I'm really glad I came back to this since watching it a year or so ago. In my second viewing, I realize how great is this lecture... I'm sharing this with others... and it pushes my curiosity out in so many ways. Thank you. More please.
CO2 just one wedge. Over fishing of the Oceans, over use of Pesticides, Nuclear Waste, Plastic Pollution of the food chain, Clearing of Old growth forest, land clearing for Agriculture, over use of Antibiotics in stock feed. GM crops, fertilizer run off into streams and river systems, introduction of foreign pest which compete with or prey on native species. Many other wedges to choose from.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Some day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you don't confess that until after your death then you'll spend eternity in torment (where the fire is not quenched).
I saw this guy talking about Lonrenz's work - very good lecture, also. I know a bit about dynamic control theory and when people say "but we can't predict the climate 100 years from now!" I reply "and aren't you worried we can't predict? And we really can't predict - what we can tell is it is becoming unstable and it will go to another stability but we don't know what conditions there will be."
How much as a percentage has changed for the better since we started using renewables and started to cool down the earth . As a percentage , simple question ?
Thanks for this classic. This should be on the list of important climatology lectures. Thanks. Will there be more on this topic? Is it not the most important topic of all time?
The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it? Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth - through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves. Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer - not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22841-what-s-the-real-agenda-behind-climate-change-alarmism
@bulletsholes Correct.We're not threatened by a supposed human-caused change in climate that is not happening. We are threatened existentially by the West's continued warmongering for control of resources and the suppression/elimination of a fair alternative to the rule of the 1%. The fake climate change story is a means of distracting our attention from the real threats - and of making us even more reliant on governments ... to solve a non-existent problem.
Ice core samples tell us at 420 ppm and 500 ppm equivalent we are headed for hot house. This is hard to argue with as IT HAPPENED. Plus feedbacks and tips are cutting in. Our footprint is way to heavy now, and we will not stop our easy lifestyles. Hope is so distracting. Reality even IN YOUR FACE is not changing culture. We want it all,and we want it NOW . ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️
A great lecture. It pleases me a lot. Certain variables are not addressed in the analysis which complicate understanding climate dynamics. Variability in solar radiance has substantial influence. The sun is not constant. Orbital dynamics is also not considered. The earths orbit is continuously changing due to gravitational influences of other planets. Distance to heat source must affect climate. The time frame of the analysis is also very limited, speaking as a geologist. Where I live there was 2000 feet of ice during the height of the last glaciation event. I am truly grateful for global warming because I love my Canadian home. That warming event is probably still ongoing. The retreat of the glaciers has been continuous since before humans were producing so much CO2. The unstoppable movement of continents also changes climate dramatically for many reasons other than CO2 content of the atmosphere. Before the last major glaciation there was no ice at the south pole and the northern islands of Canada had palm trees and crocodiles. Fossils don't lie. Life flourished very nicely at that time. The truth is that earth's climate is highly variable for many reasons we cannot control. The current warming quite likely would occur as they are, even if no people were on earth at all. Humanity does appear to want very badly to control everything. I don't think it is possible. Moreover, the next asteroid impact will erase any efforts we attempt to implement. Take a deep breath. Roll the dice and enjoy the ride. Remember that all the carbonate rocks in the Rockies, the alps and the Himalayas used to be atmospheric CO2.
Great choice of art work for the equation! BTW, the guy who created the "upside-down" triangle (the Nabla operator) was an electric engineer who in the early 20th century invented the Laplace Transform for the impulse and step functions but like all good engineers he never bother to prove them - he tested three time and they worked ... therefore there was no need to prove. (he actually would always point out that there was no proof. Proofs were acheived through two different methods in the late 50s and early 70s). He was Oliver Heavside and the Nabla operator is what made Maxwell's equation to fit on a t-shirt and still be readable.
solar radiance, sunspots, earth tilt and orbit, where were located in our galaxy, none of this info is covered. no mention of long periods of time and the fact there was a time the atmosphere was 20% carbon dioxide and we were in a massive ice age. the past matters also.
Kid at 1:02:30 basically describes the Cellular Automata approach to solving differential equations. Like Lattice-Gas-Automaton: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_gas_automaton and similar works, which are actually used in global climate change simulations: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445760.2017.1331438 Tim did not comment on that, but the idea is quite brilliant and testifies to the intuitiveness of CA and other agent-based simulations! ;) Way to go kid! Let me know when you choose to go in university! :P
The climate models always underestimate because the positive feedbacks are not included. Paul Beckwith does a great job of explaining what's going on in 15 minute TH-cam vids
So there lies the quandary we're in...how much insurance to buy, if any at all. Do we get full comprehensive coverage on a Bugatti; get liability coverage on a used Chevy; or just be an uninsured motorist. Problem is, we don't know what kind of car we're driving.
I disagree slightly, the car is us and other life. But we don't know if we'll just have a dent and a smashed in headlight or if the car will be totally wrecked. (Maybe a more fitting metaphor than a car is our children. Even a nice car seems too unimportant...). But I do agree that the cost-risk equation is hard. We can never hope to mitigate every risk.
The distinction, excellently illustrated, between the problems presented by the Lorenz equations and by the Navier-Stokes equations is a vital conceptual aid to those who lack the mathematical background to find their own way. He convinced me that the issues raised by the Lorenz equations (chaotic systems) are not fatal to climate prediction efforts. This represents a change of mind for me. However, the Navier-Stokes problem remains, and I'm less clear that the new breed of supercomputers will be adequate to the task of sufficiently resolving the remaining uncertainties. No supercomputer could even theoretically provide a full solution to predicting the climate down to the quantum scale. And how can we know that such hyper-resolution is unnecessary for the purpose of accurate long term climate prediction? He assumes (but doesn't cite evidence or really explain) that the exa-flop class, now pending, will clarify the last major outstanding question in climate prediction.
we are talking about the noise-floor here. the only way to penetrate that is though convergence. You cannot do convergence without adaptation. Convergence requires a "self" around which such convergence can happen. No kind of computer can do that until we allow it to have a "self". Here is the Rubicon. to grant our tools the freedom of self-hood. Who is ready to do that? I am sure there are some.
It seems to me that the wisest course of action is to use some of our relatively cheap fossil fuels to fund research into ways of using energy more efficiently to in turn fund the development of technologies which will allow us to adapt to climate change far better than otherwise. Given the high levels of uncertainty in the models, to put most of our eggs into the "reduce CO2" basket with the enormous costs associated, is to tie one hand behind our back whilst trying to solve the problem.
