The Physics of Climate Change Online Lecture with Lawrence Krauss
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- The news is full of hotly debated and divergent claims about the existence, impacts, and risks of climate change. Public policy should be based on science, but if it isn’t possible to explain the scientific principles & predictions associated with climate change in a straightforward and accessible fashion, then what hope is there for any rational public discourse and decision-making on the subject?
Fortunately, it is possible and Lawrence Krauss will present a lively and compelling narrative that explores the history of how scientists progressed to our current understanding of climate change and explains the basic theoretical and observational underpinnings of climate science. Viewers will leave with an informed perspective to judge public policy proposals, and with information they can use in discussions with family, friends, and within their communities.
Join us for what promises to be an entertaining and informative live event about a topic that should be of interest to us all.
Chapters:
00:16:38 - Beginning of Lecture
Presented by The ORIGINS Project Foundation in association with Think Inc.
All proceeds will go to the ORIGINS Project Foundation, a 501 c3 nonprofit foundation devoted to promoting science, education, reason, and culture to meet today’s current challenges.
My Gosh! Please, invite doctor Willam Happer to your podcast, and debate him on the climate change matters. I'am 100% sure this will be worth it and eye opening for the audience and yourself.
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.
@@ClimateRealism interesting, it's almost like smart people think they know more than they do. It took me like 10 seconds to realize that this is essentially an ad for his book.
When I was a child I asked my father what we should do in preparation for the recent forecast of gloom and doom. His response was that the disaster never comes true and there is always a new threat imagined every 10 or 12 years because the old threat never happens. My children can’t believe that politicians would be so corrupt and use fear to distract and to control people. In my 76 years I have observed the failure of every prediction of gloom and doom so proving my father’s observations to be correct. One day, my children will no doubt reach the same conclusion and warn their children to fear only the politicians wanting to create nuclear war.
well your dad didn't have a clue did he? we had a global pandemic in 1918, it was disastrous , weve had world wars , disastrous, we've managed to desertify vast areas of the planet through poor agricultural practices all predicted, look up the" Goyder line" ) .
We are demonstrably warming , we are destroying our environment, which we rely upon to survive, we overfish, we are destroying forests which contain many species we could use to cure illnesses, we are overpopulated, glaciers are shrinking , seas are rising and the frequency of adverse climate events is going through the roof, but according to you and you good ole dad, nothing is happening.
One might have thought that living for 76 years might have taught you something, but clearly it hasn't, I've always thought that you cant cure complacency and ignorance, once they are established in a certain sort of closed mind, and behold ! you prove my belief, are a living example of cognitive dissonance.
Btw if we get hit by a large asteroid, we will face a mass extinction , or if the supervolcano at Yellowstone erupts, North America is toast, now how does your theory fit into those FACTS ? 🙂
Very well done, easy to understand. I learned a lot. A few items I didn't see addressed. The most fertile period on earth for plants and animals was the Jurassic period when the CO2 level was 2,400ppm, 6x the current levels. Also, I didn't hear you speak of the greening of the planet caused by higher co2 levels. This has been reported by NASA and many other agencies and partially responsible for record crop production, massive growth of many forest areas, including formerly dead areas such as Sub Sahara Africa making it habitable again. So, as with most things, there are positives and negatives. How do we decide what levels of CO2 are most desirable? Do we want to reduce CO2 and cause starvation with lower crop yields around the world? How do make these big decisions responsibly? Also, I'm sure you know the work of Bjorn Lomborg who believes the best strategy for stabilizing climate is through innovation, NOT subsidies of industries that make little difference like wind turbines and electric cars. How do we make intelligent choices and not frantic spending that has little effect on global warming?
"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.
As slide at 39:41 indicates, as CO2 concentration increases radiation decreases but this effect has a saturation point due to the logarithmic function connecting both parameters. For example, going from current CO2 levels (400 ppm) to 800 ppm would have just a 1% effect (or about 0,70 degree C) due to saturation. The “slight widening” of the curve as CO2 concentration increases is indeed slight and has minimum effect on radiation/ temperature. If you overlook this fact, the rest of your propositions are just invalid.
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."
long wave radiation transport thru a dense atmosphere? how exactly does that work?
@@miked5106 CO2 traps infrared radiating from Earth near the surface. Sabine Hossenfelder's, TH-cam has a pretty good description.
The palaeoclimate graphs seem to suggest a wide fluctuation of temperatures and c02 level - all by itself ie no human input
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.
@@lrvogt1257 still there is only evidence and no quantifiable proof of C02 radiative forcing, although the climate industrial complex is doing all it can to non-scientifically inflate it causing more harm than good for science and climate skepticism expansion (yes, as long as "scientists" call it denialism I downgrade them from scientists to science activists).
I'm sure you're aware of this but the Greenland Ice core data clearly shows in the isotopes versus CO2 levels, shows temperature increasing before CO2. Ocean out gassing!
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?
Taken all together, the greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the early 2000s - a 5% increase. - a NASA statement 11 Feb 2019
16:38 to skip untill start.
