I used to live with him in Berkshire. Well I lodged for a week. Loves marmite every morning and has 3 incredibly handsome sons 😆😆

Patience is one of the Heavenly virtues.

The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it? Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth - through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves. Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer - not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22841-what-s-the-real-agenda-behind-climate-change-alarmism

@bulletsholes Your name aptly represents the state of your brain.

@bulletsholes Correct.We're not threatened by a supposed human-caused change in climate that is not happening. We are threatened existentially by the West's continued warmongering for control of resources and the suppression/elimination of a fair alternative to the rule of the 1%. The fake climate change story is a means of distracting our attention from the real threats - and of making us even more reliant on governments ... to solve a non-existent problem.

I disagree slightly, the car is us and other life. But we don't know if we'll just have a dent and a smashed in headlight or if the car will be totally wrecked. (Maybe a more fitting metaphor than a car is our children. Even a nice car seems too unimportant...). But I do agree that the cost-risk equation is hard. We can never hope to mitigate every risk.

...says genius geek.... : /

too much weed !

Wedges 'r Us.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Some day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you don't confess that until after your death then you'll spend eternity in torment (where the fire is not quenched).

Linz Earth Too many humans. All the problems are due to humans concrete and bad management.

+Cj Lucansky On the PI website.

does he mention that we are headed into an ice age? or leave it out?

@@jamescollier3 ?

@@kahotam7975 there are periods and epochs etc, and we are going into the 5 th or so ice age. Global warming is politics, so I was wondering if he mentioned the truth, that we are getting colder, if anything?

@@jamescollier3 Speaking as a physicist myself, from what I understand that there had been some mention from fringe scientists about the possibility of heading to ice age but the vast majority (99%+) of renowned scientists see anthropogenic climate change as a matter with better than 5 sigma certainty - that is less than one in a million chance of being wrong.

@@kahotam7975 No. If you look up miocene glaciation it's when the Northern Ice started to form and its been getting cooler every since. That just doesn't sound as good as warming. We're going onto an ice age again. PS, So I won't listen. lol. I'm also a scientist by education and know what 6 sigma is 😀.

@star cruiser spot on mate.

@star cruiser That begs the key question: just how detailed must our understanding of the variables be to produce models that are accurate *enough* to be actionable? The Navier-Stokes factor ensures that said models cannot be perfectly accurate ever.

replace pixels by voxels, and that's he's isn't too far off. Now it's 7 years later, and perhaps the kid is playing or working with volume rendering on a bunch of graphics cards.

most water vapour doesn't rise higher than the Troposphere 12km up. so any radiation of heat out into space will be minimal at best.

4121Z0N4: I remember my first beer too.

PS. As in Plancks Radiation formula (which is in the same physical SI Units as viscosity(!)), the quantum cutoff is frequency dependent.

lol!!

Lol. Yeah, his judgement wasnt too great in that, he certainly didnt predict that little surprise did he? ... im not sure we should trust his predictions on this with that past record.

Ooo

Mathematics is timeless.

Kirstin Strand Will today’s science be valid in 12 years when the climate change is irreversible ? ( or will they say , oops, we actually have another 5,10,20 years ?)

@@A2Z1Two3 there's no such thing as "irreversible climate change" There's no static climate to reverse too. The climate has always been variable and always will

With your input, I jumped to 23.

I thought the first 15 minutes were pretty good actually

ha - dry so dry

The NYT is considered the preeminent news journal here in the U.S. ( aside from some loons on the far left and the right). It isn’t perfect, but no one clearly does it better. So if I understand your point, pretty good graph of estimates of world temperature. If you have a better graph of the temp., though, feel free to provide a reference. No crayons ( or sharpies) please.

@Marc Jackson, If climate science is really important to you then you must consider this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qKuHorOrxqrRf3U.html

Except co2 itself has a lower specific energy retension and lower specific heat index meaning added to a nitrogen atmosphere at less then 1 % means cool not warm ? Right ? Plus co2 added to nitrogen increase the opacity meaning more photons are kept from entering in the first place right meaning again cooler ? Additionally as far as i can tell atmospheric insulation is primarily determined by density and water, water vapor is far more prevalent and insulating. So if the laws of gases and thermodynamics haven't been over turned. Wouldn't pulling co2 out of the air. Cause the air to actually... get slightly more warmer ? Doesn't seem very logical and counter arguments so far haven't been very rational or make any sense.

