CO2 dittos. It's full of misinformation, such as never mentions the 138+ volcanoes under western Antarctica.

Criticism of the 200 years (overripe) "greenhouse gas theory" going back to Fourier in 1824 (He was more circumspect and closer to reality than the IPCC) "1. There is no physical mechanism by which a gas can absorb energy without simultaneously creating an equal and opposite emission spectrum, and in the open atmosphere of our planet, there is nowhere for energy to hide other than in ice or water. Carbon dioxide can not absorb and preserve energy. At no stage is cooling prevented, and even if it were, that would not increase the originally achieved maximum temperature. A blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not add heat and give you a fever; it does not make you warmer, it just keeps you warmer. 2. Quite the opposite. The earth would be warmer if there were to be no water vapor in the atmosphere and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course). Observational evidence can be seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g., Sahara, Namib, and Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures. The absence of water vapor allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally compared to an atmosphere with greater water vapor and at the same latitude. Conversely, the absence of water vapor will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort of “greenhouse effect” in reverse. 3. That statement only holds true in high-humidity areas and then only during the hours of darkness. The presence of water vapor creates a cooler daytime atmosphere and a less cold (not warmer) atmosphere at night. At no stage is heat added nor created by the presence of water vapor or any other substance. In any case, earth is already enveloped in the perfect “blanket”: the vacuum of space - void of matter and having no temperature of itself, we could not ask for a better insulation. As per #1 above, a blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not give you a fever, and neither can a thermos make its contents warmer. 4. If ever there was equilibrium between temperatures on earth and solar irradiance, the weather as we know it would cease to exist. As is, solar radiation often varies more from mile to mile along any longitude or latitude than anyone could ever imagine and all climate-related “averages” are purely mathematical entities that bear no relation to the actual situation at almost any point on our planet other than perhaps the coldest areas of the poles during their respective long periods of winter darkness when there is not enough energy entering the local climate system to create the greater variations witnessed in more temperate climate zones. Just looking at the maximum and minimum temperature of a particular place in a moderate climate zone and deriving an “average daily temperature” from such observations bears no resemblance to the ever-changing temperatures throughout the day. In between the observed maximum and minimum temperature of the day, it could have hailed or snowed or rained or have been overcast in several episodes. The struggle to reach equilibrium is what makes the weather so unpredictable and equilibrium can never be reached. 5. A brand new Law of Physics here, where parts within a system can behave contrary to the 2nd Law but the whole obeys. Only in “climate science” can such chicanery be accepted as academic judgment. Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 6. A photon will not be able to raise the temperature of the object it is hitting if that object is at an equal or higher energy level. In IPCC graphics, that photon warms the earth and the process starts again - quite impossible (see IPCC graphic below). As per #5 above: Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 7. Thermal insulation in the setting of our open atmosphere does not make the system one degree warmer than it would be without that insulation (the widely accepted “insulation” being the “greenhouse gases”, not the air itself (nitrogen, oxygen)). For a given energy input, a resultant maximum temperature is achieved and regardless of the amount or type of insulation, that maximum temperature can not be increased. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and a thermos does not make the contents warmer, it merely slows down the rate of cooling. 8. An “infrared greenhouse effect” (whatever next?) would need “greenhouse gases” to hang on to received radiation and only water has that ability which is best seen during the hours of darkness, not whilst the sun is adding energy, when in fact water and water vapor keep soaking up energy and prevent the atmosphere from warming up as much as it would without water and water vapor (quite the opposite to what is being proposed). 9. A 77 degree average surface temperature due to the purely radiative impact of the greenhouse effect? Radiant units do NOT combine in reality - 101 W/m2 directed at a blackbody that's radiating 100 W/m2 raises its energy to 101 W/m2, not 201 - but in the much-heralded Kiehl-Trenberth budget, they DO combine. Let's look at the numbers, then. According to the accepted Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget (see below), the earth's surface averages 168 W/m2 for solar absorption. K-T has the surface lose much of that energy by convection and evapotranspiration, though, so that 324 W/m2 of back-radiated power brings the surface up to 390 W/m2, corresponding to 15°. But in this case we'll reduce convective and evapotranspirative heat loss to zero, which leaves us with the original 168 W/m2. Now, within these parameters, how much extra back-radiation is required to bring the surface up to 77°? SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR W/m2, for a total of EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY TWO W/m2, which corresponds to 77°. (Bonus question: If the greenhouse effect generates enough radiative power to raise the earth's temperature to 77°, but most of this heat is dissipated, then why is there no sign of this excess energy being blasted away from the earth? Satellites only see the earth emitting 240 W/m2.) The average solar irradiance for a blackbody earth - one that absorbs every photon the sun can provide - is 342 W/m2, corresponding to an average temperature of 5.5°. Yet here, illustrious academia estimates conjure 852 W/m2 out of nothing 10. “Radiative equilibrium” is an arbitrary construct to BEGIN with. You just subtract a planet's reflectance from the available irradiance and divide by 4. That's IT. There ARE no other steps. Since Earth reflects about 30% of sunlight, then, 1368 W/m2 × 0.7 = 957.6 W/m2. Dividing by 4 gives you 239.4 W/m2, so that becomes earth's equilibrium figure and this corresponds to a temperature of 255Kelvin. Now, is the earth's average SURFACE temperature 255K? No, it's warmer. So you say that “somewhere up there” is where earth's radiative equilibrium is to be found, somewhere in the troposphere. It's all so silly. But once you convince yourself that the surface does NOT principally determine the earth's temperature, you can convince yourself that it IS determined by the atmosphere and that “greenhouse gases” RAISE the “equilibrium point” higher and higher. And as you see, you can even go as far as asserting that the surface absorbs no sunlight." Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

Co2 has been raised 50% in the last century or so and "Ocean heat shatters record with warming equal to 5 atomic bombs exploding "every second" for a year. Researchers say it's "getting worse."

Yes, and no correlation between them.

Until the Industrial Revolution there were no artificial means to change climate but it always and only changed for a reason. That reason is now the burning of fossil fuels. We know it’s true because it’s what physics describes, it can be measured and it runs contrary to natural cycles and anomalous events.

.....and so......?

It should be pretty obvious that there would be a difference between naturally occurring changes and one created by artificially increasing CO2. For a million years before industrialization Milankovitch cycles dominated the climate cycling through many glaciations and interglacial periods. These took thousands of years to change a few degrees. This episode of warming from Industrialization is tens of times faster and more extreme and contrary to natural cycles or anomalous events.

Cheers

Millions of other zombies

?

Northern Mike : Not really sure what you mean, but I’m sure you’re a nice guy.