Cheers
I want to add a bit regarding the supposed saturation of CO2's warming effect:
The reason why the saturation argument is wrong isn't just because of the effect that Lawrence mentioned at 52:00 (more room for absorption at the edges of an absorption line). That's part of the reason. The saturation argument comes from using the Beer-Lambertt-Law. This law only deals with absorption of radiation. So when you're only using that law you're ignoring that the atmosphere is emitting as well. And obviously you'll then get wrong results like the believe that the warming effect of CO2 is saturated. What you actually have to use are radiative transfer equations. They factor in that the atmosphere emits radiation as well. And it's the addition of this equation that produces the correct result.
Just for the people, who are interested in a bit more of the laws that are used to calculate something like the downwelling longwave radiation spectrum.
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.
Don't forget, as the earth warms it also becomes MORE habitable. For instance, the greening of the Sahara desert and Siberia (already happening) will produce arable land capable of sustaining another BILLION people, as well as the flora and fauna that go along with that. Throughout millions of years of history, these interglacial warming periods are a blessing for whoever is fortunate enough to live during the glacial minimums when the earth reaches maximum habitability. 1 meter of sea level change isn't a problem, period... problems arise when sea levels change in tens of meters in a couple hundred years. Which is normal. The warming pulse was a problem for the wholly mammoths, but it also allowed the flourishing of the rest of the animals, in particular, human civilization... The other problem is cooling. Because cooling begins the transition Away from maximum habitability, which means many organisms lose their habitats completely and die off. The mass extinctions are the result of global cooling towards the glacial maximums. That's when the party truly ends. And what's interesting is burning 100% of fossil fuels over the course of a century or two, taking all the carbon from the carbon cycle and putting it into the atmosphere will have virtually no impact on global temperatures and will not save us from the next ice age. So we will have to innovate currently unknown solutions or adapt to the changing circumstances via technology and social planning. No problem... The ruling class has always used these doomsday cults to control people and take their rights for the simple reason that they are effective. An effective emergency to justify taking your rights and make you poor so that you have to work as a literal indentured servant who never owns property and can never get ahead, because otherwise the world will end. And you don't want the world to end do you?? Well, then give up your rights and give them all your money for the rest of your life.
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...
I missed the lecture and just woke up. Great for him to make it public ASAP after it was over.
Thanks
On the topic of correlation between CO2 levels and historical temperature; why should we believe a data set that has never been independently audited, has plenty of evidence of data tampering, and does not meet ISO standards for data integrity? There isn't a big data enterprise on earth that would accept this situation with their own skin in the game. If insurance rates were set by such data, the error bars would be incredibly large.
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 urge people to look into the background of the person regarded as the "father" of the UN environmental program, Maurice Strong (1929-2015).
He came from the world of finance and energy before unexplainedly developing an environmental conscience.
He had many business interests and was a networking maestro, counting many important international players as personal friends
The more I find out about him the less I trust his motives. Remember, a carbon tax and carbon trading are big money-making opportunities for those running them.
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.
I would have appreciated an explanation of how an ice age was possible with CO2 level of over 2000ppm in the distant past. Note that the CO2/temperature graph didn't go back into the millions or tens of millions of years ago. CO2 and temperature do not correlate over millions of years. What other factors contribute to climate and why is it presented that man made CO2 is the dominant force - it couldn't have been in the past when the climate changed a lot.
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.
Imagine a person who is not a climate scientist giving this Lecture to say Dr.Judith Curry.
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.
The part I have trouble with is understanding how we can model such a complex system with water vapor and clouds and tidal ocean mixing variations, Atmosphere. thickness ozone and oxygen levels etc and why we think we can separate out the co2 effect when it's just one of so many factors
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.
Thank you so much for making this lecture available to all the audience. With the author's own descriptions it is more effective to understand the book.
vienam, beautiful culture? you are not being honest. nothing in vienam is remotely beautiful.
It is good to Experience Lawrence's Science Skills at Work.
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.
26:50 This looks like some cheat trick. The initial presumption was that Pout - is the energy provided by the Sun and absorbed by Earth. Now it's concluded that Pout actually is not all the energy income. And the Earth must in fact radiate more. Basicaly it should be giving more energy than it takes. Where had this additional energy came from?
You must have Tony Heller on for a good discussion on this topic
All I can say is the historical data doesn't say that CO2 is the warming agent. I suggest you go look at the data from Dr. Happer at Princeton.
45:15 I think you should have explained in the video that the linear relationship between radiative forcing and temperature includes the hypothesized positive feedbacks inherent in the climate-system and is only applicable within a small range of temperature. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, a radiative forcing of 1.6 W/m² at the surface at 288K results in a warming of about 0.29C. To get a warming of 1C you need to have invoked positive feedbacks to the tune of about 5.5 W/m². By the Stefan-Boltzmann law, there can be no linear relationship between radiative forcing and temperature because that law deems that the temperature of a body will increase according to the 4th power of radiation that is warming it. Under this law, every time you double the temperature of a body it requires 16 times the radiation as before (but you probably already know this).