Human experience (observational perspective) is the key driver for the human carbon emissions climate debacle. My unique personal experience is fairly analogous. I was a pipe fitter for natural gas distribution maintenance and repair. Underground steel pipes had rusted over decades. A leak developed. A hole was dug to initiate its mitigation. During the process of repair, my crew foreman pointed to the northwest and excitedly warned that a furious storm cell would arrive in fifteen minutes. We could envision torrential rain, golf ball sized hail, and gale force winds. "Speed up your execution or we suffer the consequences", was his quintessential suggestion . We all knew short cuts. I took them. As a consequence, fifty pounds of continuous pressured gas escaped a 30 mm hole and while cheater sparks flew, it ignited. Here I was, PPE compliant, inside a green bubble of exothermic gas combustion with the high temperature envelope only an arms length away (3650 degrees F). The approaching storm cell had instantaneously become non-threatening. Let's all surmise and discuss the intricate details of the remainder of my work day, shall we.
Good presentsation. These fluctuations like El Nino or the AMO are not chaotic, but predictable. The wedge is predictable and thereby the average position of the pendulum, not its position at a certain time.
the little boys idea is almost exactly the same as inexact computing, wonderful interim idea, ie: take one out of say a thousand dolls(representing a calculation). this gives less accurate picture, but will give u a probabilty, that child caught everyone , absolutely wonderfull, is the uncluttered mind.
@ 55:03 *"Are there precedents for energy efficient imprecise supercomputing?" Yes, quantum physics!* According to *Anton Zeilinger,* (an Austrian quantum physicist who in 2008 received the Inaugural Isaac Newton Medal of the Institute of Physics, the fundamental reason for Quantum Entanglement and the Uncertainty Principle is that any particle or quantum system can only carry a certain amount of information (!). So our experiment "asks/dedects" exact information about the momentum, all information of its position is not merely undetectable, but really ceases to exist at all, because *such a small system, as small as a single quantum, can only carry one bit of information.* This might also hint to what that boy tried to formulate: *"What if Nature itself solves Navier Stokes in smallest scales, by introducing a Quantum cutoff? "* Zeilinger has proposed to theoretical physicists 12 years ago to play around with the hypothesis, that energy and information might be directly equivalent on a very fundamental basis. He himself has made hundreds of experiments and much praised progress in this direction. Strangely, neither Mathmaticians dealing with Navier Stokes EQ, nor Quantum Physicists are taking this serious enough.
Kirstin Strand Will today’s science be valid in 12 years when the climate change is irreversible ? ( or will they say , oops, we actually have another 5,10,20 years ?)
@@A2Z1Two3 there's no such thing as "irreversible climate change" There's no static climate to reverse too. The climate has always been variable and always will
Bottom line of lecture: weather cannot be predicted because of chaos theory but climate can be predicted .... place a pot of water on a stove and it will get warmer eh?
@star cruiser That begs the key question: just how detailed must our understanding of the variables be to produce models that are accurate *enough* to be actionable? The Navier-Stokes factor ensures that said models cannot be perfectly accurate ever.
The "wedge" is the problem in climate change, except that any variable looked at can be a wedge, and thus, focusing on a single wedge may give you a "conclusion" ceteris paribus, but changes in the "wedge" must lead to changes in the other "wedges", and thus, you're back where you started from. Every wedge is like its own chaotic pendulum. Nice try, but sophistry science.
He used the wedge metaphor to explain one aspect of chaos theory to non specialists. But some like you are not even able to understand a simple metaphor or what a metaphor is.
replace pixels by voxels, and that's he's isn't too far off. Now it's 7 years later, and perhaps the kid is playing or working with volume rendering on a bunch of graphics cards.
@@kahotamph there are periods and epochs etc, and we are going into the 5 th or so ice age. Global warming is politics, so I was wondering if he mentioned the truth, that we are getting colder, if anything?
@@jamescollier3 Speaking as a physicist myself, from what I understand that there had been some mention from fringe scientists about the possibility of heading to ice age but the vast majority (99%+) of renowned scientists see anthropogenic climate change as a matter with better than 5 sigma certainty - that is less than one in a million chance of being wrong.
@@kahotamph No. If you look up miocene glaciation it's when the Northern Ice started to form and its been getting cooler every since. That just doesn't sound as good as warming. We're going onto an ice age again. PS, So I won't listen. lol. I'm also a scientist by education and know what 6 sigma is 😀.
It's important to understand what is "air humidity" - it's not how much water is dissolved in the athmophere! It's a number from 0 to 100% and it's the percentage of water molecules that go from the athosphere to to a body of water in relation to the number of molecules that leave the body of water. Another important point is that the solubility of water in the atmosphere increases with the temperature - that means the air gets dryer even if the same mass of water is disolved if the temperature increases. So ... we don't contribute directly to the amount of water in the atmosphere but we contribute a lot indirectly when with the carbon we put in the atmosphere. From the point of view of electromagnetic radiation (light and heat) the humidity means nothing but the mass of water disolved in the atmosphere means everythng. He told 100 million dollars a year just to keep the machine running? The US - the country that contributed the most to the invasion of Ukraine - gave the US military-industrial complex 1000 years of Hexaflop supercomputing time since the war started. BTW, when I said "contributed" I meant "put more effort into making it happen".
The emergence of multiple massive level dams should be added to the list of climate change contributors and it would be interesting to see a comprehensive study regarding it and its correlation to the melting of the polar ice caps..
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable. * * * * * * * I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must all have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions...or possibly from horse and cattle farts.
The NYT is considered the preeminent news journal here in the U.S. ( aside from some loons on the far left and the right). It isn’t perfect, but no one clearly does it better. So if I understand your point, pretty good graph of estimates of world temperature. If you have a better graph of the temp., though, feel free to provide a reference. No crayons ( or sharpies) please.
The Earth is cooler from atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer. To perform as advertised the GHGs require "extra" energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. Because of the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules such a scenario is not possible. No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.
there is something i have asked before about climate models,that is the refrigeration affect ,of water on changing state from liquid to gas, this uses huge amounts of energy., if a model does not include this nett energy usage then it will be a lot less accurate. to condense again it will release energy high in the atmosphere which can be raidiated outwards much easier and quicker. this all results in a negative feedback.
All the old textbooks show a big bulge in the temperature graph in the 1930's and 1940's. Why has this warming been removed from the graphs in recent times? The raw unadjusted temperature data shows some warming in recent decades comparable to the warming in the 1930's and 1940's. After the data has been carefully adjusted upward it becomes the fake temperature record in this video. The satellite temperature record shows slight cooling on average since 2000. But the government graphs composed of carefully chosen and adjusted weather statiion data always show warming.