@@shanosantwanos3908 i think i know what you mean. Papa Chis is probably a zombie without knowing it. here is my point to "physics" for climate change: The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

a praiseworthy undertaking of Prof. Krauss, but some critics should be allowed. The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

There are multiple parallel datasets and they have indeed been independently audited. Please Google Richard Muller of Berkeley for a start and then look up Exxon's own analyses. Certain blogs will complain that the satellite data has been adjusted but what they're referring to is a perfectly reasonable calibration to correct for time of day. There are also blogs that complain some temperature curves don't match up. That's because the authors didn't understand that some ice cores end before 1900 and because the "present" on other plots refers to 1950.

Rubbish. AGW is accepted as a serious issue by EVERY LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION ON EARTH.

I want to see your "evidence of data tampering" that has been "independantly audited"! 😂 You really are very funny people.

The science is not only peer-reviewed but tested and challenged by thousands of scientists around the world. This malicious slander of an entire field of study is ludicrous to all but the most dim extremists on the radical right. The entire Republican party has been bought by the fossil fuel industry. SEE: "Statista: Lobbying spending of oil & gas companies in the United States during election cycles from 1990 to 2024, by receiving political party"

Research goes through peer review and there are thousands of scientists around the globe doing research and getting very similar results. There is NO EVIDENCE of tampering. (If you want to make a claim like that name the people and what they did. There were bogus accusations which were investigated by a dozen official and media source which concluding there was no wrong doing. The science was not manipulated, and all the raw data is in tact and available. This was a decade ago and deniers still push this lie to the ignorant maga types who can barely put a coherent thought together.

I totally agree with that. Lawrence Kraus in a zoom call with me stated he had never heard of the Dr. Mann hockey stick! I have it on video. Love to see him debate William.

I hope that by now you have read Mr. Happer's biography in Wikipedia. He has been shown as someone who puts his beliefs above scientific research.

I'm curious why you say that (because he was in the Trump Admin?). I have known and worked with Dr. Happer several times over the decades - opinionated and aggressive (like ALL gifted Physicists - yes, I am an Atmospheric Physicist) But I have always found him to be logical. On this issue I very much disagree with him and others (Steve Koonin, who I have also worked with at the DOE) -- I haven't yet discussed his position (Will's), but in the past Dr. Koonin and I have discussed at length. My objection to some logical fallacies is to complex to articulate here. But I would love to get into the subject with Will some time!@@MariaMartinez-researcher

Happer takes money from the fossil fuel industry.

By the way, if you're still skeptical there's an easy way to see why the saturation argument must be wrong. The saturation argument assumes full absorption. What we would see is that CO2 takes a bite out of the longwave radiation spectrum from space that goes all the way to the bottom. So this also makes it clear that we're missing something when we're just looking at absorption. The measurements from space of the longwave radiation spectrum also show that there's no saturation, because clearly the bite CO2 takes doesn't go all the way to the bottom, so there's still a lot of room to take an even bigger bite. So if you're not into the math then the measurements are the easiest way to understand why the warming effect of CO2 isn't saturated.

@@stauffap But it is saturated. First of all, the satellite spectra are emission spectra, not absorption spectra. Second, there is no way to measure the "doubled CO2" spectrum; it is calculated using Schwarzschild's equation. And it shows only a slight decrease in intensity when CO2 concentration is doubled. What I have a problem with is, what really happens in the troposphere since there is, except for the H2O window, convection and not radiative transfer, which is important. So, by fitting the part of the spectrum which comes directly from the surface to the Planck spectrum with the appropriate temperature, we can see what the temperature of the (warm) surface is but there is no way, I think, to separate the warming by CO2, H2O...., and to see the "direct" thermal spectrum of the hypothetical "unwarmed" surface. Unless we resort to some assumptions so we can calculate it. The planet where you can see the unwarmed surface spectrum measured by satellites is Mars and it is really cold (and close to what we would expect). Finally, I have to admit, although I am a physicist I am new to the subject of atmosphere and climate. Just trying not to lag behind, too much. So I may be wrong.

@@andrzejwojtowicz6433 "But it is saturated. First of all, the satellite spectra are emission spectra, not absorption spectra." No, the effect isn't saturated. More CO2 will still take a bigger bite out of the longwave radiation spectrum that is measured from satellites. And that bite is big enough to be (by far) the main driver of global warming since the industrial revolution. We're talking about a forcing of about 1.5W/m^2. I never wrote that satellites measure the absorption spectra. The absorption spectra have been measured in labs for over a hundred years now. And the result of this is that we now know every absorption line of a molecule like CO2 (see HITRAN database). "Second, there is no way to measure the "doubled CO2" spectrum; it is calculated using Schwarzschild's equation." That's what i wrote. That's the same thing as the radiative transfer equation. But it's known how to calculate this. It's uncontroversial, hard physics. "And it shows only a slight decrease in intensity when CO2 concentration is doubled." No, it shows a substantial radiative forcings of about 1.5W/m^2 (global average), which is far bigger then any of the other possible forcings. The sun (every laymans favourite) for example can be shown to never produce a forcing of over 0.5W/m^2 even in the most favourable case for the sun (with cherry picked data). "What I have a problem with is, what really happens in the troposphere since there is, except for the H2O window, convection and not radiative transfer, which is important." We factor in convection by applying our knowledge of the tropospheric lapse rate (dry and moist adiabatic and the effect of ozone in the stratosphere). We can also play around with the uncertainties in regards to the lapse rate and we notice that it doesn't really make that much of a difference. The radiative forcing from CO2 remains high. So of course we can differentiate between the influence of water vapor and CO2. After all we have the absorption spectra of both (HITRAN) and we know how they change with different temperatures and pressures and we can calculate the outgoing longwave radiation spectrum as well as the downwelling longwave radiation spectrum. "Unless we resort to some assumptions so we can calculate it." Of course we calculate it. That's why we try to understand physics to be able to calculate such things. Also i want to mention that nature has allowed us to make a neat experiment in regards to the the downwelling longwave radition spectrum and the outgoing longwave radiation spectrum. Because if you look at the Keeling-Curve you see that the CO2 concentration fluctuates on a yeraly basis. So during the span of a year we can see the CO2 concentration go up and down and measure what the spectra are doing. Here's the study: "Observational determination of surface radiativeforcing by CO2from 2000 to 2010", Feldman et al, 2015

The saturation isn't wrong and I can prove it in one comment without needing to use supposed claimed scientific principled you use. If saturation didn't happen we would have had a run away when earth's c02 was x6 higher by natural emissions. Also we have 200 millions years where c02 was very high and the earth was very cold. So no. Saturation is a thing. Otherwise humans wouldn't even have come to be because our ancestors would have died out. Fact.