Marc Jackson: Why are you so angry?

Photosynthesis is pegged to much more than CO2. Increasing CO2 concentrations aren't going to turn the world green and lush, I'm afraid. You still need nutrients, water, and O2 to match in scale for every plant in question.

Earth Dog, you are incorrect; the Earth has already become greener because of the increase in CO2, which has the side effect of reducing transpiration, and reducing water need. Plants expire oxygen as a waste product, they don't need it themselves, what they do need is available Nitrogen, from their roots, fixed by soil bacteria...

@@Ironic1950 Sources please

...any elementary grade physics textbook?

Do the models actually hae to be realistic/functional? Who is going to critique??

N-s equations are as easy as two plus two equals twenty two.

I just love how in the "information age" people still ask questions as if there is no answer. I learned about the carbon cycle in high school science class, which explains why co2 is very long lived in the atmosphere. by the looks of your other posts, it is apparent that you are not a curious person.

Tim Palmer's answer was somewhat misleading. About 75% of CO2 will go away in 20 to 200 years and a small percentage takes hundreds of thousands of years. There is already a CO2 sequestering system that works and could be scaled up inexpensively if needed.

@4121Z0N4 My understanding is the following laws of physics are used to quantify the IR absorption spectrum properties of co2. Beer-Lambert law, Kirchhoff’s law, Planck’s law, Boltzmann distribution, Stefan-Boltzmann law, Einstein coefficients for emission and absorption.

@4121Z0N4 I gave you a list of laws of physics scientists used to calculate the heat absorption properties of co2. You can use them to calculate the heat absorption of any gas. Are you claiming that co2 does not absorb heat?

@4121Z0N4 I assume you are talking about the ideal gas law. But that is not relevant to what is being discussed here. What we were discussing before you crashed the party with your "questions and insults" tourettes was how long co2 stayed avaliable to the atmosphere.

Unknown. To begin with, volcanic emission is most likely 10 times (perhaps more) higher than previously thought, mainly due to the incomplete measurement. And since whatever is not emitted naturally, MUST be anthropogenic, underestimation of naturally produced CO2 leads to an overestimation of the anthropogenic factor.

0.0016% That's from all human activity. Not sure what it is from fossil fuel burning.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fdePlc2SrpayhKM.html&ab_channel=MannyLopez

The urban Island heat creep is relevant for any city or forest clearing or where any change other than natural has occurred. This is measured in Temperature, but now every micro climate is effected at different rates. Who and how is this accurately calculated and constructed into the modelling. The clue is in here. Easy to hide and hard to argue against when they control the homogenised Temperature data. Cheers

I would have to see the graph. If you know the title of the textbooks, they may be out of copyright and available on the internet time machine as PDFs

@@trevorbertram8801 stop and think for a moment. When urban island effect was stronger? When termometer readings were higher than real values? in 1930's or now? Corrections they made should be opposite. Current readings should be lowered not past readings.

@@NEW-nm7gc kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fc5dd7F_rrvOe4k.html it is nice because it uses only "official" data

+Hazza No Ordinary World Yes, at rate of about 400 cubic km melting/Year(might be somewhat realistic estimate todays melting in Greenland) consumes equivalent amount of energy in a decade that equals about 0,3 degrees celsius warming of atmosphere(the whole mass of it), if instead same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. Of course the total net amount of worlds ice melting is more relevant number, but to give just some scale/example. Oceans been "masking" the issue partly by taking in CO2 and also heat. Backslash is certain(actually happening right now also) by many means, not only burst of heat coming out from the oceans(ecological also). Oceans omits for ex. 1000-times more capacity to absorb heat as the atmosphere. We have increased already 40% of atmospheres CO2 and CO2 as the second largest contributor to GHG-effect(total effect from all GHG:s about 33C and CO2 about 10-25% of that). Significant amount and will have both expected and unexpected(abrupt also) consequences.

