I wonder what would happen if you cut the samples in 2 and give them to 2 different labs, one official ( payd by the gov. ) and one to a real lab. The difference will be ammazing. Grtz from Belgium
Same results. Give it to BEST, same results. Give it to one country or the other... same results. Yes, the real labs funded by governments get the same results as the skeptic labs. Give it to an org funded by oil interests, same results.
Of course if you send them to two different government labs you will get the same results, they are on the same narritive. Why do we have so my climatologists that are independent, retired, or that aren't dependent on a grant to survive, refuting these carbon claims ? Not to mention, those 99% that they claim agree that manmade climate change is a problem, they didn't agree it was a problem, they agreed that man had made an impact, how little or large they ouldnt say, they only agreed that we had made an impact, not that we were responsible for a runaway heating event due to Co2. If you dont believe this then ask them. A lot of them are already on video record stating that the author of then article had misconstrued their statements.
@Scott Koontz, why is it that the ice cores from the Denman canyon from 2019 tell a radically difrent story then any ice cores before? It is the oldest ice on earth and they carbon dated the plants at the bottom at 13,000 years old. The same age as the artifacts found 400 feet deep in lake Superior from when they said there was no summer ice in the Arctic?
It’s been done with the Greenland ice core samples. The evidence is clear, the interpretation by politicians and people with a vested interest in telling a story that benefits them is the problem.
Yes Co2 rise always fallow between 200 and 800 years after the temperature rise. Just the same as Co2 drops 200 to 800 years after the temperature has dropped
It's sadly ironic in a way that evidence which suggests that the reason for the Earth warming is not because of man made CO2 inversely suggests that our large CO2 production might fuck up things in the future by disturbing the natural balance. So this doesn't change the notion that we need to reduce it.
Why is a fraction of this video devoted to the results and so much to the scientist. Ok he has a great job and is very smart - but I want to see more about the data!!!
🤔 Observe minute 5:58 graphs of CO2 and Temperature: Our most recent sharp CO2 spike raises a profound question: “Why did temperature decouple and decrease slightly as a counter-trend to the large spike in CO2 concentration.?” Previously there was a close relationship between CO2 and Temperature trends for eight hundred thousands years. 🤔 Is it possible that the CO2, O2, and precipitation records are being effected more by the quantity and rate of plant and animal activity, and perhaps in the corresponding changes of carbon sequestration, as a function of the changes in atmospheric and the oceanic Temperature? Remember that the ocean holds far more CO2 directly than the atmosphere and that biological activity is the primary source of carbon sequestration in the forms of the living biosphere, petroleum crude, coal, peat, methyl gas hydrates, NG, coral reefs, and sedimentary rock (principally limestone, dolomite, and shale). 🤔 Consider that the biosphere’s activity greatly dampens the daily and seasonal swings of temperature compared to the lifeless “dead” planets (a longer discussion for another time). 👏 Kudos for Dr Wolff’s statement: “Why do we go in and out of ice ages roughly every 100,000 years, for until we know that, we can’t really really understand todays climate.” I observe that the ice age cycles preceded anthropogenic causation of major climate change merely because until recently we weren’t there to cause the change. 🤔A corollary is that if the anthropogenic effects were not (or are not) a major cause of the climatic cycles, then politically: “Have we not been “barking up the wrong tree?”” 🤔 Therefore: “Have not the politicians and special interests essentially been functioning as alarmist “Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling?” 🤔 Should science “follow the evidence” or should science “seek the evidence” to validate a predetermined theory? Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway brilliantly stated: “Show me who funds a grant and I will predict the outcome.” 🤔 If politicians seek justification for environmental regulation and a study finds no causation, will those researchers ever receive a future funding grant? Perhaps if we gained the realization that we actually CAN’T drive “Climate Change” in a significant way (compared to nature), then we could turn our attention to the more pressing matters of solving “anthropogenic pollution, monocultural mismanagement of food crops, and the management and conservation of water resources. It is encouraging to observe that with proper understanding of ecology, there are numerous examples of successful greening of desert environments which were previously experiencing “desertification” due to human activity. The Dutch have proven that while they cannot change the mean sea level of the entire ocean, they can control how much of that ocean encroaches upon their land and to additionally become one of the largest worldwide exporters of food from their tiny geographical area. A philosophy of adaptation to climate change rather that maintaining a hubristic belief that we can control a planet which is far more powerful than we would serve us well. 😎
@@chrismassie4939 Is the graph fabricated then like the famous “hockey stick” warming graph. Is the source not cited? It would seem that just recording measurements is apolitical unless there is direct alterations of the raw data to achieve a desired narrative. Did Ian Plimer provide the correct data? 🧐 Does not the old adage: “One is entitled to one’s own opinion, but not one’s own facts.”, apply?