​@@stauffapthe latest peer review on the sun is going to make you swallow all that above. The sun is way more important your hubris appears to understand. Just wait it won't be long before you hear about it.

That's an inconvenient truth and doesn't fit the narrative, so I guess he forgot to mention it.

good point

So far VERY BAD science!! He starts with a conclusion and then forces the data to support the model. CO2 is 0.03% of the atmosphere and the most biological diversity on earth occurred when when CO2 levels were close to nearly 3 times that amount.

Is that leftist "ocean out gassing" you are talking about? 😂😂😂

.........or did you fart?

There are lots of scientists who have spent a lifetime learning to do modeling like this. They also spend their careers trying to make the modeling more accurate. As it turns out the predictions they have been making for decades have been quite accurate for the purposes of understanding what society needed to do to prevent catastrophic warming. The modeling isn't less accurate because YOU don't understand the details of it.

@@vKarl71 No. Steve Koonin will explain to you in great detail how (and why) utterly unreliable and wildly inaccurate the climate models are, let alone how distorted implications are very often drawn from them by "experts".

The role of carbon dioxide in atmospheric warming is understood and explained by the science of Physics. If you doubt the science then consider this : Venus has atmospheric Co2 levels of 95% and a surface temperature of 900F (475C) That is all we, as regular people, need to know.

@@jiriinuk Koonin is not a climate expert. Actual atmospheric physicists have utterly destroyed his weak arguments.

@@RJones-Indy I have no basis to believe Koonin's arguments are weak and that they have been "utterly destroyed". So, I stand by what Koonin argues - unless/until you refer me exactly to the passages that actually disprove Koonin's arguments.

"I didn't hear you speak of the greening of the planet caused by higher co2 levels" Also, he never mentioned so many other extraneous facts, like the melting point of gallium or where aglets are produced.

@@scottekoontz hm. what about the freeze point of silver? or the phases of the moon? the phases of the moon obviously can't be extraneous since people have used them for thousands of years. :-D

@@scottekoontz I don't think you know what "extraneous facts" means. lol Are you serious? Did you watch the video?

@@scottekoontz It is because we can end global hunger with higher CO2 levels, a goal very worthy of consideration. CO2 is actually a minuscule warming agent, nothing to compare with water vapor.

@@48Ballen "we can end global hunger with higher CO2 levels" We will certainly CAUSE more hunger since farming requires a dependable planting and harvesting season. Some land will become un-farmable and we have to shift all farming to other locations. Oops. Golly, seems like a great plan, science aliterate. CO2 is *actually* and *in reality* and *scientifically* the primary forcing, and as we all know (not you) water vapor is a feedback that results from the additional warming. You should look up feedback, and once you understand what that means stop back. You're welcome.

vienam, beautiful culture? you are not being honest. nothing in vienam is remotely beautiful.

good point

Absolutely but they get CO2 levels up to 280 ppm. Industry has it passing 420 hence the exceptional and unnatural global warming.

This approach is way too much emotion. Science is not based in emotion any more than it is based in politics. You say you "would" recommend the book. Do you recommend it, or are you reserving your recommendation for further information?

@Harold Brice oh, put a cork in it, Buster!🤣🙄😵‍💫

Go back to sleep

@@sherylmatthew4875 thats not an arguement

WMO is in denial, it has falling out. I only trust IPCC.

@@1adamgarcia2003 LOL. The GSM denier IPCC is a fascist POLITICAL organization. They don't know shit about weather.

@@GordoGambler it is NOT weather, it is climate. You don't know shit about it.

Why "heretical"? Your questions are very valid. The logical path is: what is the extent of the warming, what are the causes of the warming, how will it extrapolate into the next decades, what is the impact we may expect on nature and on us humans, how can we mitigate this. On all your questions you can get the answer (and a comment on the "confidence" scientists have in each specific conclusion) reading IPCC reports. Warning: denialists' main action is (as always !) to try to kill the messenger, hence here kill IPCC. They love to depict IPCC as a bunch of corrupt people, which is plain BS. IPCC's work is simply to analyse and summarize all the published scienfitic studies concerning climate. Their work is essential for a topic as important as climate change.

I would suggest that there have been several better warm periods than the present, particularly the African Humid Period when Sahara was green. And even the fairly recent Medieval Warm Period when southern Greenland was arable.

@@juhokristianruohonen1050 These periods are often brought forward by people denying current warming, pretending that "we already saw worse than this", but this is proven wrong. The current warming is unprecedented. And btw: Greeland has never been arable, it was a a misleading advertising by Vikings ;-) Please see this study: "No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era" by Raphael Neukom et al. Extract: "This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."