Apparently Manhattan's going to be flooded permanently by 2010. We're in real trouble.

and all agree to an astounding degree. Why are they all different, because averaging temperatures on a global can be done with different levels of accuracy and using different methods. Like i could use large areas, as data points. Take the average for areas of land the size of california, add them all up.. and the graph is going to look different, than taking the averages fo areas of land the size of rhode island. The later is going to be more accurate over all. Both are valid. The graphs will look slightly different with different max and mins, but will agree to a high degree of accuracy. What I wonder, is why you dont have the same questions about the piles of BS denialists like the heartland institute releases to deny AGW, and nor do you have the same quetions about their verified history of being totally and completely wrong every single solitary time. Like when they said cigs were addictive and didnt cause cancer. Or they said lead in gas was no big deal. Or when they said cfcs didnt cause the ozone hole. or when they said SO2 wasnt causing acid rain and that cap and trade of so2 would turn the us into a third world nation. Why no questions about that?

The question is what to do about what we don't know because there are too many "butterflies" yet to account for. Remember the Y2K hysteria?

He used the wedge metaphor to explain one aspect of chaos theory to non specialists. But some like you are not even able to understand a simple metaphor or what a metaphor is.

yes - snake oil!

It's an analogy, all analogies are contrived. It's a placeholder for radiative forcing from GHG.

Al Gore is gonna turn on the internet to control the weather. No point well made-2 major factors in the weather are the sun & the ocean. Basic concepts that are not being taught: the sun drives all climate-it provides light, warmth, & the stuff of photosynthesis. The sun emits radiation across the spectrum-most of what we receive is in visible light, specifically the indigo region. UV occurs at altitude & over large spaces of water. Dangerous x-rays are captured by the Van Allen Belts. The sun has its own weather-prominences, flares, coronal ejections, & sunspots. Sunspots are cooler regions on the sun because the magnetic field twists the solar currents around & spreads them laterally across the surface--therefore more of the other surface areas are more luminous. Oceans contribute water vapor & depict the basic difference of high pressure & low pressure. This leads to front creation & air mass composition all of which are pushed along by jet streams. Oceans are also the largest sink for co2 & absorb radiation only up to a certain depth & then it is in the aphotic zone. As the fetch circulates so do air pressure parcels & wind belts & ocean currents all of which create a routine weather pattern & a fairly typical climate of any location.

I agree. And we will know by about 2023 at the latest

No. Your data is either wrong or outdated. You've been conned in believing this.

@@CyrilleParis There have been nearly 60 attempt to explain the "pause" by the alarmists and to date every one has been a "theory" that cannot be tested or if testable shown to be wrong. The con is believing the IPCC and its political agenda.

@@purplechum9 There is no "pause" except in your intelligence. Check the data : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

No pause. Every decade is hotter than the prior one, going on 5 decades now.

says someone with an empty you tube account

the reason the man of science was rocked, is he was trying to think of how to explain his answer simply enough for the kid to understand. he replied that the problem wasn't pixilation (or aggregation) but the underlying equations. even after that the kid still didn't understand and in effect asked the same question again. being polite Tim said that maybe this approach might work as might many other approaches. fresh eyes can often see something that others don't, but in this case the kid lacked some basic understand of the issue, so came up with an simple solution. simple solutions are attractive because they are easier to understand, but that doesn't make them viable.

He spent the entire lecture talking about weather, not climate - Palmer doesn't seem to know the difference! It seems to me that this is just another bullshit scheme to get more funding for his "research", or , because he has realised that his current computers will merely add to global warming, it is his appeal for money for a more energy-efficient, less accurate computer. Huh?

The human addition of co2 shifts the balance so that it now accumulates differently and rises over time, in a way it would not if we added 30 gigaton extra per year... is it not? Not watched this specific talk yet. NASA have got some good data: climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial not harmful. CO2 is plant food, it is how living things grow. We are in a CO2 drought, dangerously close to the 'death line' of 150ppm where photosynthesis stops, and we need more of it not less. The dinosaurs enjoyed temperatures 10 degrees warmer than today, with CO2 levels around 1000-2000ppm, and they remain the most successful animals that have ever lived. In the Cambrian, 540 million years ago, CO2 was up around 7000ppm and instead of the planet boiling away, an explosion of new species appeared. CO2 does not drive temperature anyway. Temperature moves first, and 800 years later CO2 follows it, up or down. Don't believe what NASA, the NOAA or the IPCC say, they all alter observation data to deliberately produce misleading results, aimed at scaring the public and policy-makers into introducing draconian tax and energy policies that will drastically reduce your standard of living. In reality, there is no imminent 'climate catastrophe'. The polar ice sheets are increasing not decreasing. There is no catastrophic sea-level rise. The frequency and intensity of storms have been steadily falling for several decades. The oceans are not becoming more acidic, they are not acidic at all. Dying vegitation produces around 440 billion tons of CO2 a year, the oceans produce around 330 billion tons annually, animals around 150 billion tons, compared to 35 billion tons from human activity. This whole thing is the biggest deception ever purpetrated on mankind.