The urban Island heat creep is relevant for any city or forest clearing or where any change other than natural has occurred. This is measured in Temperature, but now every micro climate is effected at different rates. Who and how is this accurately calculated and constructed into the modelling. The clue is in here. Easy to hide and hard to argue against when they control the homogenised Temperature data. Cheers
@@trevorbertram8801 stop and think for a moment. When urban island effect was stronger? When termometer readings were higher than real values? in 1930's or now? Corrections they made should be opposite. Current readings should be lowered not past readings.
Maybe the models don't work because they're based upon presupposition that isn't correct. If they can't predict the past accurately that's an issue. Panic over mild increases that are part of historical ebb and flow is futile and expensive.
A new theory means more grants, a possible book, more lectures, more debate... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You get the picture.... IT's like the health industry always coming up with a new diet every so often... What is it now KETO? What happened to PALEO?
Sir You're absolutely adorable - in knowledge and articulation. It's incredible how you deal with even outrageous, purposeful lies of deniers. Hats off to you.
fact of the matter is all climate predictions have been wrong to the actual temperatures, and recorded data of temperature has shown that we are not the warmest in the last 100yrs
The Sun transmitts at an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, with an emission spectrum, peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Entering Earth's atmosphere, about 55% of the incoming sunlight is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere in the black body temperature range of 255K. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% of that is reflected back into outer space, which is what you would see from outer space looking back at the Earth. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth and be reradiated back into the atmosphere as infrared photons. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflect incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, the planet must heat.
Except co2 itself has a lower specific energy retension and lower specific heat index meaning added to a nitrogen atmosphere at less then 1 % means cool not warm ? Right ? Plus co2 added to nitrogen increase the opacity meaning more photons are kept from entering in the first place right meaning again cooler ? Additionally as far as i can tell atmospheric insulation is primarily determined by density and water, water vapor is far more prevalent and insulating. So if the laws of gases and thermodynamics haven't been over turned. Wouldn't pulling co2 out of the air. Cause the air to actually... get slightly more warmer ? Doesn't seem very logical and counter arguments so far haven't been very rational or make any sense.
Lol. Yeah, his judgement wasnt too great in that, he certainly didnt predict that little surprise did he? ... im not sure we should trust his predictions on this with that past record.
He is correct when describing the difficulties of solving N-S equations. One can then recognize that no current computer model can be adequate. It's sufficient to ask what mesh resolution did UN use in their (non peer reviewed afaik) studies. If there was an adequate computer model it would have a ripple effect in science and engineering and that just never happened. You would not need supercomputers to design airplanes. Also might I add: great closing to the lecture.
"Taking some mitigating action" Dr. Palmer didn't discuss an important underlying notion that it might not be possible to mitigate our risk at this point. This is a discussion worthy point. Some experts feel that we would have needed to make global policy changes back in the late '70s in order to have any chance at corrective action.
I have figured out the fallacy of Palmer's wedge demonstration used to shift the swings of the climate ball, with the claim that the wedge represents manmade CO2. This is another Palmer deceit. The magnets provide the energy to swing the climate ball, just as the natural climate forces provide the energy to swing the climate. One of the magnets, not the wedge, represents manmade CO2. What Palmer's wedge did was change the influence of ALL the magnets on the climate ball in a single direction and magnitude. It would correspond to changing ALL the natural forces affecting the climate in some one direction, not increasing the effect of only one of the forces, manmade CO2. Obviously, that is NOT what is happening in Earth's climate. If Palmer wanted to simulate increasing manmade CO2, he would make one of the magnets stronger. I doubt that would produce the effect he desired, which is probably why he didn't do the right thing. If he had a device with dozens of magnets, better representing the true complexity of the climate, and he increased the strength of one of the magnets to mimic manmade CO2, most likely there would no observable effect on the swinging of climate. Exactly what we actually observe in today's climate. It changes, but with no discernible relation to manmade CO2.
or she correctly pointed out that the illustration was cute but did not represent real world challenges to prediction such as the climate of a planet. It did show a property of this universe which has nothing to do with statistics.
You are of course right ! Technically there is another problem . The magnetic pendulum is TEMPORALLY chaotic . This means that its movement is described by a finite number of non linear ODE (ordinary differential equations) and it can be shown that there are 4 fixed points (equilibriums)with equal probability because the magnets are symetrical with regard to the axis to the pendulum . By setting the wedge, the symetry is broken so that there are still 4 fixed points but the probabilities are no more equal because of the broken symetry . This is trivial undergrad mathematics . This pseudo analogy has absolutely nothing to do with climate and teaches nothing about the predictability of (probabilities) in chaotic systems . Climate is SPATIO-TEMPORALLY chaotic . This means that it is described by non linear PDE (partial differential equations) equivalent to an infinity of ODE . As there is no stable equilibrium (the system can by definition not be isothermal) , it follows that there are NO fixed points and the probabilities that the system (=pendulum) is somewhere are not known . There are also no "symetries" that could be broken by a "wedge" . A somewhat better but still wrong analogy would be to have an infinite plate with an infinity of magnets moving on the plate and a pendulum of infinite length . Then an invisible wedge is inserted somewhere but it will also move . You can observe the pendulum and make all averages you want,yet you will be unable to say whether there is a wedge or how it moved .In other words you will be unable to predict the trajectory of the pendulum what is obvious because the system is chaotic but you will also be unable to predict the probability where it stops or even IF it stops regardless whether there is a wedge or not . P.S However it is relatively easy to prove that increasing CO2 (everything else being equal !) increases temperatures . The catch is that everything is not equal so that the temperatures don't increase everywhere and all the time . There are many much stronger factors (ENSO, clouds, polar caps, volcanos, aerosols etc) which overide all the time at variable places the CO2 effect . This can be easily seen in the fact that the temperature averaged over the surface of whole globe is never constant but fluctuates up and down all the time what means that the CO2 is only a (negligible ?) part of the story .
Photosynthesis is pegged to much more than CO2. Increasing CO2 concentrations aren't going to turn the world green and lush, I'm afraid. You still need nutrients, water, and O2 to match in scale for every plant in question.
Earth Dog, you are incorrect; the Earth has already become greener because of the increase in CO2, which has the side effect of reducing transpiration, and reducing water need. Plants expire oxygen as a waste product, they don't need it themselves, what they do need is available Nitrogen, from their roots, fixed by soil bacteria...
In spite of the questionable analogy of the wedge=C02, real data is more important than theoretics. Actual data shows the "pause" is real and getting longer and longer and longer. Now actual cooling is setting in an still the theoretical modelers can't accept the facts of the real world.