Criticism of the 200 years (overripe) "greenhouse gas theory" going back to Fourier in 1824 (He was more circumspect and closer to reality than the IPCC) "1. There is no physical mechanism by which a gas can absorb energy without simultaneously creating an equal and opposite emission spectrum, and in the open atmosphere of our planet, there is nowhere for energy to hide other than in ice or water. Carbon dioxide can not absorb and preserve energy. At no stage is cooling prevented, and even if it were, that would not increase the originally achieved maximum temperature. A blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not add heat and give you a fever; it does not make you warmer, it just keeps you warmer. 2. Quite the opposite. The earth would be warmer if there were to be no water vapor in the atmosphere and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course). Observational evidence can be seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g., Sahara, Namib, and Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures. The absence of water vapor allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally compared to an atmosphere with greater water vapor and at the same latitude. Conversely, the absence of water vapor will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort of “greenhouse effect” in reverse. 3. That statement only holds true in high-humidity areas and then only during the hours of darkness. The presence of water vapor creates a cooler daytime atmosphere and a less cold (not warmer) atmosphere at night. At no stage is heat added nor created by the presence of water vapor or any other substance. In any case, earth is already enveloped in the perfect “blanket”: the vacuum of space - void of matter and having no temperature of itself, we could not ask for a better insulation. As per #1 above, a blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not give you a fever, and neither can a thermos make its contents warmer. 4. If ever there was equilibrium between temperatures on earth and solar irradiance, the weather as we know it would cease to exist. As is, solar radiation often varies more from mile to mile along any longitude or latitude than anyone could ever imagine and all climate-related “averages” are purely mathematical entities that bear no relation to the actual situation at almost any point on our planet other than perhaps the coldest areas of the poles during their respective long periods of winter darkness when there is not enough energy entering the local climate system to create the greater variations witnessed in more temperate climate zones. Just looking at the maximum and minimum temperature of a particular place in a moderate climate zone and deriving an “average daily temperature” from such observations bears no resemblance to the ever-changing temperatures throughout the day. In between the observed maximum and minimum temperature of the day, it could have hailed or snowed or rained or have been overcast in several episodes. The struggle to reach equilibrium is what makes the weather so unpredictable and equilibrium can never be reached. 5. A brand new Law of Physics here, where parts within a system can behave contrary to the 2nd Law but the whole obeys. Only in “climate science” can such chicanery be accepted as academic judgment. Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 6. A photon will not be able to raise the temperature of the object it is hitting if that object is at an equal or higher energy level. In IPCC graphics, that photon warms the earth and the process starts again - quite impossible (see IPCC graphic below). As per #5 above: Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”. 7. Thermal insulation in the setting of our open atmosphere does not make the system one degree warmer than it would be without that insulation (the widely accepted “insulation” being the “greenhouse gases”, not the air itself (nitrogen, oxygen)). For a given energy input, a resultant maximum temperature is achieved and regardless of the amount or type of insulation, that maximum temperature can not be increased. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and a thermos does not make the contents warmer, it merely slows down the rate of cooling. 8. An “infrared greenhouse effect” (whatever next?) would need “greenhouse gases” to hang on to received radiation and only water has that ability which is best seen during the hours of darkness, not whilst the sun is adding energy, when in fact water and water vapor keep soaking up energy and prevent the atmosphere from warming up as much as it would without water and water vapor (quite the opposite to what is being proposed). 9. A 77 degree average surface temperature due to the purely radiative impact of the greenhouse effect? Radiant units do NOT combine in reality - 101 W/m2 directed at a blackbody that's radiating 100 W/m2 raises its energy to 101 W/m2, not 201 - but in the much-heralded Kiehl-Trenberth budget, they DO combine. Let's look at the numbers, then. According to the accepted Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget (see below), the earth's surface averages 168 W/m2 for solar absorption. K-T has the surface lose much of that energy by convection and evapotranspiration, though, so that 324 W/m2 of back-radiated power brings the surface up to 390 W/m2, corresponding to 15°. But in this case we'll reduce convective and evapotranspirative heat loss to zero, which leaves us with the original 168 W/m2. Now, within these parameters, how much extra back-radiation is required to bring the surface up to 77°? SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR W/m2, for a total of EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY TWO W/m2, which corresponds to 77°. (Bonus question: If the greenhouse effect generates enough radiative power to raise the earth's temperature to 77°, but most of this heat is dissipated, then why is there no sign of this excess energy being blasted away from the earth? Satellites only see the earth emitting 240 W/m2.) The average solar irradiance for a blackbody earth - one that absorbs every photon the sun can provide - is 342 W/m2, corresponding to an average temperature of 5.5°. Yet here, illustrious academia estimates conjure 852 W/m2 out of nothing 10. “Radiative equilibrium” is an arbitrary construct to BEGIN with. You just subtract a planet's reflectance from the available irradiance and divide by 4. That's IT. There ARE no other steps. Since Earth reflects about 30% of sunlight, then, 1368 W/m2 × 0.7 = 957.6 W/m2. Dividing by 4 gives you 239.4 W/m2, so that becomes earth's equilibrium figure and this corresponds to a temperature of 255Kelvin. Now, is the earth's average SURFACE temperature 255K? No, it's warmer. So you say that “somewhere up there” is where earth's radiative equilibrium is to be found, somewhere in the troposphere. It's all so silly. But once you convince yourself that the surface does NOT principally determine the earth's temperature, you can convince yourself that it IS determined by the atmosphere and that “greenhouse gases” RAISE the “equilibrium point” higher and higher. And as you see, you can even go as far as asserting that the surface absorbs no sunlight." Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

@JT007 Thank you for that. I know what it means. My response to the lecture, was that Laurence thanked people for putting up with him, which at the end of his lecture, laughed about it. My comment was aimed at the Origins project, in which i thought they would get my pun, so to speak. Looks like they did.

@@blindinglights02 but then this was also one of the most confusing presentations by Lawrence - live or remote I have seen. Just hope the book's editor earned their money. : ))))))

Pathetic this business racket based on climate change. Folks like Lawrence Krauss will never speak of their own stinking privileges. Never speak of any reduction or degrowth. Globalisation and unfair terms of trade in world markets enable the citizens of wealthy countries to appropriate legally, by commercial means, several times their equitable share of Earth’s BIOCAPACITY from other countries and the global commons. FACT : Many wealthy importing countries are running large eco-deficits. Canada, US, France, Germany, UK, China etc. Instead he wants us to buy books branded by him. Get lost!

Do you know what percentage of atmospheric scientists, geologists or oceanographers that focus on climate think the world is going to end? Nearly zero. So no, not quite literally the world is ending. More then a few times the earth has had c02 in ppm over 3000. It was a wonderful live giving time.

Holy Macaroni, are you related to Laurence? Same style speech, converted to writing. Of course it begins with thought.

Clever uses of plot axes and statistics are always used mislead others in efforts to win arguments, popularity, and grant money.

Capitalists will do what they do. Would be nice to solve the problems without their influence but we are where we are.

'We' applaud billions spent by individuals like Musk too. Yet I dont see electric rockets

The main issue is that there should be no carbon trade, just carbon tax. Punishing emissions while tax relieving less damaging energy and subsidising geoengineering is the only sensible way. Industrialising from the start with cleaner energy is better than kickstarting off coal and other second grade infrastructure (China's development incentives policy), just saying "screw everything" (US's exceptionalist isolationism policy) or "sell your soul to me and I'll give you my crumbs" (EU's development "incentives").

So fishy! I mean how could someone who was a leader in business also have a conscience. It's as if he was human or something....

@@mousetrapstudios Sweet comment. It made me smile :) I pointed out a financial incentive, but you may be right. It might have been conscience. I do know however that one of Strong's companies illegally built a luxury hotel in a protected wildlife refuge in Costa Rica. People will judge his motivations for themselves. Apologies for the delay. Only read your comment today.

Well said. Other planets are warming in solar system TOO. THEY'RE TRY TO TAX AIR NOW. Please wake more people. Thank you for your POV.

@@anything6398 Poor said. Other Planets are cooling. Why did you think less solar irradiation would mean more warming? think about it: less heat coming to the earth and other planets, and you thought that means more warming?

@@scottekoontz One thing I don't get in this presentation. Total Forcing is 300W per M square. How come W to C relation is 0.75? Shouldn't it be 0.075? Earth would be too warm at 0.75 C. What am I missing?

