Siegel climate change challenge
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- In this video, I test the hypothesis that CO2 is driving temperatures. This is a short module from my climate master-class. To learn more, visit:
www.climatecurious.com
Sign up to be notified when my next class starts:
www.cuttingthroughthenoise.net/class
Short and to the point! Good one.
Great concise explanation, thank you!
Easy to understand even for people that are not into climate science.
So if its isn't the CO2, why has the temperature trend gone up at the two or three weather stations, and does it matter?
Very well presented debunking of the CO2 myth and greenhouse hypothesis.
No. It's not. He's wrong.
He's using a technique called a "zoom graph"-
The hockeystick curve shows a sudden increase starting in ~1880. Of ~1C or so by 2020.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
He zooms in on his chosen locations, and mis-represents both the timescale and the temperature rise over that time.
In his own video, he states, at 1:53 that "temperature has gone up less than 1 degree celsius in 70 years".
This is true. And it's what the Hockeystick graph shows for average planetary temperature. And it's what the models forecast, and properly predicted, going back to the early 60's.
The misleading thing is the Axes: The Hockeystick is +/- 1C in the vertical axes, and generally a few thousand years in the horizontal axis.
He's plotting -70 to -35C (A range of 35C, more than 5x the standard hockeystick cuirves) while also shortening the timescale to only the last 50-80 years. He's zoomed way in on the "blade" of the hockeystick, while ignoring the rest of the graph.
He's zoomed WAY out on the vertical axis (temperature) and zoomed WAY in on the horizontal axis (time) to make the "blade" of the hockeystick look flat.
Which of course it is, when you zoom in on the last 50 years of a graph that goes back 1000 years.
But then he concludes that CO2 therefore can't drive temperature.
But that's only because he's using incredibly misleading graphs that everyone here celebrates.
He's wrong, and he must know it- Otherwise he's *terrible* at making graphs.
He's also deleting my comments responding to questions- Rather than pointing out what is wrong in my statements.
@@greglinder5784 Do you deny the data? The fact that Antarctic and Death Walley do not show any deviating trend?
@@EinarBordewich "Do you deny the data?"
No- I don't deny the data. That doesn't make any sense
It's just that the original poster has no idea what he is talking about, and the very statement in this context "deviating trend" makes no sense:
He even says of Death Valley "they show the same mild trend upward of 2 degrees Fahrenheit in 70 years"
2 degrees F = 1.8C.
The average planetary temperature is going up by ~1C over that period of time.
Why would you expect that Death Valley (one of the hottest places on earth) would warm at the same rate as the Antarctic (one of the coldest places on earth)?
How is that "a deviating trend"? What does that even mean? They're both going up, as a long term average. Exactly what you'd expect from long term average planetary warming. You can read about how this works here:
Earth's Climate System:
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46939-3_1
He says "this graph would be flat on the left and shoot up on the right".
NO: Because he's SHOWING THE PART of the graph that SHOOTS UP.
That hockeystick curve goes back before the year 1000: He's literally *showing* the shoots up part, which starts at 1880.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)
That's why it's a zoom graph- He's making a statement that is not correct, as the graph he shows *is* the "shoots up part", since, as you'll note, a graph that starts in 1000 and ends in 2020 includes the period from 1880 to 2020 in the last 1/3 or so of the graph- The hockey-stick part that shoots up. He just zoomed way in on, and put it on a bad scale to show that, while narrating the EXACT curve from the hockey stick (in increase of 0.8C or so per century, on average), since that curve starts. Which is what we know. From Climate models. based on CO2 concentration.
You're being lied to, in this video, in a very obvious way, and you are accepting it because you're not actually thinking about what is being explained to you.
I do not know why people are like this.
@@EinarBordewich "Do you deny the data? "
No- But you're missing the point. His graph is *zoomed in* on the "going up" part. They are both increasing. At roughly the rate that all the science has modeled it should. He's just presenting that as mild, because he's looking at the "fast going up part" of the curve, but has zoomed so far out on the axes as to make the graphs wilfully misleading.