How can he say. near the end Q&As that a molecule of CO2 stays around for 1000's of years. He has already talked about the Carbon Cycle. CO2 cycles the C. Absorbed by plants (for example) eaten by animals, metabolised, and released, or just dies back into the soil humus layer, or the newly forming carbonate rock layer under the sea.. Who knows. The main point being that the molecule of CO2 was NEVER CREATED AT ALL!. The carbon was always there in the first place! Furthermore, as I understand it, the CO2 "window" of absorption (12 to 15 micros) is already closed. Push more CO2 into the atmosphere, but the "window" cannot close any further. It is at 100% already. 1,000 ppm won't change that! It is why farmers who can afford it build huge GREENHOUSES for heaven's sake! So, we could possibly enjoy a nice lifestyle like they did in the warm Roman Empire period. OR we could all freeze to death with malnutrition and no electricity like they did in the mini ice age 1800's. Depends on whether the CO2 alarmists get their way. How's that for chaos theory! Wonder which way the pendulum will swing?

@@andyrowlands50029 You would be absolutely right : Co2 would be good for us... if we were dinosaurs or plants. Alas we are not.

@@CyrilleParis Indeed we are not, but CO2 is not harmful to any form of life on Earth, unless the concentration were to exceed 1% or 10,000ppm, which is unlikely in the extreme.

Robusti09: Two thumps up?

VERY GOOD ANALYSIS. I AGREE TOTALLY.

or she correctly pointed out that the illustration was cute but did not represent real world challenges to prediction such as the climate of a planet. It did show a property of this universe which has nothing to do with statistics.

You are of course right ! Technically there is another problem . The magnetic pendulum is TEMPORALLY chaotic . This means that its movement is described by a finite number of non linear ODE (ordinary differential equations) and it can be shown that there are 4 fixed points (equilibriums)with equal probability because the magnets are symetrical with regard to the axis to the pendulum . By setting the wedge, the symetry is broken so that there are still 4 fixed points but the probabilities are no more equal because of the broken symetry . This is trivial undergrad mathematics . This pseudo analogy has absolutely nothing to do with climate and teaches nothing about the predictability of (probabilities) in chaotic systems . Climate is SPATIO-TEMPORALLY chaotic . This means that it is described by non linear PDE (partial differential equations) equivalent to an infinity of ODE . As there is no stable equilibrium (the system can by definition not be isothermal) , it follows that there are NO fixed points and the probabilities that the system (=pendulum) is somewhere are not known . There are also no "symetries" that could be broken by a "wedge" . A somewhat better but still wrong analogy would be to have an infinite plate with an infinity of magnets moving on the plate and a pendulum of infinite length . Then an invisible wedge is inserted somewhere but it will also move . You can observe the pendulum and make all averages you want,yet you will be unable to say whether there is a wedge or how it moved .In other words you will be unable to predict the trajectory of the pendulum what is obvious because the system is chaotic but you will also be unable to predict the probability where it stops or even IF it stops regardless whether there is a wedge or not . P.S However it is relatively easy to prove that increasing CO2 (everything else being equal !) increases temperatures . The catch is that everything is not equal so that the temperatures don't increase everywhere and all the time . There are many much stronger factors (ENSO, clouds, polar caps, volcanos, aerosols etc) which overide all the time at variable places the CO2 effect . This can be easily seen in the fact that the temperature averaged over the surface of whole globe is never constant but fluctuates up and down all the time what means that the CO2 is only a (negligible ?) part of the story .

So we all are going to get covered with sores before we go to heaven.

@@JamesJones-uj6wk Did you realize that nobody is going to spend eternity in Heaven. For those who don't spend eternity in everlasting torment will live blissfully in the New Jerusalem for ever. The New Jerusalem Rev 21:9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Rev 21:11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Rev 21:12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: Rev 21:13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. Rev 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev 21:15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. Rev 21:16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal.

@@pastorpresent1134 Can you please stop ranting with quotes from pre-bronze age illeterate desert savages?

@@CyrilleParis John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Some day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you don't confess that until after your death then you'll spend eternity in constant torment (where the fire is not quenched).