@@CyrilleParis There have been nearly 60 attempt to explain the "pause" by the alarmists and to date every one has been a "theory" that cannot be tested or if testable shown to be wrong. The con is believing the IPCC and its political agenda.
first you say your going to do something and do nothing then if forced you promise to spend lots of money and do something in a few years making it somome elses problem failing that you blame your political enemies for inaction,, only crisis can create change and only crisis ever could
'CO2 very very very long lived in the atmosphere'...be there for 100's of thousands of years' 1:07:20 I don't get that, it's very very very dangerously heavy.
I just love how in the "information age" people still ask questions as if there is no answer. I learned about the carbon cycle in high school science class, which explains why co2 is very long lived in the atmosphere. by the looks of your other posts, it is apparent that you are not a curious person.
Tim Palmer's answer was somewhat misleading. About 75% of CO2 will go away in 20 to 200 years and a small percentage takes hundreds of thousands of years. There is already a CO2 sequestering system that works and could be scaled up inexpensively if needed.
@4121Z0N4 My understanding is the following laws of physics are used to quantify the IR absorption spectrum properties of co2. Beer-Lambert law, Kirchhoff’s law, Planck’s law, Boltzmann distribution, Stefan-Boltzmann law, Einstein coefficients for emission and absorption.
@4121Z0N4 I gave you a list of laws of physics scientists used to calculate the heat absorption properties of co2. You can use them to calculate the heat absorption of any gas. Are you claiming that co2 does not absorb heat?
@4121Z0N4 I assume you are talking about the ideal gas law. But that is not relevant to what is being discussed here. What we were discussing before you crashed the party with your "questions and insults" tourettes was how long co2 stayed avaliable to the atmosphere.
"And Sodom had pride, fullness of bread and abundance of idleness. Neither did they strengthen the hands of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and commited abomination before me so I took them away as I saw fit."
OK. We solve the equations and come up with better predictions but the elephant in the room was only slightly addressed. How can we stop the present trend of the Earth heating up. Global energy production by humans is going up and right at this moment fossil fuels are being hunted down in the Northern Hemisphere like never before as the ice melts. The nearest scenario I can think of is we are driving at 100 m.p.h into a brick wall and we are trying to calculate how long it takes us to unclip our seatbelts.
+Hazza No Ordinary World Yes, at rate of about 400 cubic km melting/Year(might be somewhat realistic estimate todays melting in Greenland) consumes equivalent amount of energy in a decade that equals about 0,3 degrees celsius warming of atmosphere(the whole mass of it), if instead same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. Of course the total net amount of worlds ice melting is more relevant number, but to give just some scale/example. Oceans been "masking" the issue partly by taking in CO2 and also heat. Backslash is certain(actually happening right now also) by many means, not only burst of heat coming out from the oceans(ecological also). Oceans omits for ex. 1000-times more capacity to absorb heat as the atmosphere. We have increased already 40% of atmospheres CO2 and CO2 as the second largest contributor to GHG-effect(total effect from all GHG:s about 33C and CO2 about 10-25% of that). Significant amount and will have both expected and unexpected(abrupt also) consequences.
Ok, we've shown that even super computers can't model climate effectively. The youngster asking the first question was right. By coding the program in a certain way you can solve problems with less computing power. According to the IPCC graphic, humans emit 5B tons of CO2 per year and 150B tons are emitted by natural sources per year. How does the CO2 molecule emitted by humans know it's supposed to stay in the atmosphere for 100's to 1000's of years? When the earth gets too warm, water evaporates from the surface, clouds form blocking sunlight, rain falls cooling things down. That's negative feedback, not positive feedback.
The human addition of co2 shifts the balance so that it now accumulates differently and rises over time, in a way it would not if we added 30 gigaton extra per year... is it not? Not watched this specific talk yet. NASA have got some good data: climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial not harmful. CO2 is plant food, it is how living things grow. We are in a CO2 drought, dangerously close to the 'death line' of 150ppm where photosynthesis stops, and we need more of it not less. The dinosaurs enjoyed temperatures 10 degrees warmer than today, with CO2 levels around 1000-2000ppm, and they remain the most successful animals that have ever lived. In the Cambrian, 540 million years ago, CO2 was up around 7000ppm and instead of the planet boiling away, an explosion of new species appeared. CO2 does not drive temperature anyway. Temperature moves first, and 800 years later CO2 follows it, up or down. Don't believe what NASA, the NOAA or the IPCC say, they all alter observation data to deliberately produce misleading results, aimed at scaring the public and policy-makers into introducing draconian tax and energy policies that will drastically reduce your standard of living. In reality, there is no imminent 'climate catastrophe'. The polar ice sheets are increasing not decreasing. There is no catastrophic sea-level rise. The frequency and intensity of storms have been steadily falling for several decades. The oceans are not becoming more acidic, they are not acidic at all. Dying vegitation produces around 440 billion tons of CO2 a year, the oceans produce around 330 billion tons annually, animals around 150 billion tons, compared to 35 billion tons from human activity. This whole thing is the biggest deception ever purpetrated on mankind.
How can he say. near the end Q&As that a molecule of CO2 stays around for 1000's of years. He has already talked about the Carbon Cycle. CO2 cycles the C. Absorbed by plants (for example) eaten by animals, metabolised, and released, or just dies back into the soil humus layer, or the newly forming carbonate rock layer under the sea.. Who knows. The main point being that the molecule of CO2 was NEVER CREATED AT ALL!. The carbon was always there in the first place! Furthermore, as I understand it, the CO2 "window" of absorption (12 to 15 micros) is already closed. Push more CO2 into the atmosphere, but the "window" cannot close any further. It is at 100% already. 1,000 ppm won't change that! It is why farmers who can afford it build huge GREENHOUSES for heaven's sake! So, we could possibly enjoy a nice lifestyle like they did in the warm Roman Empire period. OR we could all freeze to death with malnutrition and no electricity like they did in the mini ice age 1800's. Depends on whether the CO2 alarmists get their way. How's that for chaos theory! Wonder which way the pendulum will swing?
@@CyrilleParis Indeed we are not, but CO2 is not harmful to any form of life on Earth, unless the concentration were to exceed 1% or 10,000ppm, which is unlikely in the extreme.