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.
Hardly dare i ask: what about solar and Milankovitch cycles, hundreds of volcanos on the oceanic floor, oceanic oscillations like AMO and PDO, the fact that all major glaciations started in extremely high CO2 era's, the fact that for over 80% of time earth has been warmer and wetter than now, and the fact that CO2 curves follow and not predate temperature curves ....?
Inconvenient truths.
Thanks! This is EXACTLY the kind of information I've been wishing both "sides" would present! Just the data!
Of course, the other currently heretical question to ask is, are changes of a degree in temperature, and a rise of a few meters in sea level over hundreds of years a panic situation?
The climate now is vastly better for life than during the last ice age only 12,000 years ago.
Right now is actually the best climate for human life that we've ever had.
How do we figure that out?
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
There is a key question. If we as a civilisation reduce our carbon output destroying our own civilisation and nothing changes, the scientific community were wrong and carbon has no effect on climate. What do we do then?
It’s amazing that we’re living in a world where I can sit and watch brilliant men like Dr Krauss for free m!! Thankyou for sharing
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!
Yes we need to diffuse science culture in all human societies of the world, in order to let the policymakers around the world to take a wise decisions concerning the climate change
Thank you Lawrence for this great lecture, I learned so much from this, and it condenses the book very well into an hour of solid science. I hope many on here watching this go and buy the book, I would highly recommend it, if you really want to understand the science and not be caught up in all the politics etc, "The Physics of Climate Change" is the book you want. This is such an important issue, and the natural world is such a beautiful , incredible, precious place that we have the power to save or destroy, and now we have the knowledge,all due to science and our ability to understand our world, to be able to change the way we use resources before it is too late. Thank you once again, Lawrence and the Origins Foundation for all the work you do contributing to this knowledge and the public understanding of science.
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!🤣🙄😵💫
As a high energy theorist, I acknowledge that you certainly knows when to cut the origin point from the plots or use log plot for better persuasion, which increased the effort I need to extract information from the plots. No hard feelings, I have to double check everything. It's my habit and I am sure you can understand.
Clever uses of plot axes and statistics are always used mislead others in efforts to win arguments, popularity, and grant money.
He needs to read Prof Koonin’s book “Unsettled”. He is much more qualified and deals with the actual science, not the climate cult preachings.
Koonin is a fraud - well established.
Anyone ever think of asking these environmentalists/climatologists exactly what % of CO2 do they want in the atmosphere? They are always saying there is too much CO2 and it must be reduced to stop the world from overheating, but they never say by how much. Do they prefer an ice age? The world has a CO@ level of about 400 ppm today, has been as high as 1700ppm before, and plant life will die if the level goes below 150ppm. There is no evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise but there is evidence that high temperatures cause CO2 to rise hundreds to thousands of years after the high temperatures have passed. The burning of fossil fuels may cause rises in CO2 levels but this helps feed plant life and would be good for crops etc. Humans prosper when weather is warmer. The Chinese, Africans and Indians are not going to give up burning fossil fuels such as coal and wood. Western societies once burned those fuels until gas, electricity and nuclear means were invented or discovered. Are we foolish enough to think these other countries are going to give up their chance at being as prosperous and comfortable because we say so? I don't think so.
24:30 WMO says Earth had 2020 an average temperature of 14.9°C. so where is the dagerous heating of CO2 ?
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 all this talk of CO2 when there is no positive correlation with temperature. It's a minor factor but has never been a major driver of climate.
I've put up with listening to you, Laurence for over 10 years, and it has been very rewarding for me. I do think this maybe the most important work you have ever accomplished to date. I've watched many lectures you have done over many years, mostly regarding the universe as we understand it to date. Again for me, it has opened my personal understanding of our place and the joy it is to be able to learn so much more. I think its your most important work because if we dont understand climate change and live in a way we can sustain the natural world, it would become practically impossible to learn any more about the universe . We simply wont have a planet, a home, to be able to marvel at the universe around us. That would indeed be a great shame when so far we have been so lucky to live a life where we are able to learn so much. Thank you.
@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.
Naomi Oreskes' book, The Merchants of Doubt, is useful for understanding that the folks who promoted uncertainty about smoking to benefit the tobacco industry were the same people who muddled the real danger of acid rain and, now, the danger of human caused global warming.
Thank you for putting this information out on youTube.
If the temperature has gone up and down and has been much hotter in the resent past (100000 years or so) then it is now but the carbon ice core data shows very little change and never over around 300ppm than where is the corilation that the carbon is why the temperature rises?
There is no positive correlation. In the interglacials the temperature rises first then CO2 rises (due to outgassing from the oceans).
I would like more doubt and interest in knowing more about the entire system. How all mechanisms will respond. Clouds and evaporation and circulation patterns that alters where energy vents. There are many complex flows that are hard to predic using computers.
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.