@@scottekoontz Mars has been warming for at least the last 30 years since we began monitoring its temperature.. I don't expect everyone to read white papers and actually learn about climate science and meteorology.... But you should at least Google that sh before making false statements as a matter of fact just because it fits your political ideology... You won't win hearts and minds over to your cause by lying to people who might already know the subject matter or are willing to spend 20 seconds on a Google search. 20 seconds more than you are willing to spend. Or better yet, why don't you just take a few days to educate yourself so that you can redirect your energy towards *solving real problems.*. Did it ever seem odd to you that you've learned everything you know about climate science from politicians?? You are being exploited, and you could have realized that with a little critical thinking and a simple Google search.

@@scottekoontz And the solar cycle maximum is expected to persist for the next 3 years, so I don't know why you would think solar radiation is decreasing anyway...

Yup. Turning physics into junk narratives takes talent. LOL.

@@GordoGambler GG, If You Don't Point Out the Flaws in Lawrence's Science. Then the "Junk" is Your End.

I don´t know what Gordo Gambler refers to with "junk narratives", but i have my doubts also reagarding the "climate science" of Lawrence Krauss.The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

@@matthauslill4577 Matthäus, Firstly, Very Few Science Topics have Recieved the Scrutiny of Climate Change. Climate Change itself a Science Fact. Secondly, the Silence of the Great Damagers ( Coal, Oil, Gas, Forest Burners, Methane Emitters ) is Very Very Indicative. Thirdly, Climate Action such as Stopping the Burning is About Risk not Detail such as Coupled, Non-Linear, Chaotic Systems or Net Anthro Radiative Forcing. Therefore Identifying the Risks is Possible but the Exact Nature of the Damage more Difficult to Determine. Fourth, Your Correct in that Lawrence offers a Slightly Complex Questionable Method of Determining Temperature Rise. However Temperature Rise can be Proved Via More Simple and Exact Science Methods. Science Methods Used on the Ground at Numerous Locations Where Humanity has Altered the Earth. Hence Lawrence for Reasons Known only to Himself has chosen a More Complicated Method of Temp Rise Determination. For Many Locations of the Earth the Temp Rise 1880 to 2007 is Easily Provable at 5° Celsius or More. It could be that Lawrence is Focusing Mostly on the Big Ice Melting Risk Regions, Antartica, Greenland, Arctic. Fifth, I Agree with You. Back of the Envelope Style Considerations are Often Brilliant. Sixth, Matt You could have Given Quality Observations of What You and Your Family have Observed in the Cold Regions of Austria. Shame You have Kept the Knowledge of Increase or Decrease in Austrian Ice to Yourself. I am Betting Austrian Ice has Decreased since 1880. Seventh, I Agree Lawrence does Not Deal with Tipping Point Risks or Calculations to Determine Tipping Points. Therefore, "Is it Possible to Say it Clearer". Well Yes!, the Tipping Point Risk is Very Serious. Eight, Matt, Where, What is Your Negative Feedback Science. The Positive Feedbacks are Easy to Prove or Observe. Observation being an Important Science Principle. Nine, Much has Changed since the Death of Max Plank and Who Knows what he Might Conclude Today. Thanks to Max for His Significant Progress of Science. FINALLY, Yes Lawrence is Dealing with Unknowns which Leave Potential Science Flaws in His Analysis. However this Is the Nature of Future Risk Analysis. Especially When We are Dealing with this First Time Earth Scale, Slightly Accidental, Long Term Atmospheric and Enviromental Experiment. From a Science Point of View, One Things Certain. If You Add Large Amounts of Something to Something Else. " CHANGE" Must Occur. Thanks for Your Wisdom Matthaus, Good Luck to Austrian Ice.

Hard to believe you can understand the stuff you questioned but do not know when and when not to use an apostrophe. Wow

Professor Anonymous --- You may not believe what I have interpreted NASA's changes to the data to be but there is clear evidence that changes to the data have and are standard operating procedure for this data. I have dealt with many many scientists and organizations and the only time data has ever been modified like is currently being done with the temperature data is if we are hypothesizing or attempting to explore a new line of discovery. Never ever would said reanalyzed data be used for anything other than a map to determine potential strategy for a next experiment. To utilize data that has been changed within an inch of its life for policy and changing people's lives is beyond ridiculous. I actually believe in my heart that it is fraudulent and in fact criminal and will be working diligently in that realm. Wayne Patterson --- The temperature data relied upon by the Climate Change activists is fictitious, non-empirical fabrications, non-existent and did not exist in Nature in almost entirety. Every product based upon these fictitious temperature datasets are inherently falsified by the fictitious nature of the alleged temperature data.

Why doesn't Dr.Judith Curry simply provide research papers that identify evidence that contradicts that AGW is a thing. That is all she has to do but she doesn't. That is how science is done via the scientific methed from start to finish. Instead she loiters in the blogosphere making whatever claims she wants without having to be subject to vocational scrutiny. She favours employing the theme of uncertainty in her claims as if to suggest no one really know what is going on, LOL. She also seems to hang around with the merchants of doubt within the sphere of political lobby and advocacy organisations that are funded by fossil fuel interests. Maybe she needs a lecture about intellectual honesty.

No difference. Exact same calculation either way: 1361 w/m**2 * pi * R**2 340.25 w/m**2 * pi * 4 * R**2 Both of the above give the same result. 4 * pi * R**2 is Earth surface area (area of a sphere) and 340.25 w/m**2 is average Sun above the air of that sphere. pi * R**2 is the surface area of a FLAT huge projection screen placed close "behind" Earth (further from Sun) so that Earth's SHADOW shines on the FLAT huge projection screen just like it does on Moon to give New Moon to Full Moon monthly (except it's an eternal Total Eclipse SHADOW on this close "behind" Earth huge FLAT projection screen). The area of a 3-D sphere (Earth) is 4 times the area of the 2-D SHADOW it casts on a FLAT surface. He says he changed methods at 21:33 to 21:43 where he says "sorry" and corrects himself from saying 1361 over a 3-D Earth sphere surface to saying 1361 over a 2-D sphere FLAT surface, which is a huge FLAT projection screen "behind" Earth. Listen to that. For details see the documentary "Simpsons" about Homer and that Wheelchair Guy. (Ohhhhhh, never forget that Earth isn't FLAT 😂)

yeah. thanks for the inflation

He did have a chart that detailed the various feedback effects. I don’t think it was clearly communicated that the feedback effects are as key as they are. But the raw data was in the presentation.

@@byrnemeister2008 Where was the chart that detailed the feedback effects? Must have missed that.

@@CHIPSTERO7 44:48 ?