Awesome lecture. Worth listening all the way to the questions. "Climate change" is just the wrong framing though. If we pay more attention to psychology we might realise the ignorant will never take to the idea. Climate is constantly changing, so the phrase is devoid of useful content. "Global warming" is better, since on average that does have some content and information. But if the energy input from the Sun is not equally lost as radiation then the Earth would rapidly cook in a matter of years. So the real issue, the existential threat, is neither climate change nor global warming per se, it is species migration, ocean circulation, habitat changes across major zones, habitat pollutions, and mass extinctions. Once those things can be measured to have irreversibly changed beyond uncertainties, then there is something even sceptics will have to take seriously. Astoundingly, I think data on mass extinctions over a century or so is available, and is utterly shocking, and this is something that should be a major focus of public discussion and policy making.
Al Gore is gonna turn on the internet to control the weather. No point well made-2 major factors in the weather are the sun & the ocean. Basic concepts that are not being taught: the sun drives all climate-it provides light, warmth, & the stuff of photosynthesis. The sun emits radiation across the spectrum-most of what we receive is in visible light, specifically the indigo region. UV occurs at altitude & over large spaces of water. Dangerous x-rays are captured by the Van Allen Belts. The sun has its own weather-prominences, flares, coronal ejections, & sunspots. Sunspots are cooler regions on the sun because the magnetic field twists the solar currents around & spreads them laterally across the surface--therefore more of the other surface areas are more luminous. Oceans contribute water vapor & depict the basic difference of high pressure & low pressure. This leads to front creation & air mass composition all of which are pushed along by jet streams. Oceans are also the largest sink for co2 & absorb radiation only up to a certain depth & then it is in the aphotic zone. As the fetch circulates so do air pressure parcels & wind belts & ocean currents all of which create a routine weather pattern & a fairly typical climate of any location.
Unknown. To begin with, volcanic emission is most likely 10 times (perhaps more) higher than previously thought, mainly due to the incomplete measurement. And since whatever is not emitted naturally, MUST be anthropogenic, underestimation of naturally produced CO2 leads to an overestimation of the anthropogenic factor.
Job 37: 9-16 NLT 9 The stormy wind comes from its chamber, and the driving winds bring the cold. 10 God's breath sends the ice, freezing wide expanses of water. 11 He loads the clouds with moisture, and they flash with his lightning. 12 The clouds churn about at his direction. They do whatever he commands throughout the earth. 13 He makes these things happen either to punish people or to show his unfailing love. 14 "Pay attention to this, Job. Stop and consider the wonderful miracles of God! 15 Do you know how God controls the storm and causes the lightning to flash from his clouds? 16 Do you understand how he moves the clouds with wonderful perfection and skill? 17 When you are sweltering in your clothes and the south wind dies down and everything is still, 18 he makes the skies reflect the heat like a bronze mirror. Can you do that? The Hebrew word for "stormy wind" is cawphah and means a hurricane.
@@JamesJones-uj6wk Did you realize that nobody is going to spend eternity in Heaven. For those who don't spend eternity in everlasting torment will live blissfully in the New Jerusalem for ever. The New Jerusalem Rev 21:9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Rev 21:11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Rev 21:12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: Rev 21:13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. Rev 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev 21:15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. Rev 21:16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal.
@@CyrilleParis John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Some day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you don't confess that until after your death then you'll spend eternity in constant torment (where the fire is not quenched).
@@CyrilleParis The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it? Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth - through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves. Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer - not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22841-what-s-the-real-agenda-behind-climate-change-alarmism
This is a clever bit of deceit. Here's how it works. As a physicist, Palmer knows that a new theory has to account for known observations and make verifiable correct predictions. For a new theory about climate change, that means correctly explaining the geologic climate changes of the past from first principles (in this case, CO2), and correctly predicting future climate changes; in the near term that means global temperatures and perhaps major storms and heat waves. Failure to do so detracts from the theory's credibility. All the climate models based on the Warmists' theory of manmade climate change so far have a record of complete failure to replicate geologic climate changes from application of their principles to any initial conditions. They have a record of complete failure regarding global temperatures as measured by satellites, the most reliable method and the method with the most complete coverage of the earth, as well as major storms and heat waves. So how does Palmer rescue the Warmists' theory? By invoking chaos. Since climate is so complex (he argues), and predictions so undermined by chaos (he argues), it follows that even a true theory will fail to produce correct predictions and fail to reproduce the events of the past from initial conditions. In other words, failure of the models does not discredit the theory. Which makes the Warmists' theory unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Which makes it, in fact, a religion. Palmer wants us to believe that Catastrophic Manmade Climate Change is simply true even though it can't be proved to be true because chaos controls the output of the models. Despite the fact that after forty years, none of the dire predictions have happened. So human society (Warmists say) must proceed to spend trillions of dollars on an unprovable theory in order to prevent catastrophes that can't be reliably predicted because of the complexity of the climate. And do so just in case the theory is true, for no better reason than that the Warmists believe it is true so passionately.
What you say about the failure of the climate models is absolutely untrue. Eiher you are absolutely confused and don'tknow what you are talking about, or you are a blatant liar. Or both.
You would do better if you used beer and how it reacts on a warm day in retaining CO2 vs a cold day and is drinkable one day later. The worlds oceans are the great repository of CO 2. Yes they have increased by .5 degrees since 1700. Yes the temperature increased to 1998. But due to a lack of increased solar activity based on NASA observations and previous climate observations, we are moving cooler in overall solar output.
Ok, I have no clue what the climate will do in the next 20 or 100 years. Unfortunately neither do the climate scientist. They bases for all their theories rely on modals. While ignoring the two inescapable limitations of large scale and long timeline modals. First when you add or divide millions of times using the result of one calculation as the input of the next. The modal quickly reaches a point at witch the even infinitesimal amounts of error at the starting point overwhelms the accuracy of the output. The other problem is that systems of physical forces do not scale. For example when flow goes from smooth to turbulent. When forest growth reaches the point at which it chokes out undergrowth or when the rate of growth of the ocean's surface area is overtaken by the rate at which it is evaporated and excess water is transferred to subterranean aquifers. These are things that are not yet understood by science we are only now starting to understand how these transitions are triggered and what the forces involved are. No one can honestly say what the results of a sudden shift to a climate ware it rains on the Sera desert every day will be. How much water can the sand retain, what percentages will be retained at what depths and how will this affect the rate that water will be transferred to underground aquifers. What is the capacity of these aquifers.
