Very interesting talk, but I have some comments/questions: 1: About carbonic acid, not free CO2 gas in the atmosphere. Interesting. I remain skeptical about claims of the 'everybody else got it wrong/forgot this' claims. But I will investigate. 2: Natural CO2 sinks are not a one way street. Oceans and biomass both 'inhale' and 'exhale' CO2. Oceans absorb CO2 according to the concentration in the atmosphere, but release according to their content. Likewise, a mature forest is CO2-neutral, meaning that growth and forest fires balance. But a fire releases CO2 from the last 1-100 years, whereas it inhales the current concentration. These phenomena are well described in charts of the 'carbon cycle' (Google image search). The 'residence time' of CO2 in the atmosphere, as relevant to AGW, relates to how long it takes before additional CO2 emission is *net* removed from the atmosphere. So this point is flat out wrong. 3: A lot of the heat loss from the atmosphere is actually from the polar regions, where there is so little water vapor in the atmosphere, due to the low temperature even at ground level, that CO2 becomes the dominant greenhouse gas.
Look, CO2 is a chemically quite passive molecule, and is only really removed during periods of net biomass growth, or, more commonly, turned into seashells in the sea. All those mechanisms take much longer than the removal of C14 after the atomic tests.
Most of these graphs are wrong/weird in several ways. They tend to be clipped and simply incorrect at the most current endpoint, plus many missing citations and units. If the point is to say how natural forcings have affected the climate in the past, then OK, but at 7:25 we see and hear that sunspots are on the rise. But he failed to include the simple fact that TSI has been in decline for over 60 years and sunspots in decline for about the same time period. TSI down, sunspots down, temperature WAY up. We know about natural forcings, and if this is simply to show how things used to work naturally, that's fine. This does not show in any way what we managed to do to the climate by increasing CO2 by 50%.
Fantastisk series of presentations. One question though: I understand that CO2 does not correlate with earth temperature. Good. But is it really similar for all greenhouse gasses, water vapor included? As far as I have heard, there is a total greenhouse effect on earth temperature of about +30C ?
@@bobbobby3085 its a law of physics. the solubility of co2 in water is inversely proportional to its temperature, meaning if you increase the temperature it will outgas co2. if you cool water it will absorb more co2. you can do the experiment yourself - open 2 cans of fizzy drink, put one in a cold fridge and the other on a table in a warm spot, which will go flat and release its cos fizz first? take a sip from each every few hours and find out. global warming is a nonsense because if more co2 increased the air temperature without limiting factors then the heating would also release more co2 from the oceans which would heat the air further, so the earth would have burned up many eons ago, we have 4 billion years of data to show that it does not happen.
@@littlefish9305 A quick google search will tell you the opposite that co2's solubility is PROPORTIONAL to temperature, i.e as temperature increases the solubility increases. Also the experiment you propose is kinda flawed since it doesnt take various factors and variables into account. Climate change isnt nonsense it's a fact and humans are causing it. In addition your response did not answer my question suffciently we were talking about temperature, specifically discussing your claim that an increase in co2 causes an increase in temperature. You did not explain this claim at all nor back it up with evidence talking about co2's solubility is something totally different. (btw its not 'outgas' the proper term is exsolve)
6:43. Can you really not see that the current spike in temperatures is the only one that is sudden and significant in the whole graph of the "stable, wet and warm climate period when civilization thrived cause we have plenty of plant food and wineyards in England"?
58:40 Water vapor does not magically appear. There are a few ways to temporarily increase water vapor to some significance, and one major way to permanently increase it. A large volcanic eruption can increase it temporarily, but we are warming the planet with out additional CO2 and that will cause an increase. It's a feedback. 1:06:00 Note that C-13 changes clearly indicate we are pumping CO2 faster than it can be naturally eliminated. It appears this is a non-scientist acting as a "skeptic" who presents cherry picked portions of actual science. He even wonders aloud why the people who know 100x more than him (IPCC) would not follow his "skeptic" footsteps, and clearly he has not read the reports.
historical temperatures are not correlated with co2....so its not a feedback. co2 was 16 times higher in the past and yet the earth moved into a full glacial ice age.
@@chrimony Looked again at model vs results, and yes, they have a great track record. I have to wonder why you are pretending the IPCC projections are poor when clearly they have done so well it makes the "skeptics" squirm.