@@byrnemeister2008 That chart does not include the assumed positive feedbacks. As I said above, it only shows a net anthropogenic radiative forcing of 1.6 W/m² which is only good for a warming of 0.29C by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no forcing from water vapour in the chart and that is assumed to be the largest forcing.

I explain in the book that the relationship applies for small changes where one can expand the deviation in the SB law.

David, Do you know that plants do indeed ' 'breathe' : what happens is that co² enters the stomata in the leaves, not due to suction, but by diffusion, because as soon as the molecule enters, the photons in the red spectrum , they split off one of the oxygen atoms and combine the co with previously split water molecule (from H-O-H to OH and H ) to form the molecule H- C- OH + O + O > H-C-OH + O² five times where O² is again expelled through the stomata with a large quantity of H²O , the sixth C combines to form methyl CH² one one side of the polymer and A single double bound O on the other forming the helical, chiral molecule C6 H12 O6, which is photo synthesized glucose. NO CO² is released in the average because fewer CO² are inside. In this regard he mis interpreted the increased CO² concentration , which originates from expulsion of CO² from the water, because the solubility of water strongly dimishes with increasing temperature, during the daily warming. You can verify every step described above.

There are many other factors in play here. Unfortunately when a non-especialist takes upon himself to simplify it to the level of dropping some important details, the message becomes more inspirational than factual. Here are a couple of other factors that I have learned being in play listening to a few of the experts: 1-Methane gas is much more potent greenhouse gas than co2 and it effects the climate much faster than co2. So trying to reduce that is more beneficial in short time scales; 2-Oceans are the major source of emitting co2 and whatever we do in reducing our co2 emission is negligible with the share of co2 that oceans release as result of warming up. This is very controversial in the filed if co2 rising is as a effect of global warming or the other way around. If it is the first one, then whatever we do reducing our co2 emission is simply wasted effort. Instead we should concentrate on reducing polution which is definitely causes by us. Reducing our co2 emission come naturally as a result of that, rather than throwing away money at things like carbon extraction technologies (which by the way nature is doing it perfectly fine using trees). Besides add to all this, that according to the recent report the size of world's forests has increased by 26% (not sure if 16%) since 60's. So look like rise of co2 is already generating its counterpart of "green"ing the environment!

@Saul Teanuts I am not a believer, as you, in a climate crisis and I think Prof Krauss has some serious flaws in his "climate science". Here my points: The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

Because there is money to be made by this hysteria. Lots of money.

you can get on the origins project foundation mailing list

@@TheOriginsPodcast FYI, I went to originsprojectfoundation.org and there is no link to join the list. I tried to request being added via the 'contact' form, about 10 hours apart from two different computers; both times I got the error "There was an error trying to send your message. Please try again later."

Do you think by reducing fossil fuel burning CO2 will drop below 325 ppm?

Yes, yes, yes David. Does not matter what you have to say if no one can understand what you mean.

@@HaroldBricewe know what he means tho. You don’t cause you at slow

Remember, the meaning of fantastic is "unbelievable".

I found they won't do it. For them, the debate is over: It is time to act. The climate alarmists have created and joined a belief-based religion that disregards the tentativeness of all science. For them, it is about money and control, it is not about facts and science. The push-backers (as you politely refer to scientists) only get labeled as "deniers" and "unbelievers", and are kicked out of their belief-based club misnamed as Climate Science.

I'll give you one. watch any video of Dr. W Happier. then you'll have the other side.

Typo. He means Will Happer. You might add Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon.

As an academic librarian, it's hard to recall the days when one would get out the latest bibliography on astrophysics, browse through lists of only article titles, and then mail order them... usually from the publishing university. There was not even a method of searching or sorting, just lists that have no hope of being really up to date. I feel joy every time I use a search field :)

@@phoenixdk It really is a phase-change in how we can access knowledge. It's not just faster, it's gotten to a completely different level where research can be super condensed. And more often than not there are active forums with people from all over the world with specific knowledge to your specific questions. It's insane what we have access to, and I'm so glad to see it's a vibrant and big community.

@@MalcolmAkner ... and then the "Research Rabbit" app came along, and there is no more wandering the stacks with 'collected' citation indexes giving you excuses for not going to the gym... sad times. : ))))))

The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

Pathetic this business racket based on climate change. Folks like Lawrence Krauss will never speak of their own stinking privileges. Never speak of any reduction or degrowth. Globalisation and unfair terms of trade in world markets enable the citizens of wealthy countries to appropriate legally, by commercial means, several times their equitable share of Earth’s BIOCAPACITY from other countries and the global commons. FACT : Many wealthy importing countries are running large eco-deficits. Canada, US, France, Germany, UK, China etc. Instead he wants us to buy books branded by him. Get lost!

​@@matthauslill4577 and never has or will be accurate!

Try to think of these concepts in terms of *CHANGES* in greenhouse gas concentrations, not in absolute quantities and their effects. You also need to research *band saturation.*

despite the shape of the exposure (area of a circle), the earth--or any body--will radiates the energy as a whole body (in this case: sphere)

@@patlabor-ingram Why then you don't see full moon shining every day?

@@shoutitallloud because you can't see Infrared radiation

@@patlabor-ingram Because one side of the moon is not shining

it won't. it never will. this is too subtle for normal people to care about. unless there is something huge going on that can be directly attributed to it, people will simply not care. unless people are literally suffocating from heat stroke at the very least on a monthly basis, they will never care about it.

Oh it's BS. We are actually heading toward an ice age. Even Left Wing wiki shows that. You just have to dig deeply

@@jamescollier3 _clearly_ you didn't watch the lecture.

@@BattousaiHBr no I didn't. That's good news. I love him, but sick of politics in my sports, lectures etc. I guess I should watch it. The ice age is determined by the planet's spin etc and the sun. I used to work at NOAA, so I KNOW global warming now climate change is "good optics" for votes. And no one can gaslight me to say it's something else

@@jamescollier3 watch the lecture then.

Today the meteorologic computers of Europe failed to predict massive rainfall only a few hours ahead. That is how tricky it is to use computers to look into the future. It is impossible to know the initial state to assign at each point before even starting the program. After a few hours into the future of the calculation it will not be the real world. It will be a world but not the one that unfolded in reality.

Yeah the graphs need some pausing and reading on your own. I think that Krauss should have taken some more time explaining it of he aimed at general public. I took some pause reading the graphs even though I'm a trained chemist and no stranger to IR emission/absorption spectra.

great lecture? say not so.

if you think any of these models and graphs include even half the information needed to be sure of the claims he is making you are not paying attention

every climate dissaster blogger has a graph. Have graph will travel. I suggest get a the credentials of the authors...for evey qualified scientist, there are 300 bloggers spewing out fake noise.