So... Are you going to ignore that nearly all climatologists on the planet agree on anthropogenic climate change? Are you going to ignore chemistry and physics, which in 19th century discovered that air with more CO2 in it retains more solar heat? And ignore that fossil fuel companies run their own models, found out that greenhouse gases were going to change the climate, and hid the information? What's more likely, an assumed conspiracy of climatologists keen on telling people they shouldn't pollute so much - because of reasons, maybe research grants, or a documented conspiracy of companies interested in keeping their billionaire profits by seeding doubts about science? Tobacco industry, anyone? I have a playlist of videos about climate change. Pick anyone, from anywhere, any time. See whether the causes and effects match.
At about 6 minutes Wolff shows graphs of the temperature and carbon dioxide records. He says they look remarkably similar and therefore it shows how carbon dioxide and temperature interact with each other. This is the standard of science from a Cambridge professor! What hope is there when he does not know that a visual assumption of correlation is not any indication of causation? He is looking at the truth and fails to see it. In recent years his graph shows higher levels of CO2 than at any time over the 800,000 years of the graph but he is blind to the fact that there hasn't been any corresponding increase in the temperatures. CO2 does not drive temperature increases. How can a professor not know that that the temperature of a system can only increase by the addition of heat or work (ignoring chemical reactions). The earth's temperature is determined by the energy from the sun and gravity which compresses the atmosphere and the gas laws explain how the temperature behaves when compressed. Even MIT get it wrong. I have just been looking at their Open Course material and when talking about the greenhouse effect they refer to the earth's energy balance - energy in equals energy out. The units of this energy are Watts. There is no law of physics that says the power is conserves. The IPCC is just a bad. It used energy density, which also in not conserved. Goodness knows what is being taught in schools but it certainly is not established physics. Even an elementary knowledge is sufficient to work out that the entire output of so called climate scientists is utter drivel.
"is blind to the fact that there hasn't been any corresponding increase in the temperatures." Um, so the temp increase is not an increase? Seriously? CO2 does drive temps. CO2 is what educated people call a greenhouse gas, and you do not need to add energy to a system to cause warming if you better trap energy. "the temperature of a system can only increase by the addition of heat" HA HA HA. Sure thing. You can have fairly constant solar irradiation and the system can increase. Think about it. "The earth's temperature is determined by the energy from the sun" And since there is slightly less solar irradiation... since there is less... Bueller. Bueller? Bueller? Goodness knows what Prager U taught you.
@@scottekoontz … what do I need to publish? It’s been published already you arrogant putz. The Vostok ice cores show that the rise in CO2 lags the rise in temperature by several hundred years. That correlation would suggest that temperature drives CO2, not CO2 driving temp…..or are you an AL Gore simp and fell hook, line and sinker for his idiotic movie?
@@scottekoontz you mention yourself greenhouse gasses, you'll be aware then that methane is quite potent and degrades through natural reactions (as well as combustion) to mostly CO². What do you get when tundra defrosts? Seems very logical to me that warming would cause a rise in CO², after all, climatologists warn of this very problem potentially causing a runaway effect. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but perhaps both you and @Antiprog pragmatist are correct
First? We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more CO2 means more warming. We also know that warming causes outgassing, so warming can cause more CO2. Not that hard.