The famous hockeystick graph (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph_(global_temperature)) shows an increase of ~1.5C since 1880. The person who made the video literally says "temperature has gone up less than 1 degree celsius in 70 years". while showing a graph that goes from -70 to 35- The hockeystick graph goes from -1 to +1, roughly, using a baseline. And it goes back over 1000 years, depending on the what graph you look at.
What he says is being mis-represented on purpose.
Also: Why would you think the Death Valley (the hottest place on earth) and Antarctica (one of the coldest) would have to heat up at the same rate? They're both warming- He even says so in the video. And he confirms that the heating is within the average heating of the planet, as explained by the thing he's trying to disprove.
And what does "deviating trend" even mean, in this context? All the temperatures are going up, at roughly the same rate? What's deviating? How?
Anyone who thinks 2 degrees F = 1.8 degrees C may not be worth listening to.
Why isn't this common knowledge that the first 50ppm CO2 do all the work and after 200ppm very little greenhouse effect.? Could this explain why millions of years ago the CO2ppm was 8,000+ppm and the world was green enough to create fossil fuels we are using today and not be burnt up with green house effects?
The earth was essentially born with plenty of CO2 and has always had at least 200 PPM. People call it the "pilot light" of the climate. It's very important but always there. CO2 goes into and comes out of both oceans and continents through various means over the eons and has nothing to do with climate.
"Why isn't this common knowledge that the first 50ppm CO2 do all the work and after 200ppm very little greenhouse effect.? Could this explain why millions of years ago the CO2ppm was 8,000+ppm and the world was green enough to create fossil fuels we are using today and not be burnt up with green house effects?"
Because that is wrong, and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that graph he shared.
That graph he started with is correct, but used in a wrong way: The reason it's wrong is because that curve assumes that the thing doing the emitting is an ideal black-body radiator. The Earth is NOT an ideal black-body radiator, and neither is the CO2 in it, because the CO2 does not act alone:
It interacts with other things. So CO2 heats up, warms up *other* gas molecules and water vapor and whatnot nearby. The CO2 isn't alone it the atmosphere, and using the graph the way he is would require that the atmosphere be 100% CO2 to be fully saturated. It isn't.
He's reading it wrong, or doesn't understand what it means. This is basic coursework for anyone studying atmospheric sciences or more advanced chemistry:
You can understand this here- Start on page 51, it explains this in great detail, and if you understand that, you'll understand why the simplified description above is using a fundamentally incorrect understanding of the curve he is presenting.
Introduction to Climate Science
open.oregonstate.education/climatechange/
The IPCC knows this, but they will not tell it because they do not like it. Their theory now is that the concentration of water vapour will increase (I think they call it feed back). As shown in this episode, Antartica is very dry and the water vapour has no chance there.
@@oskarvikstrom229 " Antartica is very dry and the water vapour has no chance there."
Except: Where does the snow come from in Antarctica? It snows there, right? Where does the snow come from? It comes from clouds. Clouds that are made of water vapour. That's kinda how this works. But just as in desert climates, if you go up into the sky, there's still clouds and water vapour there.
That's why this video is extremely misleading, because the person who made it misrepresents relative humidity (the surface of Antarctica is, as stated, quite dry). But if you go UP you get to various layers of the atmosphere, including those where clouds form. Which requires water vapor. Why would you think that only the CO2 on the *surface* of the earth would drive this, and feel ok ignoring the rest of the atmosphere?
Why would there be snow in Antarctica if there was no water vapour above it to make the snow?
The IPCC does tell you this, too, in great length. It's been included in IPCC reports for decades:
In the 2021 IPCC Report, start on Chapter 8, page 1082- "Global Water Cycle Constraints"
www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport_small.pdf
That's "The Physical Science Basis" that explains this.
The paper cites dozens of peer reviewed studies that explores water vapor. It's not exactly hidden, when there's whole chapters in the report talking about water vapor.
Or you can read this, that also explains this
Earth's Climate System:
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46939-3_1
Or this, an open-source climate science textbook, that also explains this:
Introduction to Climate Science
open.oregonstate.education/climatechange/
@@greglinder5784 I think you try to misunderstand my comment