*☼ **10:10** the point of no return 320, 350, 400, 420 etal. but this time for sure ; **14:30** the world is big ; **18:50** 10 Gt carbon per yr 1/2 in waters, 1/2 reinvests - rpt ; **20:30** this guy believes in the sun ; **22:30** 30 terawatts p/d ; **24:20** the problem w means and a whole globe ; **27:10** making more realistic predictions (is this sat measured?) ; **28:10** every one of these numbers has to be checked (nothing is easy) ; **28:40** - **30:00** once you know the answer to aim for. & then radaited back up,, yeah? part of the sys? the problem w complex models. ; **32:40** climate change is good actually? ; **34:30** absorbing more than 100% ; **36:10** black body curves (cf space rad v rad back to earth detector, wo accounting for ice and cloud) ; **40:00** why would the frequancy change ; **42:20** greenhouse fx is ; **42:50** other greenhouse gasses ; **44:00** ipcc forcing schema ; **45:20** knowing where to aim wo counterpoint ; **47:40** talk about the test, not what you want the test to say ; **50:30** make up a number, bc goals are important ; **51:40** new final chance(s), for the number we made up that may not matter ; **53:30** this guy believes in middle school science (this is why i was home skoold) ; **56:00** then why do they call it **_GreenLand"?_** ; **58:27** we can fix this w the floating plastics already in the ocean. its called science. ; **1:02:00** 0.5-2.5M possible water rise in the next few centuries - do you feel lucky? where will you be in 100-300yrs when the final data come in? where will your children be? ; **1:05:00** that time sattelite data was wrong systematically, but this time change your life, or by 2100 something may start to something something ; **1:07:50** snowpiercer*
alrite, ill turn some new cards. gr8 vid.
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.
So in winter when the sun sets and i feel that instant chill in the air, its my imagination good to know. because from what i leant here is that the atmosphere supplies most of the radiated heat and its still warm I shall bask in this new atmosphere.
Well nothing I saw here proves that more CO2 in the air is a bad thing.
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.
Lawrence, the basic physics is pretty clear. But the effect that will have on the earth is not at all clear. Currently there are two things that we know will happen because they are happening. First, sea level rise will increase by a small amount. Second, the earth will get significantly greener due to plants having more CO2 available to support growth. Beyond that, we know virtually nothing. If you want to argue for a "climate emergency", show us the emergency type effects that happened when the earth was warmer in the past. And yes, it definitely has been significantly warmer than today in the past. And no, we cannot rely on climate model predictions to determine possible future effects. Climate modeling is not mature enough BY FAR to use such models to base policy upon. Show us how past warming has caused emergencies. Bet you cannot, because the evidence shows a warmer earth is a better earth, more hospitable to life. There is NO significant evidence supporting a climate emergency's existence.
You claim sea level will rise by a "small amount". What do you consider small? Predictions for the USA are over 1 foot by 2050. That is not "small" and will have a significant impact on local flooding along the coasts and upon inter-tidal ecosystems. Second, you don't know that the Earth will get greener. CO2 is not the only driver of vegetation growth and pumping billions of tons more into the atmosphere is not going to lead to a greener planet. The science actually knows a good bit about the future impacts of climate change. You should take the time to actually read some of it.
You had a great presentation very clear very well done and there's still one problem though. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but... you probably are, but, it all comes down to the temperature readings. Because after all that is the empirical data validating your discernment of the radiative forcings.
Well, there have been so many changes to the temperature data, changes that I do not believe in and neither do other highly respected scientists including a few that are colleagues of yours, Changes that literally takes the new values outside the 95% confidence interval for many given years measurements, in particular the measurements before 19 let's say 65 but definitely 1940s on back. Data that's been changed so much that all peer-reviewed articles prior to 1975's current data no longer looks like that official data. Changes to the data that greatly increases the correlation coefficients between CO2 and temperature.
Not only have every change to the data been shown to be confirmation bias but, each successive change to the data actually significantly increases the confirmation bias in the changed data. It's actually embarrassing to see the progression. Furthermore during two periods between 1979 and present where in temperature data was no longer increasing, NASA's reanalysis team and NASA's data acquisition team modified their processes and just like magic the two stagnant time frames disappeared. Which brings me to the current data.
Currently slightly greater than 50% of all historical data stations have stopped reporting. NASA in their infinite wisdom have decided to utilize algorithms to fill in a value for greater than 50% of the stations. This means that 50% of all data is not associated with a thermometer or at least a unique thermometer. To make matters worse if you compare the means between the raw data and the quote reanalyzed data, I get a kick out of that they don't call it faking data they call it reanalyzing data. The means are different. To really make matters worse the means for the data set with the fake data are always, and I mean always, greater than the raw data mean. Now to get to the ridiculous instead of making matters worse they're making matters ridiculous. The difference between the two means for each successive year grows larger and larger.
So, to make a long story short, I can say with considerable conviction that without the changes made to the temperature data, The actual acquired empirical data would not fit your conclusions. No Sirey they definitely wouldn't. Furthermore just like everyone in the ipcc sphere of influence, your temperature data begins as we're coming out of an ice age, so it's quite low compared to most of the previous 5,000 years. This would definitely change how the data should be assessed. Now if you would have taken some sort of an average measurement over the previous 5,000 years and then begin examining based upon temperature changes above a better defined non-anthropogenic modulated temperature assessment then not only would your interpretation be significantly different but I may actually have some faith in it.