Wow! Soooo much missing from those models. For starters, yep, I guess you need a 'longer' wedge. Starting point does matter. Second, it's important to understand the physical properties of the different CO2 states and how those interact with H20 vapor. And most importantly, your models and theories were based on models that failed to include the major drivers of weather, accurate ocean oscillations and solar forcing especially as relates to full vertical column radiation, solar winds, sun spot activity (not just minimal impact stratospheric irradiation). I will interested to hear your theory in the future about what happened when the planet cools significantly for years, decades, or longer. Understanding geomagnetism and solar cycles, both short and long-term, and all spectra of solar radiation are indispensible in even beginning to gain a longer term understanding of how the weather might change in the near and far future. Try programming those variables into your model and see what happens. I'm sure your lecture was convincing to many, but some of us prefer prediction models that contain ALL of the critical variables. If you can't represent the weather with a reasonable degree of accuracy, best not to panic the planet. It's not acceptable to use the excuse that there isn't enough computing power. I doubt that. 5C rise is complete fantasy. And you completely left the Russian modeling off of that chart. Their modelling was MUCH more accurate in predicting the actual temperatures we have experienced because they drastically reduced the level of carbon forcing. Add all of the critical variables into the model, including the 20+% weaking of the magnetosphere and you come to one overiding conclusion: 1 Don't throw your winter boots. 2. Pray current magnesphere weaking doesn't continue at its current rate or speed up and that there are no strong MCEs. The focus, energy, and dollars would be better devoted to at least upgrading the power grid, least one of those CMEs taking out the whole system. THAT would be true chaos and within 48 hours when store shelves are empty. CO2 is an imaginary enemy. Best to direct focus and limited resources on truly urgent matters.
Summer 2017 the leaves burnt off my yard trees and my flower bushes turned brown at the first of august. fall is october not the first of august. my lawn that i usually mow once a week, did not need mowing after the first of august. This is caused by coronal hole mass ejections { radiation }. There arer no sunspots { the normal sun action} So we have a grand solar minimum that means global cooling. If it is like the maunder minimum we will have food shortages. Possibly starvation. Earth heat comes from the sun. this minimum is on a regular cycle. 20 years no temperature rise. WHY IS THIS NEVER MENTIONED BY THE GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOW THE PAUSE PEOPLE. MY HEAT COMES FROM SUNSPOTS NOT RADIATION FROM CORONAL HOLE MASS EJECTIONS.
And NOBODY is a "climate change denier." The climate is ALWAYS changing. The real question is "how," not "if. The IPCC seems to think they understand how. They clearly don't. They (intentionally) based their model on incorrect and incomplete data. Any conclusions based on that model, including other models, are merely opinions, likely to be no more accurate than next month's weather report, if that. And you are recommending further reducing the number of weather and climate temperature drivers from the equation? Really?!
We are overthinking these, our planet has a finite volume, how naive (i don't want to be rude and say stupid) must you be to believe that we humans and all of our needs and activities have no effect on our planet's whether. We just need common sense, is a common knowledge that the oxygen we breed was produced by cyanobacteria, yes it took millions of years but to believe that no matter what we throw to our planet it will have no effect is idiotic to our detriment because earth will remain until the sun decides or other factors, we'll be gone along other creatures that depend for their survival.
Surround a fake temperature graph with a lot of pompous chit chat by a learned fellow and some people will believe it. Greg Dick? That's as good as Senator Markey's global warming expert Dr. Titley.
the kids question rocked th man of science. I know nothin of science but I know when people are lying, confused etc.it reminds me of one time in the midwest a truck got stuck under a free way under pass and evry government official city engineer were on scene trying to figuere out the problem. when a child on a bicycle comes up and says simply let some air out of the tires. math and science is a mystery to me but common sense is not. the science guy was trying to figuere out if that kid was right as he was dribling nonsense out of his mouth. altho that was a start. I think part of the problem with a lot of problems are over thinking them
the reason the man of science was rocked, is he was trying to think of how to explain his answer simply enough for the kid to understand. he replied that the problem wasn't pixilation (or aggregation) but the underlying equations. even after that the kid still didn't understand and in effect asked the same question again. being polite Tim said that maybe this approach might work as might many other approaches. fresh eyes can often see something that others don't, but in this case the kid lacked some basic understand of the issue, so came up with an simple solution. simple solutions are attractive because they are easier to understand, but that doesn't make them viable.
He spent the entire lecture talking about weather, not climate - Palmer doesn't seem to know the difference! It seems to me that this is just another bullshit scheme to get more funding for his "research", or , because he has realised that his current computers will merely add to global warming, it is his appeal for money for a more energy-efficient, less accurate computer. Huh?
Yes, it is really not possible to have even close enough good estimate about future climate for ex. so we have to put the total net-amount CO2 emitting close zero ASAP and also implement methods to remove it from the atmosphere and oceans. There is no good end result, if abuse of nature doesn't end. Can't see big relevant blocks of world divided, so that they can't work together. Have to undergo some kind of unification. If the worst doesn't realize, it will be good for long in the future have such good reasoning as in this lecture! No starting point to everything that exist now, because it has existed always already. Also because of this, it is absurd to ask why anything/everything exist, but understand that it means infinite complexity of the whole world independent of if there is certain limited amount of materia. For ex. Atheist are wrong as giving a zero probability estimate for gods existence, it is just that we have not much understanding in comparison to reality. No other space can exist due the same reason i.e. infinite, never ending and not having a capacity to include anything else and there is nothing else than everything that exist today at this infinite world. Thank You for great video! Two thumps up!!!
Every single chart i see be it nasa or noaa or different videos all had different graphs with different maximums and minimums and even different curves for temperature. What am i supposed to think about that.
and all agree to an astounding degree. Why are they all different, because averaging temperatures on a global can be done with different levels of accuracy and using different methods. Like i could use large areas, as data points. Take the average for areas of land the size of california, add them all up.. and the graph is going to look different, than taking the averages fo areas of land the size of rhode island. The later is going to be more accurate over all. Both are valid. The graphs will look slightly different with different max and mins, but will agree to a high degree of accuracy. What I wonder, is why you dont have the same questions about the piles of BS denialists like the heartland institute releases to deny AGW, and nor do you have the same quetions about their verified history of being totally and completely wrong every single solitary time. Like when they said cigs were addictive and didnt cause cancer. Or they said lead in gas was no big deal. Or when they said cfcs didnt cause the ozone hole. or when they said SO2 wasnt causing acid rain and that cap and trade of so2 would turn the us into a third world nation. Why no questions about that?
(25:99min) ... Tim Palmer presents what he calls "an animation of reality" ... LOL ... an animation isn't and never can be reality, because it's just an animation! In general throughout the whole talk Tim Palmer mentions again and again "amplifier" ... instead of "control loop" ... he should know better, that all of nature is organized in control loops, otherwise mankind would have become extinct already millions of years in the past.