@@backcountyrpilot You ran away from the facts. Os CO2 a greenhouse gas? Does more CO2 mean more warming? Does warming cause outgassing? But ask yourself as someone new to this topic: Why do those that support the GOP also show that MMGW to be true? What are outspoken conservative scientists in agreement? Why do those who support fascism know that MMGW is true?
@@heikorudi6105 Shh, not supposed to mention that, because god forbid all the rich folk might lose some of their beach front property, yet the earth gains a lot more cropland we need to sustain 8+ billion of us. Folks like @Scott Koontz wish to scare monger everyone into believing it's all MMGW, and that we're turning the Earth into Venus.
Nope. It was the increasing use of fossil fuels that started with the Industrial Revolution, which by now pours CO2 into the atmosphere by the *gigatons.* In 1856, Eunice Newton Foote was the first scientist who noticed experimentally that air with more CO2 in it got hotter under sunlight than other gases, and remained hot for longer. Now, cause and effect: more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, like methane) in the air, the air gets hotter, the climate changes. Is that clear enough, or will you make another attempt at a bad joke?
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงบ่าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0S_ReCIkxg/mqdefault.jpg)
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
I wonder what would happen if you cut the samples in 2 and give them to 2 different labs, one official ( payd by the gov. ) and one to a real lab. The difference will be ammazing. Grtz from Belgium
Same results. Give it to BEST, same results. Give it to one country or the other... same results. Yes, the real labs funded by governments get the same results as the skeptic labs.
Give it to an org funded by oil interests, same results.
Of course if you send them to two different government labs you will get the same results, they are on the same narritive. Why do we have so my climatologists that are independent, retired, or that aren't dependent on a grant to survive, refuting these carbon claims ?
Not to mention, those 99% that they claim agree that manmade climate change is a problem, they didn't agree it was a problem, they agreed that man had made an impact, how little or large they ouldnt say, they only agreed that we had made an impact, not that we were responsible for a runaway heating event due to Co2. If you dont believe this then ask them. A lot of them are already on video record stating that the author of then article had misconstrued their statements.
@@scottekoontzsafe n effective was it?
@Scott Koontz, why is it that the ice cores from the Denman canyon from 2019 tell a radically difrent story then any ice cores before? It is the oldest ice on earth and they carbon dated the plants at the bottom at 13,000 years old. The same age as the artifacts found 400 feet deep in lake Superior from when they said there was no summer ice in the Arctic?
It’s been done with the Greenland ice core samples. The evidence is clear, the interpretation by politicians and people with a vested interest in telling a story that benefits them is the problem.
Zoom into the graph, vertical lines show CO2 increase follows temp rise
Yes Co2 rise always fallow between 200 and 800 years after the temperature rise. Just the same as Co2 drops 200 to 800 years after the temperature has dropped
It's sadly ironic in a way that evidence which suggests that the reason for the Earth warming is not because of man made CO2 inversely suggests that our large CO2 production might fuck up things in the future by disturbing the natural balance. So this doesn't change the notion that we need to reduce it.
Why is a fraction of this video devoted to the results and so much to the scientist. Ok he has a great job and is very smart - but I want to see more about the data!!!
🤔 Observe minute 5:58 graphs of CO2 and Temperature: Our most recent
sharp CO2 spike raises a profound question:
“Why did temperature decouple and decrease slightly as a counter-trend to the large spike in CO2 concentration.?” Previously there was a close relationship between CO2 and Temperature trends for eight hundred thousands years.
🤔 Is it possible that the CO2, O2, and precipitation records are being effected more by the quantity and rate of plant and animal activity, and perhaps in the corresponding changes of carbon sequestration, as a function of the changes in atmospheric and the oceanic Temperature?