By design..until oh wait...yep..lets give all our money to 3rd world countries and destroy ourselves based on breathing to much...you fkn tool

Darwins theory is debunked by dna research...why do we have 2 less chromosomes than apes or monkeys?..

@@shanosantwanos3908 I was writing about warming situation. We all are seeing how things are done in the world and it saddens me :(

@@tehdii I think what youve written is sad but quite reflective of reality. Half people are good, half are bad but the good half wouldnt wipe out a bad half. A conundrum. We kinda need good dictators lol

I just woke up again and saw your comment.

Don’t bother, it’s wrong

You may consider that all three have submitted, yet continue to stand behind faulty research. They are three who get lots of internet play because they are practically the only three who hold this opinion. You might say they are the 3 out of 100 who kind of (but not really) disagree with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. You should also note, that all three actually accept human-induced global warming. They simply think it is not "as bad" as the rest of the world accepts.

Koonin is a fraud - well established.

Thanks.

You should watch 20min to 40min. Stop back, I'll explain what confuses you. You're welcome!

Actually it provides several benefits. Perhaps most importantly enhancing plant growth…which is measured.

Calm down. there is no climate crisis. The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

@@matthauslill4577How long did it take you to compose all that delusional misguided nonsense?

@@morninboy You are completely right to feel a sense of guilt, if you are not able to realize the serious flaws in this presentation of Prof Krauss. There is no climate crisis - but some people enjoy the idea of a soon extinction.

Around 6000 ppm on a submarine. It can get over 10,000 ppm without affecting their health.

the things are much easier. >Just check if the scientific method is respected: The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

Agreed. This is at least the "midwit level" presentation on the matter. If you're turned off by math, you're not going to make it past the 20 minute mark. At least that's my impression. I knew most of these things already. It just didn't seem to be the most simplified way possible to talk about this. But then again, nobody has yet figured out how to talk about the physics a) thoroughly and correctly and b) simply at the same time, so that's not really Lawrence's fault.

@@davethepants I think an edit would help, the stuff in the second half is easier to instantly grasp. It seems to get less technical as it goes on, be better the other way round imho.

I've never felt smarter than I do right this second, thank you. I'm dumb as a brick but I still managed to follow along so I must have learned more off of all that television than I thought.

school gets in the way of learning in my opinion. I was taught religion, playing a recorder, kings n queens history and a biology lesson where crazy kids chopped up a frog. I have just not needed these things very often. Fortunately we had encyclopedias :)

@@k.l.schiller8200 The explications of Prof Krauss sound logical, but i think he has some very serious flaws in his climate theory. Here my points. The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

I think you are the one who is confused... At kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oqegf6dmzJeyoqc.html he explains that we're adding ~10 Gt of carbon per year to the atmosphere, but half gets absorbed by the biosphere and the oceans, so yes, he is correct. That's the measure in weight of C, BTW, not CO2 (a common source of confusion).

Uh huh. A celebrated PhD in physics doesn’t know a basic fact. Well for sure you don’t know how not to be a dick.

@@chmd22 C (a solid) does not remain in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, so why is he talking about how we are adding C to the atmosphere and its a greenhouse gas? Its like saying that rivers are depositing Hydrogen into the ocean

​@@KingComputerSydney It's just a common way the amount of CO2 released is quantified, as if the oxygen didn't weight anything, which obviously is not the case. I don't know why they do it that way, and I wish it were more clear.

@@skonther0ck You might not know enough to realise when someone misspeaks, it doesn't mean I don't

There is no positive correlation. In the interglacials the temperature rises first then CO2 rises (due to outgassing from the oceans).

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance and making an arse out of yourself in public like this. It helps motivate people with three digit IQ's and an education to do something about the climate crisis.