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. If you actually read this thank you for taking the time I very much respect you and find it incredibly disconcerting that you would even consider this temperature data for use other than depositing in a trash can.
Sincerely,
Professor Anonymous
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.
Lawrence is great in (over)stating certainty about climate science and the equations involved. But it has big error margins. Co2 is a problematic issue from the onset. And carbon is to loose a concept.
Im afraid Lawrence is trying to oversell a concept by hammering in a level of certainty that can't be pinned down. And he omits quite a bit.
And yes, Will Happer certainly would have something to say about it. As would Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen et al..
Thank you so much for making this publicly accessible. I really appreciate it as, I’m sure, do many millions of others.
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.
Thanks, Laurence. Sound explanation, important message
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.
Thank you so much! for making a very clear, passionate , interesting, persuasive and SUBSTANTIVE lecture on climate change. Truly you have more than accomplished your goal in making climate change understandable to everyone. Keep up the good work Sir.
I LOVE THIS!!!Thank you so much for doing this!!!!!
yeah. thanks for the inflation
I really wish that you had not shown the earth as a flat surface in some of your diagrams. I am having a discussion with a person who dismisses the GHE on the basis that that climate scientists treat the earth as flat.
Thanks Lawrence. Greatly appreciated.
I hope our government will hear this thing ❤❤❤
I am looking into this climate thing to work out my own point of view. In this regard I liked this presentation and may even buy a book (audiobook). It will probably make a nice listen, although I did not learn too much of a new stuff from the lecture itself. For one, I did not know about this "saturation" dispute between Angstrom and Arrhenius. A very interesting detail. But Krauss's argument does not convince me, what about much higher concentration of water vapor? The concentration broadening of water vapor lines (at much higher concentration) may make water vapor much more important than CO2. My understanding was that in the troposphere CO2 is not important at all and water vapor does all the job (btw energy transport upward there is by convection mostly not by radiation). This is not to say that CO2 is not important; it is, but it does its part higher up in the stratosphere where water vapor is frozen out. And there CO2 absorbs and emits contributing (not insignificantly as you can see from the sattelite spectra) to the greenhouse effect. So both Arrhenius and Angstrom might be right, if what I think makes sense. The important part however is that, as Arrhenius thought, CO2 is not quite saturated and doubling does make some but not that much of a difference as all the action is in the wings. It occurred to me now that it might be interesting to compare the greenhouse effect of preindustrial CO2 (at 280 ppm) to that of 400, and maybe even 560 ppm, we may have to reach to make plants happy, Africa wealthy and convince greens that nuclear is not that bad. It is not completely unlikely that the CO2 we (humans) added (taking 280 as a baseline) does not make that much difference and the T-CO2concentration correlation is not exclusively due to the CO2 increase because of fossil fuels :=). That would be nice as I don't really like to panic and prefer to be hopeful (contrary to what Greta suggests us to do).
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.*
Fantastic presentation Lawrence. You have explained this so well. I hope "Lord" Christopher Monckton watched this. You have rebutted everything he has ever said to try and disprove anthropogenic climate change. Lawrence, "YOU ROCK".
Sometimes I feel a sense of guilt for the mess that todays children are left with but as I've been building green homes for forty years which often led to heaps of ridicule and scorn, my guilt turns to anger for those truly responsible. The top 10% of wealth who produce 52% of GHG's, oil companies, auto manufactures, politicians, misinformation lobbyists and those so thoughtless that they just don't care .
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.
This is probably the best one hour summary of it's kind. I've been reading and thinking about this physics through James Hansens publications and others since 1988 when I was an undergrad chemistry major. In grad school very few chemistry professors at Montana State U had enough interest to go as deep into this physics/chemistry as you have here.
CO2 lags on averages 800 years behind temperature and responds to temperature not the other way around. So your whole premise is wrong. Unless you can explain why its reversed with the historical tiny 120 ppm increase?
at 47:46 a graph is shown between calculated T and proxy T from Volstok. You should note that each data point there represents decades if not centuries and a lot of times calculated T is not in lock step with proxy T. Such wide scale divergence between calculated and proxy should already show that CO2 and T may not be correlated at all but rather a function of several other variables. Our period is of instrumental observation is not even one data point in that graph.
absolutely fantastic. Thank you so much for this.
Remember, the meaning of fantastic is "unbelievable".
Interesting isn't it, apart from the superb ecologist who was originally in Greenpeace it is our free thinking, forensic and gifted physicists leading the fight against the endless and pervasive tendentious twaddle!
Excellent presentation! Looking forward to reading the book.