The little wedge is increased cosmic ray flux. When the sun becomes quiet with few sun spots the the magnetosphere declines and cosmic rays increase. Increased cosmic rays create nucleation points which increases cloud cover and solar energy is reflected into space. CERN did the experiments and proved this year's ago. IPCC and others totally ignite this. A paper on how this works can be found at Dr Nir Shiviv's web site. Www.sciencebits.com There is another very simple explanation why CO2 increases. The planet has warmed but not because of increased CO2... Warmer water forces CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is so obvious. Put a Bootle of Beer on the stove and see what happens. Wine and beer makers knew this centuries ago.
@bulletsholes Isn't is curious that Tim Palmer repeatedly states how unreliable the calculations and projections are - even admits that his 'Russian dolls' model contains equations that science cannot prove - but then comes down firmly on the side of alleged human-caused global warming. So is that conclusion a scientific or a political one? Is it related to his funding source(s)? He correctly states that aeroplane contrails dissipate rapidly - but has apparently not been looking up recently ... to observe the trails that stay in the sky for hours and even days. Is he covering for his pals at the Oxford Geoengineering Programme who claim that stratospheric aerosol dispersion is just an idea?
I'm really glad I came back to this since watching it a year or so ago. In my second viewing, I realize how great is this lecture... I'm sharing this with others... and it pushes my curiosity out in so many ways. Thank you. More please.
I used to live with him in Berkshire. Well I lodged for a week. Loves marmite every morning and has 3 incredibly handsome sons 😆😆
Not only brilliantly informative, but also eloquently entertaining.. thank you Dr. Palmer!
The first 15 minutes are extremely interesting. Sometimes patience is necessary to gain knowledge
Patience is one of the Heavenly virtues.
Very interesting and informative. Thanks Prof. Palmer.
CO2 just one wedge. Over fishing of the Oceans, over use of Pesticides, Nuclear Waste, Plastic Pollution of the food chain, Clearing of Old growth forest, land clearing for Agriculture, over use of Antibiotics in stock feed. GM crops, fertilizer run off into streams
and river systems, introduction of foreign pest which compete with or prey on native species. Many other wedges to choose from.
Wedges 'r Us.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Some day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
If you don't confess that until after your death then you'll spend eternity in torment (where the fire is not quenched).
Linz Earth Too many humans. All the problems are due to humans concrete and bad management.
I saw this guy talking about Lonrenz's work - very good lecture, also.
I know a bit about dynamic control theory and when people say "but we can't predict the climate 100 years from now!" I reply "and aren't you worried we can't predict? And we really can't predict - what we can tell is it is becoming unstable and it will go to another stability but we don't know what conditions there will be."
How much as a percentage has changed for the better since we started using renewables and started to cool down the earth . As a percentage , simple question ?
Thanks for this classic. This should be on the list of important climatology lectures. Thanks. Will there be more on this topic? Is it not the most important topic of all time?
The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it?
Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth - through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves.
Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer - not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22841-what-s-the-real-agenda-behind-climate-change-alarmism
@bulletsholes Your name aptly represents the state of your brain.
@bulletsholes Correct.We're not threatened by a supposed human-caused change in climate that is not happening. We are threatened existentially by the West's continued warmongering for control of resources and the suppression/elimination of a fair alternative to the rule of the 1%. The fake climate change story is a means of distracting our attention from the real threats - and of making us even more reliant on governments ... to solve a non-existent problem.
Starts 3:05
Ice core samples tell us at 420 ppm and 500 ppm equivalent we are headed for hot house. This is hard to argue with as IT HAPPENED. Plus feedbacks and tips are cutting in. Our footprint is way to heavy now, and we will not stop our easy lifestyles. Hope is so distracting. Reality even IN YOUR FACE is not changing culture. We want it all,and we want it NOW . ❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️
A great lecture. It pleases me a lot. Certain variables are not addressed in the analysis which complicate understanding climate dynamics. Variability in solar radiance has substantial influence. The sun is not constant. Orbital dynamics is also not considered. The earths orbit is continuously changing due to gravitational influences of other planets. Distance to heat source must affect climate. The time frame of the analysis is also very limited, speaking as a geologist. Where I live there was 2000 feet of ice during the height of the last glaciation event. I am truly grateful for global warming because I love my Canadian home. That warming event is probably still ongoing. The retreat of the glaciers has been continuous since before humans were producing so much CO2. The unstoppable movement of continents also changes climate dramatically for many reasons other than CO2 content of the atmosphere. Before the last major glaciation there was no ice at the south pole and the northern islands of Canada had palm trees and crocodiles. Fossils don't lie. Life flourished very nicely at that time. The truth is that earth's climate is highly variable for many reasons we cannot control. The current warming quite likely would occur as they are, even if no people were on earth at all. Humanity does appear to want very badly to control everything. I don't think it is possible. Moreover, the next asteroid impact will erase any efforts we attempt to implement. Take a deep breath. Roll the dice and enjoy the ride. Remember that all the carbonate rocks in the Rockies, the alps and the Himalayas used to be atmospheric CO2.
Great choice of art work for the equation!
BTW, the guy who created the "upside-down" triangle (the Nabla operator) was an electric engineer who in the early 20th century invented the Laplace Transform for the impulse and step functions but like all good engineers he never bother to prove them - he tested three time and they worked ... therefore there was no need to prove. (he actually would always point out that there was no proof. Proofs were acheived through two different methods in the late 50s and early 70s). He was Oliver Heavside and the Nabla operator is what made Maxwell's equation to fit on a t-shirt and still be readable.
solar radiance, sunspots, earth tilt and orbit, where were located in our galaxy, none of this info is covered. no mention of long periods of time and the fact there was a time the atmosphere was 20% carbon dioxide and we were in a massive ice age. the past matters also.
Kid at 1:02:30 basically describes the Cellular Automata approach to solving differential equations. Like Lattice-Gas-Automaton: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_gas_automaton and similar works, which are actually used in global climate change simulations: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17445760.2017.1331438
Tim did not comment on that, but the idea is quite brilliant and testifies to the intuitiveness of CA and other agent-based simulations! ;)
Way to go kid! Let me know when you choose to go in university! :P
Very good lecture.
(If he decides to retire from science he would make an excellent choice for the next Dr. Who.)
The climate models always underestimate because the positive feedbacks are not included. Paul Beckwith does a great job of explaining what's going on in 15 minute TH-cam vids
Right or Wrong it's nice to see someone talking about the subject as honestly as he can.
So there lies the quandary we're in...how much insurance to buy, if any at all. Do we get full comprehensive coverage on a Bugatti; get liability coverage on a used Chevy; or just be an uninsured motorist. Problem is, we don't know what kind of car we're driving.