There is a further point given, but not stated, which proves that very little or none of the atmospheric CO2 can be anthropogenic. Northern hemisphere readings from Mauna Loa show a seasonal variation, but southern hemisphere readings do not. This is because most land plants are in the N hemisphere. 90% of people live in the N Hemisphere. The S hemisphere is mainly water or ice. We know from atmospheric A-bomb test radiogenic nucleides that the atmospheres of the two hemispheres do not mix. Therefore the CO2 rise in the S hemisphere cannot be anthropogenic, but natural. This rising CO2 must come from the oceans, it is global, and the global warming which has caused it must be solar, not anthropogenic.
That's exactly the same conclusion that I came to listening to many geologists like Tom here and Ian Plimer from Australia. It gives us munitions to debate this in a more rational manner with the climat zealots...😂👍👍👍
Further more, Ian Plimer stated that Co2 concentration was as high as 450 ppm in the year 1850. So it's not anthropogenic reasons that it increases right now....we ended the Little Ice Age so with warming ,Co2 simply follows the temperature increases 😊
3:45 you can't properly estimate co2 in the air more than a million years ago because there are no ice cores to measure it 5:17 co2 and temp in this graph very much align but has been omitted jrk Actually, methane and temp from ice cores perfectly align, indicating to me that methane is underestimated as a component of warming, esp since it has increased even more than co2, by about 2.6 while co2 only by 1.5. So we are in much deeper doo doo, taking methane into account we would be at co2 equivalent of 600ppm, while in last million years it never was beyond equivalent 370ppm 6:38 you just explained to local variation didn't you? The earth was more inclined on its axis than now. The ice core data leaves no doubt that large temp variations are caused directly by co2 and methane 35:09 maybe energy flows can't be predicted, but what exactly do you need when you have a almost perfect regression in terms of greenhouse gases for antarctic ice cores? Seems like you don't see the forest for the tree 1:01:02 gives me a bit of a pause when he doesn't know the difference between exponential and logarithmic. Does he know math? 1:06:46 well that would be great wouldn't it
Dang that methane is a problem. If it turns out it's all due to agriculture (apart from lately fracking), while it won't get worse because it doesn't accumulate for long, it's still a big baseline issue.
No it is all based on picking the coldest year in 100,000 years as your starting point. 1850 was the coldest point in the Maunder minimum, and the only time in history that Halifax Harbor has frozen!
@terenceiutzi4003 I guess those silly climate scientists and so called "physics" never heard of that and didn't account for it. Glad you're here to set everybody straight.
@UnknownPascal-sc2nk oh yes, the so-called climate scientists did the Russian oil industry is paying them billions to build them a worldwide Monopoly !
@terenceiutzi4003 wow. 9th grade ! I'm impressed. You'd think that there had been a little bit of further research in 53 years but no, 1970 was the last word on the subject.
lol imagine not understanding atmospheric co2's connection to warming trends... come on, that's just basic & this is some friggin weird version of tunnel vision ignorance on display. Knowledgeable about some things, but clearly uninformed when it comes to the hard data from ice cores which are very difficult to dispute.
He uses a lot of fake graphs from non-peer-reviewed crank sources and totally ignores all the published research. Just another dishonest disinformer for the fossil fuel industry and people with vested interests in delaying action on anthropogenic climate change
warming causes oceans to outgas co2 as per Henrys law - solubility of co2 in water is inversely proportional to its temperature. if co2 warmed the planet to any significant degree it would have burned up the planet millions of years ago when co2 was much higher, but ice ages came and went when co2 was higher.
I guess you've not heard of tipping points and positive feedback. Of course we can't predict the future and they believe that even with 2-3 degrees of temperature rise it will take thousands of years for the GIS to melt and give rise to the 7m of sea level rise. It really doesn't matter what's causing the problem, it's happening and maybe it's too late to stop it. We've got 20-30 years of known oil reserves left at current rates of extraction. Other factors such as resource depletion, civil unrest, wars and pollution will lead to collapse in the next 30 years, so climate change will just be an additional factor.
Incredible valuable and information dense presentations. Big thanks for sharing!
Like everything else in science, the more we examine a subject the more we realise we know very little about it.
Very interesting talk, but I have some comments/questions:
1: About carbonic acid, not free CO2 gas in the atmosphere. Interesting. I remain skeptical about claims of the 'everybody else got it wrong/forgot this' claims. But I will investigate.
2: Natural CO2 sinks are not a one way street. Oceans and biomass both 'inhale' and 'exhale' CO2. Oceans absorb CO2 according to the concentration in the atmosphere, but release according to their content. Likewise, a mature forest is CO2-neutral, meaning that growth and forest fires balance. But a fire releases CO2 from the last 1-100 years, whereas it inhales the current concentration. These phenomena are well described in charts of the 'carbon cycle' (Google image search). The 'residence time' of CO2 in the atmosphere, as relevant to AGW, relates to how long it takes before additional CO2 emission is *net* removed from the atmosphere. So this point is flat out wrong.