Lawrence- please follow this lecture with a talk on the physics of the aerosol masking effect. Talk about the effects that a major slowing of industrial emissions will have on the amount of sunlight reaching earth. Thank You
Seeing how the whole situation with vaccines unwind in rich countries one can only say that in the situation concerning global warming nothing will be done for the poor, for countries outside the local power hub, for workers. We will see this separation on every level. I would love to write something opposite but nothing I have seen permits me to formulate different thoughts :( I will be the poor in a line for a food just like in Spain. Whole world is in a giant "materialistic" mess on a giant scale. One wrong behavior can derail the whole world. I am no longer a technological enthusiast. All technologies serve between constant commercials to please our lowest mental needs. No one will change to a better person, no one in prosperity, especially no one in a ruined planet. Maybe Putin will stat living like a poor person, or Pope... Nationalism and violence will awake just like always. I have listened whole my life to science guys and now I am disenchanted with people as a whole. There is constantly present this primitive evolutionary drive that underlie every human endeavour. Hitch was right, we are apes. If something will be done, it will be done in rich countries, ergo, it is a good time to change profession to a shipmate ;)
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
We are living in record low Co2 levels, around 400ppm, under 200ppm plants stop growing. And we need to reduce Co2 levels to what? under what keeps agriculture thriving.. hmmm hope you don't like food..
I've been looking forward to this and it didn't disappoint. Thank you.
Take A Moment
You, Professor, are a Genius. Always ask questions and get your lucky students to do all of the work. Genius
Standing on the shoulders of genius. I am right with you on the theory, E= Mc squared
After failing to move a mountain ⛰️,
I have a new perspective.
I walked away, 18 months later.
I am sat in the shade in Calgary Untruedauxland
I am a veteran of the RAF for 28 years, and PTSD lives in my foxhole with me.
No god's required 🙏
Let chat, Free Speech is all we have.
Keep Looking Up
Stay Silly
Stay Safe and Stay Free 🙏
starts at 16:-00
Thanks.
Why did you not go back further (before humans)? My understanding was that it was 4 times higher. You are cherry picking the data.
Data is shown for the last 800.000 years (at 12.05), but of course you will claim is not long enough.
4 billions years ago, there was 20% of CO2 in atmosphere. So what?
The point is that our civilisation is based on THIS climate, pretty stable since the exit of the last ice-age 10.000 years ago, and we are destroying it with the CO2 we send in atmosphere. This is a scientific proven point.
Thank you for this, professor.
Thank you for putting this very important information out for public consumption. It would have been helpful to better connect your talking points to the images through simple pointers or other means. I am referring to the more technical parts of your presentation, where clarity is most important, yet you did not do this. Getting out this information is essential, and it is a shame no one bothered to do a few hours worth of editing to increase clarity.
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
Mr Krauss. If you would really like to advance this discussion have Steven Koonin on your podcast and debate the facts from the IPCC reports. You are both respected physicists and it is my belief that he is about the only scientist that is accurately presenting the facts without the hype. This would be much better time spent than debating religion for which you have made much time available.
Koonin's work has been shown by other qualified physicists to be riddled with holes. I mean, Swiss cheese holds more water than his arguments.
@@RJones-Indy Bollocks! By who (and who's paying them) and what are these holes? So I assume Richard Lindzen, William Happer, et al, are talking rubbish? It's way past time we had an open and honest debate amongst the so called 'experts' , and on that, Krauss is no climate expert.
@@utubermax Look up what David Romps does to him. Really? You want to quote Lindzen and Happer? Any other Heartland Institute trolls you want to trot out? Please don't waste our time. Try finding some real climate scientists.
@@RJones-Indy I think Koonin gives as good as he got. They both make good points. The fact is, the science is far from settled and there should be more of these debates by the experts, before SOME nations commit the equivalent of economic hara-kiri for a yet to be established, and certainly unquantified, outcome.
The outcome was accurately predicted by the secret Exxon climate model developed in the 1980s and has been independently confirmed by over 40 separate combined models. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. There is no scientific uncertainty as to the cause and the only uncertainty on effects is it will either be very bad or horrific.
Great lecture! Didn't understand a lot, and will have to rewatch to make sense. But...still. Great lecture!
We're adding 5 GT of carbon to the atmosphere? This guy doesn't know the difference between a solid and a gas.
I think you are the one who is confused... At th-cam.com/video/lApLD5g1Nrs/w-d-xo.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
And yet ...none of the predictions made by these models has been right.
You can throw as much science at me as you want, but the reality is that the CO2 levels are still low by earths historical standards. The greening effect has increased food production.
People are healthier and safer than they have ever been fron climate.
We talk about spending trillions to get to net zero whilst China continues building a coal power station every week.
A Tesla bought in Europe never saves enough carbon to overcome its construction footprint etc. etc.
There are arguments for many differing factors. I argue, wed be better spending money making us resilient to climate rather than wasting it trying to effect a massively complex and mostly unexplainable phenomena.
No one knows anything for certain.
Also, as an aside, why climate alarmists only ever go back 800,000 years?
Is it because the core data further back shows the earth having 3 times its current CO2 levels?
Great presentation!
He didn't mention civilian nuclear power. It is by far the best alternative.
Love the content. Maybe you could have a email list for these live events. Or a pre warning or something. I don't think i can afford a premium ticket, but not knowing that this was a live does not help your participation i guess. Thank you for doing this.