The scientific method is the only common language of the planet and is the base humanity must build the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. Yet we have to realize the climate science is a very special type o science and deals with non-linear, highly complex interconnected and interdependent planetary systems and I get the impression that Prof. Krauss does not use the scientific method in the appropriate way and thinks these systems can be understood only applying the basic physics of the global energy balance. I think Prof. Krauss is wrong and I will try to show this by demonstrating that he gets erroneous results with his “back-of-envelope”, basic physics calculations. He prevents himself and his audience from understanding the real underlying problems of climate change and impedes to see real political solutions. Krauss explains the climate change using basic physics and states his hypothesis that there is more or less a linear relationship between radiative forcing, caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and the global mean temperature changes. This would contradict in my opinion the basic statement of the IPCC about the global climate system that “we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore long-term predictions for the future climate states are not possible” (IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001, page 774). Krauss intends to prove this supposed linear relationship by showing that the actual net anthropogenic forcing multiplied by a fixed factor of 0.75, gives you always, “bang-on”, the additional warming since the pre-industrial era. To verify his hypothesis in an example which can be replicated, he uses then the “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 1.6 watts/m2 of the IPCC AR4 report from 2007 and multiplies this value by the factor 0.75 (he got this strange factor 0.75 from Jim Hansen from NASA/ GISS) and gets 1.6 x 0.75 = 1.2 degrees C. He thinks he has such proven the linear relationship and says: “you get this way always “bang-on” exactly the predicted value”. First, the actual values of NASA/ GISS for the additional global mean warming since pre-industrial era (1880) are for 2007 not 1.2 degrees C, but 0.63 degrees C, about half the value Prof. Krauss calculated! It is not clear from which reference he got the value of 1.2 degrees for the warming from 1880 to 2007. Second, the closest official values in 2021 are those from the IPCC AR5 report from 2014 not from AR4 from 2007. The “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” was in 2014 already 2.3 watts/ m2 up 44% from 1.6 watts/ m2, the value Krauss used. He should have therefore multiplied more realistically 2.3 watts/ m2 x 0.75 and would have gotten a very different result namely 1.72 degrees C. By the way, the IPCC “net anthropogenic radiative forcing” of 2014 of 2.3 watts/ m2 has an absurdly high uncertainty range of 1.1 to 3.3 watts/ m2. This uncertainty range more than doubled since 2007. With this declared uncertainty the IPCC expert admit: “We are getting increasingly confused and have not the slightest idea what effect the CO2 emissions have in the atmosphere and on the global climate”. Welcome Prof. Krauss in the very murky world of the IPCC science. Third, using the AR5 2014 values Krauss would have calculated a warming of 1.72 degrees C since 1880, instead of the warming of 0.78 degrees C, as estimated officially by NASA/ GISS for 2014. Krauss would have missed “bang-on”, the real warming by 120% (!). Fourth, as per IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports, the estimations of the anthropogenic radiative forcing caused by the greenhouse gas emissions went up from 2007 to 2014 some staggering 44%, but the global warming caused supposedly by these human emissions went up only 24% during these 7 years. Obviously, the hypothesis of Prof. Krauss and Prof Hansen of a linear relationship between greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere and global warming is herewith falsified. But I want to propose here another back-of-envelope calculation, this time for nothing less than for the climate sensitivity for doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is the most important parameter of the whole global warming and climate change science. In 2020 we have reached, as per NASA/ GISS, a much-welcomed warming of about 1 degree C since the beginning of the industrial era, which happens to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age - the coldest era of our interglacial period which lasts already 10 000 years. The climate of the Little Ice Age was hardly considered optimal by my Austrian ancestors, and we have in 2020 not even reached again the optimal absolute global mean temperature of 15 degrees C, which the earth should reach based exclusively on the natural greenhouse effect, without any human emissions, and calculated with basic and undisputed physics, as also shown by Prof. Krauss in his presentation. 15 degrees C - and the global climate is in order, as Prof. Schellnhuber of the renowned German PIK Institute in Berlin explains. But Schellnhuber does not explain how there could be any extreme weather events caused by high temperature, when we are still below the optimal 15 degree C global mean surface temperature. In 2020 we have reached a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 415 ppm, but CO2 is of course not the only greenhouse gas but represents about 56 % of all “well mixed greenhouse gases”, converted in “CO2 equivalent gases”. If we add to these 415 ppm another 44% corresponding to the “other CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” (CO2e), we reach therefore already 597 ppm more than double the 280 ppm value of 1880. That means we already have more than doubled the “CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases” and it is therefore rather easy to deduce the sensitivity of the global climate for a CO2e doubling, which is about 1.0 degree C, the value estimated by NASA/ GISS for the additional warming from 1880 until 2020. This climate sensitivity of 1.0 degrees C for doubling of CO2e corresponds roughly to the direct greenhouse effect of CO2 measured and confirmed in all laboratory tests. This 1.0 degrees C is the value for doubling of CO2 concentration, without any positive feedbacks, which amplify the small CO2e effect in the atmosphere, like water vapor feedback and cloud feedback. This could indicate that the supposed positive feedbacks are cancelled out by negative feedbacks to a net zero feedback. This is exactly what a growing number of scientists suspect. However, the IPCC does not claim all this warming is due to increased human caused greenhouse gases. If we assume that the human greenhouse gas emissions cause only let’s say 80% of the total radiative forcing, then the sensitivity would be proportionally less, about 0.8 degrees C. This is the same sensitivity calculated by NASA/ GISS. Here it should not be forgotten that the CO2 absorption bands for infrared radiation are already highly saturated and a theoretical further doubling of CO2 concentration from 580 to 1.160 ppm will have therefore only a small effect. Nobody talks anymore about this saturation, but the basic physics didn’t change, since Rasool and Schneider from NASA/ GISS wrote in a 1971 landmark study: “From our calculation, a doubling of CO2 produces a tropospheric temperature change of 0.8 degrees C (not catastrophic 4 or 5 degrees C !). However, as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off. Therefore, the runaway greenhouse effect does not occur.” Is it possible to say it clearer? The “basic physics” are the same for Prof. Krauss and for Prof. Stephen Schneider and did not change since Max Planck. Stephen Schneider became later the co-founder of the IPCC, together with Jim Hansen of NASA/ GISS. He knew what he was talking about. With other words. No reason for being alarmed. Prof. Krauss has the praiseworthy intention to help the public and the politicians to better understand the supposed climate problems with a proposition which is scientifically non-viable. The results cannot be considered a healthy base for very far-reaching political decisions. Krauss doesn’t even intent to test his hypothesis against the evidence of real-world observations made by himself, or at least from independent sources, which was long time ago, before the dominance of the IPCC dogma, the only accepted method of physics. This is still the only way for the advancement of science and of the human civilization.

@@matthauslill4577 Thanks for your response. I believe there are many missed opportunities in collecting data from historic samples, and that restricts the ability to test hypotheses against a solid block of evidence. For example, tree ring data has been used as temperature proxies yet are better as indicators of growth conditions. But a lot more data can be extracted from historic tree samples- rainfall, dominant wind direction, fire/insect/disease/animal damage, extreme weather, waterlogging, drought stress, soil fertility, salinity, logging, shading, eruptions, etc. Such analysis should also indicate what we might need to mitigate against and what fraction is anthropogenic.

Human-generated CO2 is one part in 60,000 of the atmosphere. Do the math. 3% to 5% of 0.04%. 4% of 0.04% is 1 part in 62,500. This bullsh*t talk fails to address the issue. The CO2 WE generate. It is deception in the service of the oligarchs driving this agenda of tyranny, theft, dispossession.

@@banjo234 How much CO2 have humans emitted in total? In tons.

I'm european. The numbers of people denying anthropogenic climate change is increasing here too as far as i can tell. Scientific illiteracy is not exclusive to the USA.

@@nunofoo8620 If you take a little look at the statistics and polls you will see that there is a rather drastic difference between Europe and the states. I have never seen any evidence that climate change denial is increasing either.

@@williamtaylor5193 I don't expect you to understand what is cumulative emissions or per capita emissions. These are concepts too complicated for your racist little mind.

@@panzerkami2381 In the past 4 years a new far-right political party was formed in my country, portugal, called "chega". In just 4 years they have become a considerable political force and in the last presidential election their candidate got to 3rd place ahead of well established political parties. And of course they deny that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. Same thing happened in our neighbors, spain with the political party "vox". Similar things have been happening in the rest of europe. But hey, if we dont look at the problems maybe they'll go away..

@@williamtaylor5193 The day you stop being intellectually dishonest and cherry-pick the data that makes china and especially india look bad is the day i'll stop calling you a racist. The US is responsible for 15% of global emissions with 4% of the world population. The EU is responsible for 9.8% of global emissions with 5% of the world population. India is responsible for 6.8% of global emissions with 17% of the world population. I didn't even touch per capita or cumulative emissions or the absolute unjustness of your statement would be even more blatant. And you point your finger at India but not the US or the EU? Sorry, William, but it's obvious and self evident that indeed you are a xenophobe.

They know. They just pretend they don’t get it. They seem to be deeply cynical and short term thinkers. They have there position to protect and damn the rest of us and their own grandchildren.

5 minutes? you are obviously very optimistic, i doubt most people would get even 30 seconds into it.