3: A lot of the heat loss from the atmosphere is actually from the polar regions, where there is so little water vapor in the atmosphere, due to the low temperature even at ground level, that CO2 becomes the dominant greenhouse gas.
Look, CO2 is a chemically quite passive molecule, and is only really removed during periods of net biomass growth, or, more commonly, turned into seashells in the sea. All those mechanisms take much longer than the removal of C14 after the atomic tests.
How do current velocities affect current temperature or does temperature affect velocity, warm faster , cold slower ?
Most of these graphs are wrong/weird in several ways. They tend to be clipped and simply incorrect at the most current endpoint, plus many missing citations and units. If the point is to say how natural forcings have affected the climate in the past, then OK, but at 7:25 we see and hear that sunspots are on the rise. But he failed to include the simple fact that TSI has been in decline for over 60 years and sunspots in decline for about the same time period.
TSI down, sunspots down, temperature WAY up. We know about natural forcings, and if this is simply to show how things used to work naturally, that's fine. This does not show in any way what we managed to do to the climate by increasing CO2 by 50%.
13:00. Interesting, so the holocene climate optimum was more of a northern hemisphere phenomenon that reverses as we approached the present
Fantastisk series of presentations. One question though: I understand that CO2 does not correlate with earth temperature. Good. But is it really similar for all greenhouse gasses, water vapor included? As far as I have heard, there is a total greenhouse effect on earth temperature of about +30C ?
co2 does have a positive correlation with temperature. Increase in co2 means an increase in temperature
@@bobbobby3085 a temperature increase increases co2.
@@littlefish9305 Explain how?
@@bobbobby3085 its a law of physics. the solubility of co2 in water is inversely proportional to its temperature, meaning if you increase the temperature it will outgas co2. if you cool water it will absorb more co2. you can do the experiment yourself - open 2 cans of fizzy drink, put one in a cold fridge and the other on a table in a warm spot, which will go flat and release its cos fizz first? take a sip from each every few hours and find out. global warming is a nonsense because if more co2 increased the air temperature without limiting factors then the heating would also release more co2 from the oceans which would heat the air further, so the earth would have burned up many eons ago, we have 4 billion years of data to show that it does not happen.
@@littlefish9305 A quick google search will tell you the opposite that co2's solubility is PROPORTIONAL to temperature, i.e as temperature increases the solubility increases.
Also the experiment you propose is kinda flawed since it doesnt take various factors and variables into account.
Climate change isnt nonsense it's a fact and humans are causing it.
In addition your response did not answer my question suffciently we were talking about temperature, specifically discussing your claim that an increase in co2 causes an increase in temperature. You did not explain this claim at all nor back it up with evidence talking about co2's solubility is something totally different.
(btw its not 'outgas' the proper term is exsolve)
Thanks.
4:00. I'm already seeing correlation
Yes, the ocean currents were different, but higher CO2 is higher temperatures
Fantastic thank you
higher temperatures give higher co2. solubility of co2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. you are putting the cart before the horse.
@@littlefish9305 global temperature has increased 1°C while solar activity has decreased
So not necessarily
@@Miki-fl9ez you think the cart is pushing the horse?
Thank you. Much appreciated.
You are very welcome
21:03. You can see the warming of the last 50 years
i see a sine wave
Wow. Very good concerns I never knew. Thank you very much.
6:43. Can you really not see that the current spike in temperatures is the only one that is sudden and significant in the whole graph of the "stable, wet and warm climate period when civilization thrived cause we have plenty of plant food and wineyards in England"?
58:40 Water vapor does not magically appear. There are a few ways to temporarily increase water vapor to some significance, and one major way to permanently increase it. A large volcanic eruption can increase it temporarily, but we are warming the planet with out additional CO2 and that will cause an increase.
It's a feedback.
1:06:00 Note that C-13 changes clearly indicate we are pumping CO2 faster than it can be naturally eliminated. It appears this is a non-scientist acting as a "skeptic" who presents cherry picked portions of actual science. He even wonders aloud why the people who know 100x more than him (IPCC) would not follow his "skeptic" footsteps, and clearly he has not read the reports.
Amen.
Actually, if you look at model performance versus observations, we have to wonder why the IPCC relies so heavily on them for their predictions.
historical temperatures are not correlated with co2....so its not a feedback. co2 was 16 times higher in the past and yet the earth moved into a full glacial ice age.