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."
Thanks ❤🎉for an excellent narration.
Thank you for your work Lawrence!
I found this lecture to be conveniently myopic in its time scale. I would like to hear these arguments made within the context of paleoclimatology. A focus on paleoclimate during the periods of the emergence of hominids would also be informative. A complete history of the atmosphere of earth, its CO2 concentrations and the types of life that thrived over these varied conditions that far exceed those that currently exist is in order. Lets discuss the historic golden ages corresponding to the rise of the Roman empire, the enlightenment, etc. I am concerned that scientific objectivity is corrupted by politics as evidenced by the official "climate change" definition that every climate discussion on social media recieves which requires that climate change must be caused by human activity dispite the indisputable fact that climate changes perpetually as far back into the geological records as we can observe, certainly before humanity existed. As an engineering student of the 90s, I learned to create mathematical models to fit curves of measured data. Using those models to extrapolate future data is inherently unstable and unreliable as opposed to simply interpolating (curve fitting) the actual data. I'm disturbed by the representation of extrapolations of future climate being presented as data to the general public. This is gaslighting on a planetary scale. I started as a person concerned about global warming in the 2010s. After searching out credible arguments for and against the current alarmism, I've concluded that we currently still don't know enough about climate and weather to draw relevant conclusions. With the current vilification of CO2 we are headed down a path aimed at bringing CO2 down to historic lows if we start agressively employing carbon capture. Our understanding of climate is in its infancy. We would do well to keep an open objective mind and encourage objective research, not just research that agrees with a political narrative.
Are you kidding?
Your "myopic in its time scale... the context of paleoclimatology... during the periods of the emergence of hominids would also be informative": it's provided at 12.05
Concerning models and extrrapolation, the point is... current climate models do work. See: "Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections", by Zeke Hausfather.
@@franckr6159 No I'm not kidding. I stand by my comment.
@@markdeffebach8112 Yeah.... you stand by your comment in spite of the proofs provided.
And you state that this lecture was "myopic" ?? LOL, such blindness, so typical of denialists: whatever the proofs you give them they will stubbornly say "not good enough" (but they will happily swallow any BS provided by impostors).
@@franckr6159 I used to think like you do. I was concerned that climate should have been more of an issue back when Obama was running for president. Eventually I decided to listen to the arguments for and against an anthropomorphic cause for climate change. I find the arguments of people like William Happer and Judith Curry to be more sound and based in actualy scientific methodology. But I don't belittle and name call people who disagree with me. While I currently make my living playing music, I have an engineering degree and made a living designing electronics for a while. I was a good student with good grades and was invited into all the engineering honors societies. I am familiar with mathematical modeling of real world systems. I seek out college and post graduate level climate information. I particularly prefere lectures of paleoclimatology that are disinterested in the current political climate debate. I like the honesty of scientists who continue to question the consensus. After all this is how science progresses. It is difficult to find honest climate discussions, and nearly impossible to find debates by qualified people. Regardless of who is right, the most prudent path forward is the adapt since that is what must happen. I will continue to seek knowledge regardless of where it leads. If my mind was closed I wouldn't listen to lectures like this one. Anyway best of luck to you. I hope you will continue seeking information with an open but discerning mind.
@@franckr6159 @12.05 is still a myopic view my friend. Although it was encouraging to see a data set going back past the typical 1800 graphs.
Great lecture, thanks!
To be really up-to-date, we need to be talking about the science of extinction. To do otherwise is to surrender to a narcissistic simian exceptionalism and entitlement which serves only to demean us.
great lecture although some graphs and terminologies are something most of us do not encounter everyday the presentation and lecture itself was really interesting and though provoking to say the least.I will have to re watch it again especially when looking at the graphs.I hope to see more contents like this.
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.
at 12:20 onwards. Past CO2 proxies from non-Antarctic sources show much greater variation but we never shown this data. The smooth 280ppm value is derived only from a small number of Antarctic ice core.
CO2 is not instantaneously and permanently trapped in ice. It has plenty of time to diffuse through it evening out all the ups and downs. Its the best data we have but its missing the variations that the climate claims depend on.
Fascinating, it's nice to see something of the science laid out very well - this is obviously going to be a huge media/polical theme once everybody gets bored of covid 😅
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.
There are lots of statements in the video which are simply wrong. First: climate change models contain so many uncertainties, e.g. cloud cover, oceans turnovers, solar influence, that their results are useless. Science shows that the impact of CO2 concentrations in air has only little impact on climate - in contrast to climate change propadanda. And by the way: The residence time of CO2 is a function of CO2 concentration in air and not of emissions.Thus emitted CO2 will not stay in air for many hundret of years. And, and...there are so many unproven or wrong statements. Not worth buying his book.
I really don't think this meets the brief for "a straightforward and accessible fashion" -
a lot of this requires an understanding of physics that is, for most of the people you need to explain this to, is more than they would have learnt at school. (Life gets in the way of learning new and non-required skills, for most people - I have learnt more in the 10 years I've been semi-retired, than I did for the previous 25-30 - because I have the time).