@@CyrilleParis The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it? Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth - through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves. Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer - not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22841-what-s-the-real-agenda-behind-climate-change-alarmism

The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it? Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth - through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves. Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer - not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22841-what-s-the-real-agenda-behind-climate-change-alarmism

@@pastorpresent1134 When the facts (science) are completely against you, attack the imagined motives of those trying to make a difference. This is a standard Trumpian tactic.

@@cloudpoint0 www.eartheclipse.com/climate-change/10-reasons-climate-change-is-hoax.html

​@@pastorpresent1134 You are feeding me 6-year-old nonsense that was wrong back then and is even more wrong now. 1. Ice gain records are not being set. Ice is decreasing everywhere. Ice loss records are being set (e.g. in 2012 & 2016). 2. 2014 was a cold year in some places especially the USA (it marked the end of an unusual series of two back-to-back cooling La Niñas that covered the prior 7 years, the 2007-2011 one was a very strong La Nina). 3. Snowfall should increase under a warming climate scenario (more precipitation). This point confirms global warming. Snowfall decreases as temperatures decrease. 4. Polar bears are endangered in all locations where ice is greatly disappearing, like Hudson’s Bay. A little melting is good for them as it creates ice flows that attract seals. 5. Al Gore said no such thing. 6. The number of moose in Minnesota is not related to global warming since moose thrive in both warm and cold temperate forests. 7. At this point there is perhaps still one working climate scientist alive that thinks global warming is not real and is not an existential concern. Certainly 99% agree it is not a hoax. 8. Carbon sinks can’t remove CO2 as fast as we add CO2, maybe just half of it at most. And most of the CO2 problem comes from China and the US, mainly the US if we look at historical accumulation. 9. No prior year was warmer than 2014. All following years were warmer (see GISTemp figures below). 10. NASA completely disagrees with the claim that global warming is not occurring and is nothing for us to worry about (i.e. the claim is a flat out lie). Your link is to an article written by a high school girl that has no idea what she is talking about. No links to sources are provided. It was probably copied from an anti-climate propaganda site. Read the first comment after the article. Go to reputable sources in the future. I have about 10,000 hours of study invested in the science of climate change. I can assure you that climate change is not a hoax. GISTemp shows… x = Year and y = Temp 31 x = 2001 y = 0.54 32 x = 2002 y = 0.63 33 x = 2003 y = 0.62 34 x = 2004 y = 0.54 35 x = 2005 y = 0.68 36 x = 2006 y = 0.64 37 x = 2007 y = 0.66 38 x = 2008 y = 0.54 39 x = 2009 y = 0.66 40 x = 2010 y = 0.73 41 x = 2011 y = 0.61 42 x = 2012 y = 0.64 43 x = 2013 y = 0.69 44 x = 2014 y = 0.74 *** 45 x = 2015 y = 0.9 46 x = 2016 y = 1.01 47 x = 2017 y = 0.92 48 x = 2018 y = 0.85 49 x = 2019 y = 0.97

@@cloudpoint0 www.sciencetimes.com/articles/20972/20190504/expert-says-the-earth-is-actually-cooling.htm Global warming is actually a Globalist money grab and hyped up bring about the 'New World Order'

Climate scientists certainly have a clue. It will get warmer, just as they have predicted for 50 years now, and have been entirely correct about.

It's quite easy to prove experimentally that different gases absorb different wavelengths of light more than others. Your argument is invalid.

It's the variations in the quantities of gases that counts. You can't undestand something so basic as that, so don't go quoting things about quantum mechanics that are way above your tiny empty head.

I have found we can measure (by inference) the non-greenhouse gases (N2 and O2, at QM predicted emission spectra 2338cm-1 and 1556cm-1 respectively and the non-GH spectra of the so-called GHGs) with modern laser-based Raman Spectroscopy, IR spectroscopies (the instrument that defines and measures the so-called special GHGs) complement instrument. With this instrument, we can measure, via the Boltzmann constant, the temperatures of these gases and the instrument is already used in a number of applications, from avionics to meteorology. We can't both have GH theory and Raman Spectroscopy; I am looking for help to get a good review - no one seems to like what I have alone uncovered, sceptics included. I have done the unthinkable. Read my working paper, Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory vixra.org/abs/1811.0498 I aim to cut this down to a publishable version. P:S I am confusing Raman spectroscopy for the Raman effect; don't waste my time.