@@chrimony Looked again at model vs results, and yes, they have a great track record. I have to wonder why you are pretending the IPCC projections are poor when clearly they have done so well it makes the "skeptics" squirm.
@@scottekoontz You're not living in reality. Look up the "hot model problem".
There is a further point given, but not stated, which proves that very little or none of the atmospheric CO2 can be anthropogenic. Northern hemisphere readings from Mauna Loa show a seasonal variation, but southern hemisphere readings do not. This is because most land plants are in the N hemisphere. 90% of people live in the N Hemisphere. The S hemisphere is mainly water or ice. We know from atmospheric A-bomb test radiogenic nucleides that the atmospheres of the two hemispheres do not mix. Therefore the CO2 rise in the S hemisphere cannot be anthropogenic, but natural. This rising CO2 must come from the oceans, it is global, and the global warming which has caused it must be solar, not anthropogenic.
That's exactly the same conclusion that I came to listening to many geologists like Tom here and Ian Plimer from Australia.
It gives us munitions to debate this in a more rational manner with the climat zealots...😂👍👍👍
Further more, Ian Plimer stated that Co2 concentration was as high as 450 ppm in the year 1850.
So it's not anthropogenic reasons that it increases right now....we ended the Little Ice Age so with warming ,Co2 simply follows the temperature increases 😊
The two atmospheres DO mix, the concept of Hadley cells is a large over simplification.
3:45 you can't properly estimate co2 in the air more than a million years ago because there are no ice cores to measure it
5:17 co2 and temp in this graph very much align but has been omitted jrk
Actually, methane and temp from ice cores perfectly align, indicating to me that methane is underestimated as a component of warming, esp since it has increased even more than co2, by about 2.6 while co2 only by 1.5. So we are in much deeper doo doo, taking methane into account we would be at co2 equivalent of 600ppm, while in last million years it never was beyond equivalent 370ppm
6:38 you just explained to local variation didn't you? The earth was more inclined on its axis than now. The ice core data leaves no doubt that large temp variations are caused directly by co2 and methane
35:09 maybe energy flows can't be predicted, but what exactly do you need when you have a almost perfect regression in terms of greenhouse gases for antarctic ice cores? Seems like you don't see the forest for the tree
1:01:02 gives me a bit of a pause when he doesn't know the difference between exponential and logarithmic. Does he know math?
1:06:46 well that would be great wouldn't it
Dang that methane is a problem. If it turns out it's all due to agriculture (apart from lately fracking), while it won't get worse because it doesn't accumulate for long, it's still a big baseline issue.
Simple minds need simple answers
I guess that 2023 being the warmest year in recorded history is just a statistical anomaly and nothing to be concerned about.
No it is all based on picking the coldest year in 100,000 years as your starting point. 1850 was the coldest point in the Maunder minimum, and the only time in history that Halifax Harbor has frozen!
@terenceiutzi4003 I guess those silly climate scientists and so called "physics" never heard of that and didn't account for it. Glad you're here to set everybody straight.
@UnknownPascal-sc2nk oh yes, the so-called climate scientists did the Russian oil industry is paying them billions to build them a worldwide Monopoly !
@@UnknownPascal-sc2nk1970 grade 9 physics we studied it in depth!
@terenceiutzi4003 wow. 9th grade ! I'm impressed. You'd think that there had been a little bit of further research in 53 years but no, 1970 was the last word on the subject.
lol imagine not understanding atmospheric co2's connection to warming trends... come on, that's just basic & this is some friggin weird version of tunnel vision ignorance on display. Knowledgeable about some things, but clearly uninformed when it comes to the hard data from ice cores which are very difficult to dispute.
He uses a lot of fake graphs from non-peer-reviewed crank sources and totally ignores all the published research. Just another dishonest disinformer for the fossil fuel industry and people with vested interests in delaying action on anthropogenic climate change
I guess the "tunnel vision" argument goes the other way round.
warming causes oceans to outgas co2 as per Henrys law - solubility of co2 in water is inversely proportional to its temperature. if co2 warmed the planet to any significant degree it would have burned up the planet millions of years ago when co2 was much higher, but ice ages came and went when co2 was higher.
I guess you've not heard of tipping points and positive feedback. Of course we can't predict the future and they believe that even with 2-3 degrees of temperature rise it will take thousands of years for the GIS to melt and give rise to the 7m of sea level rise. It really doesn't matter what's causing the problem, it's happening and maybe it's too late to stop it. We've got 20-30 years of known oil reserves left at current rates of extraction. Other factors such as resource depletion, civil unrest, wars and pollution will lead to collapse in the next 30 years, so climate change will just be an additional factor.