As a note regarding the sea level rise, where historically there are much larger changes than currently predicted. This is due to the methane pulses that occur. These would presumably cause sudden temp spikes (decades) and cause much faster melting.
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 love the future. I saw this video based on an algorithm, carefully tailored to suggest things that would hold my interest. I, see that Krauss is standing in front of a book, and knowing him and seeing the title I knew that I needed this. Literally 15 seconds later I own it, and can listen to it, read to me by him.
It used to take days to get to read someone's shitty papers.
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. : ))))))
Seeing all the conspiracy theorists and science deniers in this comment section makes you lose faith in humanity. Then again, at least most of them seem to be American so perhaps the rest of the world can do something useful.
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.
This is probably the best resource I've had for truly convincing myself of the reality of climate change. I knew enough that it was true, but this lecture provided a great logical map of the topic. Saving this video for the next time I talk to someone who tries to deny climate change.
adam chamoun --- This is probably the best resource I've had for truly convincing myself of the reality of climate change. I knew enough that it was true, but this lecture provided a great logical map of the topic. Saving this video for the next time I talk to someone who tries to deny climate change.
Wayne Patterson --- Then you are easily fooled by its pseudoscience pretending to know temperatures which were never observed, never recorded, or were not recorded with the falsely claimed accuracy necessary to detect the claimed fraction of a degree C/F changes of less than 2C. More then 99.99 percent of the Earth's environmental temperatures in the period of 1880 to the Present have never undergone synoptic empirical observations and been recorded. The remaining few actual empirical observations were observed and recorded with an accuracy no better than 2-6 degrees F and even worse in the cases where the observations were faked by the observers. All of those inaccurate temperatures were faked or inaccurate before the Climate Change activists began their manipulation of the supposed temperature data while pretending to perform non-empirical reanalyses and adjustments of the already fictional temperature data. Before you become a Science Denier by making an uncritical acceptance of the fraudulent Climate Change pseudoscience, conduct a simple scientific experiment and demand to see the Climate Change activists present genuine surface weather air temperature record/s for Brasilia, Brazil on 1 July 1900, 1 July 1910, 1 July 1920, 1 July 1930, 1 July 1940, and/or 1 July 1950 and see what happens.
39:37 "Based on the best atmospheric models we have...", which unfortunately don't do much to inform analysis of historic samples and records, let alone assist with climate predictions. Most of the tens of billions spent on climate research has been wasted; The obsession with CO2 and temperature has left us with critical gaps in analysis of climate parameters other than temperature. We therefore cannot make an informed prediction that a temperature change will cause an increase or decrease in certain climatic/weather phenomena.
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.
Thank you for the clarity with which you exposed these realities: showing the curve that undeniably illustrates the effect of civilization on climate AND demonstrating the irreversibility of CO2 stuck in the higher atmospheric levels for 1000 years (what we wrong call "green house" effect, but which has a similarly tragic effect...). If those listening to this are not terrified nor ready to take action - their grandchildren will pay the price... I for one am ready to continue to stay engaged in every possible manner to see this through - including spreading the word about your book among decision and policy makers. Gratitude!
Superb presentation. Thank you for this great contribution. I was sleeping (Bordeaux, France) when this occured.. Too bad.
And TYNDALL is Irish
The Las Vegas Effect is hilarious! what happens in the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere... xD
Earth is breathing.
Humanity: Put a pillow over its face.
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.
47:56 In case you missed it: The amount of heat added to the oceans & atmosphere in the last *25 years* is equivalent to the heat that would have been added by exploding *4 Hiroshima atom bombs every second* during that 25 year period. If you're not familiar with the bombs dropped by the US during World War II on Hiroshima & Nagasaki you should spend a little time educating yourself.
I read this book & will read it again, hoping to understand it well enough to explain it in detail to people. The science is clear and understandable but it's not simple. The book is pretty good, especially when he's not trying to explain the details of the physics of climate change. He knows very well what he's writing about but needs a non-scientist editor who can organize his explanations better. His writing about the Mekong Delta is excellent & it's an important issue for the whole world, since Mekong produces a very significant portion of the world's rice.
This lecture presents lots of good info but could be organized much better. Some of his explanations of the charts are poor - like he's explaining to people who already very well understand the parameters of the charts & work with these sorts of charts daily. The FIRST thing you do when you have a chart is to *explain exactly what the axes are measuring* (& connect them to things you've already explained in a way that reinforces the previous explanations) but he doesn't do this at all. Some of the charts are self-explanatory, some not.
If you don't understand exactly what Radiative Forcing is after watching this then you won't be able to explain the causal relationship between atmospheric carbon & the warming of the atmosphere & oceans.
Can’t wait to read the book! 👍
Don’t bother, it’s wrong
Imagine members on Congress listening to Lawrence testifying on climate change. I can't....
Thank you Lawrence for giving this important lecture, may I ask if you are able to do a follow up lecture talking about some of the push backs on the other-side of the argument? 🙏
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.
Good lecture.