Remember that the ocean holds far more CO2 directly than the atmosphere and that biological activity is the primary source of carbon sequestration in the forms of the living biosphere, petroleum crude, coal, peat, methyl gas hydrates, NG, coral reefs, and sedimentary rock (principally limestone, dolomite, and shale).
🤔 Consider that the biosphere’s activity greatly dampens the daily and seasonal swings of temperature compared to the lifeless “dead” planets (a longer discussion for another time).
👏 Kudos for Dr Wolff’s statement: “Why do we go in and out of ice ages roughly every 100,000 years, for until we know that, we can’t really really understand todays climate.”
I observe that the ice age cycles preceded anthropogenic causation of major climate change merely because until recently we weren’t there to cause the change.
🤔A corollary is that if the anthropogenic effects were not (or are not) a major cause of the climatic cycles, then politically: “Have we not been “barking up the wrong tree?””
🤔 Therefore: “Have not the politicians and special interests essentially been functioning as alarmist “Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling?”
🤔 Should science “follow the evidence” or should science “seek the evidence” to validate a predetermined theory?
Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway brilliantly stated: “Show me who funds a grant and I will predict the outcome.”
🤔 If politicians seek justification for environmental regulation and a study finds no causation, will those researchers ever receive a future funding grant?
Perhaps if we gained the realization that we actually CAN’T drive “Climate Change” in a significant way (compared to nature), then we could turn our attention to the more pressing matters of solving “anthropogenic pollution, monocultural mismanagement of food crops, and the management and conservation of water resources. It is encouraging to observe that with proper understanding of ecology, there are numerous examples of successful greening of desert environments which were previously experiencing “desertification” due to human activity.
The Dutch have proven that while they cannot change the mean sea level of the entire ocean, they can control how much of that ocean encroaches upon their land and to additionally become one of the largest worldwide exporters of food from their tiny geographical area.
A philosophy of adaptation to climate change rather that maintaining a hubristic belief that we can control a planet which is far more powerful than we would serve us well. 😎
The large spike he pronounces does not exist according to others eg Ian Plimer (prof geology)
@@chrismassie4939 Is the graph fabricated then like the famous “hockey stick” warming graph.
Is the source not cited? It would seem that just recording measurements is apolitical unless there is direct alterations of the raw data to achieve a desired narrative.
Did Ian Plimer provide the correct data?
🧐 Does not the old adage: “One is entitled to one’s own opinion, but not one’s own facts.”, apply?
So... Are you going to ignore that nearly all climatologists on the planet agree on anthropogenic climate change? Are you going to ignore chemistry and physics, which in 19th century discovered that air with more CO2 in it retains more solar heat? And ignore that fossil fuel companies run their own models, found out that greenhouse gases were going to change the climate, and hid the information?
What's more likely, an assumed conspiracy of climatologists keen on telling people they shouldn't pollute so much - because of reasons, maybe research grants, or a documented conspiracy of companies interested in keeping their billionaire profits by seeding doubts about science?
Tobacco industry, anyone?
I have a playlist of videos about climate change. Pick anyone, from anywhere, any time. See whether the causes and effects match.
He's only ever so slightly weird and eccentric, which is how I like my scientists/reserachers to be.
Thank god for Co2
At about 6 minutes Wolff shows graphs of the temperature and carbon dioxide records. He says they look remarkably similar and therefore it shows how carbon dioxide and temperature interact with each other. This is the standard of science from a Cambridge professor! What hope is there when he does not know that a visual assumption of correlation is not any indication of causation?
He is looking at the truth and fails to see it. In recent years his graph shows higher levels of CO2 than at any time over the 800,000 years of the graph but he is blind to the fact that there hasn't been any corresponding increase in the temperatures. CO2 does not drive temperature increases. How can a professor not know that that the temperature of a system can only increase by the addition of heat or work (ignoring chemical reactions). The earth's temperature is determined by the energy from the sun and gravity which compresses the atmosphere and the gas laws explain how the temperature behaves when compressed.
