But the greatest mistake of all is underestimating the complexity of the problem.

The models are so accurate that they are consistently incorrect.

Actually the models have been proven correct. Look it up.

Mortskcab - I am a Mort too. Is that your given name?

Hi Sky we have had 16 years of the hottest years on record in the last 16 years

@@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.

@@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 "

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..

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.

@@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.

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.

@@pdavid000 What other possible cause is warming the planet

@@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?

@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.

He's a fraud, an AGW/IPCC troll ! I mean, he seems intelligent enough to know that what he's arguing for is nonsense !

@@petervithus3971 he doesn't know and his is just a reading website article and comes to the wrong conclusion no understanding of first principles.

@@nn-uj1iv hmm, possible, But I lean more towards him being a AGW/IPCC shill !

Thanks for this great information

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.

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?

Easy, you devise models dat run linear and supposes initial states of elements and variables. And there goes the graph!

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.

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.

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.

Ellie Green Thanks for the links... will check ‘em out.

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.

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.

Yeah, what's wrong with that dude? ;)

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.

@@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.

@@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.

Murat Gurol Where are you getting your data from?

@@byrnemeister2008 I worked for 13 years in the utilities industry

@@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

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.

No, that is not the problem - the cause is demonstrable.

@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.

@@pdoylemi where has CO2 ever been demonstrated empirically as the dominant greenhouse gas and the human contribution is the primary cause of global warming?

@@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.

@@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?

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.

@@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.

@@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?

@@spillarge No, I meant that emitting CO2 is a good thing. It is saving life on earth, not killing it.

@@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.

Also elucidates how CO2 acts as a water vapor GHG effect multiplier

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.

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.

One side of the debate is a socialist led religion. The other side is actual science.

@@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

@@nternalPractice Let me guess... You believe yourself to be in the first group?

Dwight E Howell I hope we discover the Glass Cube Earth is in soon. It will be back to the White Board for everyone.

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??

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?

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.

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

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._*

@@RodMartinJr Climate has nothing whatsoever to with CO2 so the models are meaningless.

@@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!

@@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.

@@rodkeh What theory or evidence do you have that CO2 has no impact on the rising global average temperature?

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.

@@matthewvaughan8192 Like humans are really advanced enough to manage any change, pfft

​@@danieldjz You base that on what exactly?

@@matthewvaughan8192 climate changes without human intervension. Look it up.

@@danieldjz Have done many times. Little substance to it & the overwhelming scientific evidence says otherwise

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

@@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

@@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 😅

@@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.

@@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.

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.

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? ??

So what. We would also like to see some references for those assertions.

@@davidwatson8118 check this as one reference. I am sure you can find others. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/erhmqsekxNLdYqc.html

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.

@@naughtynat82 Wow, what a stunning reference. A history teacher talking about stuff he knows bugger all about.

@@johnnyjones3362 Maldives? You guys can't help spouting the same debunked rubbish.

So maybe actually find proof for any of this and publish it...

Charles Rablin - compare the temperatures at which CO2 and water condense. And CO2 is not a layer.

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.

MrToby -yes I am a scientist and I have read the literature, I don’t think Charles is though.

Co2 could last about 2 centuries in the atmosphere and water vapour last about 9 days in the amosphere.

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

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.

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.

Yes!

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

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?

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.

@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.

"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.

@@zhugnachaz8709 OK, well, if you think I am using the Beer-Lambert equation incorrectly, please explain how

@@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.

@@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.

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

​@@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

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.

@@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!

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!

This is also very true

you would make a terrible carpenter than

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".

@@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.

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?

@@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.

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.

What about coffee?

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 incorrect.

@@randomunavailable I was quoting NASA, by the way. You should notify them how wrong they are.

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Keep thinking that.

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.

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.

Proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere : 0,04% Man made 6% of these 0,04%

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

I have a feeling Climate is so complex that we will never know no matter what changes we experience in our environment.

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

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?

couldn't put it better

Yep, We know A.I. will wipe us out soon. This stuff is just filler.

@@sedigives Stop with that Terminator nosense.

@@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?

Can you send me the link? I can not find it

@@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.

@@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.

Who cares. He's being intellectually dishonest here. Not very scientific thinking but a lot of projections and assumptions. Back to PhD Frolly1000.

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"

Bruce Frykman o

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.

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.