Even MIT get it wrong. I have just been looking at their Open Course material and when talking about the greenhouse effect they refer to the earth's energy balance - energy in equals energy out. The units of this energy are Watts. There is no law of physics that says the power is conserves. The IPCC is just a bad. It used energy density, which also in not conserved.
Goodness knows what is being taught in schools but it certainly is not established physics. Even an elementary knowledge is sufficient to work out that the entire output of so called climate scientists is utter drivel.
"is blind to the fact that there hasn't been any corresponding increase in the temperatures." Um, so the temp increase is not an increase? Seriously? CO2 does drive temps. CO2 is what educated people call a greenhouse gas, and you do not need to add energy to a system to cause warming if you better trap energy.
"the temperature of a system can only increase by the addition of heat" HA HA HA. Sure thing. You can have fairly constant solar irradiation and the system can increase. Think about it.
"The earth's temperature is determined by the energy from the sun" And since there is slightly less solar irradiation... since there is less... Bueller. Bueller? Bueller?
Goodness knows what Prager U taught you.
@@scottekoontz …the data from the ice cores clearly show that rising temperatures were driving an increase in CO2 levels…not the other way around
@@antiprogpragmatist859 OMG OMG! You know more than all scientists. Publish that paper and I promise I will read it.
Good luck
@@scottekoontz … what do I need to publish? It’s been published already you arrogant putz. The Vostok ice cores show that the rise in CO2 lags the rise in temperature by several hundred years. That correlation would suggest that temperature drives CO2, not CO2 driving temp…..or are you an AL Gore simp and fell hook, line and sinker for his idiotic movie?
@@scottekoontz you mention yourself greenhouse gasses, you'll be aware then that methane is quite potent and degrades through natural reactions (as well as combustion) to mostly CO².
What do you get when tundra defrosts?
Seems very logical to me that warming would cause a rise in CO², after all, climatologists warn of this very problem potentially causing a runaway effect.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but perhaps both you and @Antiprog pragmatist are correct
So there it is the climate fluctuates !!warm then cold ,but what comes first heat or Co 2??answer follow the money!!!!!!!
First? We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more CO2 means more warming. We also know that warming causes outgassing, so warming can cause more CO2.
Not that hard.
@@scottekoontz Ask yourself why those that support Socialism also wish MMGW to be true🤔
@@backcountyrpilot You ran away from the facts. Os CO2 a greenhouse gas? Does more CO2 mean more warming? Does warming cause outgassing?
But ask yourself as someone new to this topic: Why do those that support the GOP also show that MMGW to be true? What are outspoken conservative scientists in agreement? Why do those who support fascism know that MMGW is true?
@@scottekoontz more co2 means also more green, which means less co2
@@heikorudi6105 Shh, not supposed to mention that, because god forbid all the rich folk might lose some of their beach front property, yet the earth gains a lot more cropland we need to sustain 8+ billion of us. Folks like @Scott Koontz wish to scare monger everyone into believing it's all MMGW, and that we're turning the Earth into Venus.
We can blame cavemen for inventing the wheel and causing climate change
Nope. It was the increasing use of fossil fuels that started with the Industrial Revolution, which by now pours CO2 into the atmosphere by the *gigatons.* In 1856, Eunice Newton Foote was the first scientist who noticed experimentally that air with more CO2 in it got hotter under sunlight than other gases, and remained hot for longer. Now, cause and effect: more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, like methane) in the air, the air gets hotter, the climate changes.
Is that clear enough, or will you make another attempt at a bad joke?
Unscientific to tack instrumental data with proxy data. Apples and oranges.
50 ppm to 400 ppm is not a large range.
Thank God we are at 400ppm and not 50. At 50 trees die out.
B.S.
data going back much further show a CO2 level of 6,000 PPM. right as the earth went into an ice age.......