I disagree slightly, the car is us and other life. But we don't know if we'll just have a dent and a smashed in headlight or if the car will be totally wrecked. (Maybe a more fitting metaphor than a car is our children. Even a nice car seems too unimportant...). But I do agree that the cost-risk equation is hard. We can never hope to mitigate every risk.
The distinction, excellently illustrated, between the problems presented by the Lorenz equations and by the Navier-Stokes equations is a vital conceptual aid to those who lack the mathematical background to find their own way. He convinced me that the issues raised by the Lorenz equations (chaotic systems) are not fatal to climate prediction efforts. This represents a change of mind for me. However, the Navier-Stokes problem remains, and I'm less clear that the new breed of supercomputers will be adequate to the task of sufficiently resolving the remaining uncertainties. No supercomputer could even theoretically provide a full solution to predicting the climate down to the quantum scale. And how can we know that such hyper-resolution is unnecessary for the purpose of accurate long term climate prediction? He assumes (but doesn't cite evidence or really explain) that the exa-flop class, now pending, will clarify the last major outstanding question in climate prediction.
...says genius geek.... : /
No matter what mankind does we can not avoid the next ice age. Our future is cold.
@Marc Jackson, If climate science is really important to you then you must consider this: th-cam.com/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/w-d-xo.html
we are talking about the noise-floor here. the only way to penetrate that is though convergence. You cannot do convergence without adaptation. Convergence requires a "self" around which such convergence can happen. No kind of computer can do that until we allow it to have a "self". Here is the Rubicon. to grant our tools the freedom of self-hood. Who is ready to do that? I am sure there are some.
It seems to me that the wisest course of action is to use some of our relatively cheap fossil fuels to fund research into ways of using energy more efficiently to in turn fund the development of technologies which will allow us to adapt to climate change far better than otherwise. Given the high levels of uncertainty in the models, to put most of our eggs into the "reduce CO2" basket with the enormous costs associated, is to tie one hand behind our back whilst trying to solve the problem.
This was a very informative lecture. Thanks!
Human experience (observational perspective) is the key driver for the human carbon emissions climate debacle. My unique personal experience is fairly analogous. I was a pipe fitter for natural gas distribution maintenance and repair. Underground steel pipes had rusted over decades. A leak developed. A hole was dug to initiate its mitigation.
During the process of repair, my crew foreman pointed to the northwest and excitedly warned that a furious storm cell would arrive in fifteen minutes. We could envision torrential rain, golf ball sized hail, and gale force winds. "Speed up your execution or we suffer the consequences", was his quintessential suggestion . We all knew short cuts. I took them.
As a consequence, fifty pounds of continuous pressured gas escaped a 30 mm hole and while cheater sparks flew, it ignited. Here I was, PPE compliant, inside a green bubble of exothermic gas combustion with the high temperature envelope only an arms length away (3650 degrees F). The approaching storm cell had instantaneously become non-threatening. Let's all surmise and discuss the intricate details of the remainder of my work day, shall we.
Good presentsation. These fluctuations like El Nino or the AMO are not chaotic, but predictable. The wedge is predictable and thereby the average position of the pendulum, not its position at a certain time.
the little boys idea is almost exactly the same as inexact computing, wonderful interim idea,
ie: take one out of say a thousand dolls(representing a calculation). this gives less accurate picture, but will give u a probabilty, that child caught everyone , absolutely wonderfull, is the uncluttered mind.
@ 55:03 *"Are there precedents for energy efficient imprecise supercomputing?" Yes, quantum physics!*
According to *Anton Zeilinger,* (an Austrian quantum physicist who in 2008 received the Inaugural Isaac Newton Medal of the Institute of Physics, the fundamental reason for Quantum Entanglement and the Uncertainty Principle is that any particle or quantum system can only carry a certain amount of information (!). So our experiment "asks/dedects" exact information about the momentum, all information of its position is not merely undetectable, but really ceases to exist at all, because *such a small system, as small as a single quantum, can only carry one bit of information.*
This might also hint to what that boy tried to formulate: *"What if Nature itself solves Navier Stokes in smallest scales, by introducing a Quantum cutoff? "*
Zeilinger has proposed to theoretical physicists 12 years ago to play around with the hypothesis, that energy and information might be directly equivalent on a very fundamental basis.
He himself has made hundreds of experiments and much praised progress in this direction. Strangely, neither Mathmaticians dealing with Navier Stokes EQ, nor Quantum Physicists are taking this serious enough.
PS. As in Plancks Radiation formula (which is in the same physical SI Units as viscosity(!)), the quantum cutoff is frequency dependent.
This is now close to 2020. I cannot believe that any information here is relevant now. I clicked on this thinking it was timely!
Mathematics is timeless.
Kirstin Strand Will today’s science be valid in 12 years when the climate change is irreversible ?
( or will they say , oops, we actually have another 5,10,20 years ?)
@@A2Z1Two3 there's no such thing as "irreversible climate change"
There's no static climate to reverse too. The climate has always been variable and always will
Thank you, excellent presentation! sg
Bottom line of lecture: weather cannot be predicted because of chaos theory but climate can be predicted .... place a pot of water on a stove and it will get warmer eh?
@star cruiser spot on mate.
@star cruiser That begs the key question: just how detailed must our understanding of the variables be to produce models that are accurate *enough* to be actionable? The Navier-Stokes factor ensures that said models cannot be perfectly accurate ever.
The "wedge" is the problem in climate change, except that any variable looked at can be a wedge, and thus, focusing on a single wedge may give you a "conclusion" ceteris paribus, but changes in the "wedge" must lead to changes in the other "wedges", and thus, you're back where you started from. Every wedge is like its own chaotic pendulum. Nice try, but sophistry science.
He used the wedge metaphor to explain one aspect of chaos theory to non specialists. But some like you are not even able to understand a simple metaphor or what a metaphor is.
I suspect the kid who asked about Fractals might have a very good idea.
replace pixels by voxels, and that's he's isn't too far off. Now it's 7 years later, and perhaps the kid is playing or working with volume rendering on a bunch of graphics cards.
Excellent.
"CO2 largely opaque to outgoing infrared" - Only at very limited frequencies as I understand it.
11:55 is a nice analogy that clarifies the difference between climate and weather.
does he mention that we are headed into an ice age? or leave it out?
@@jamescollier3 ?
@@kahotamph there are periods and epochs etc, and we are going into the 5 th or so ice age. Global warming is politics, so I was wondering if he mentioned the truth, that we are getting colder, if anything?
@@jamescollier3 Speaking as a physicist myself, from what I understand that there had been some mention from fringe scientists about the possibility of heading to ice age but the vast majority (99%+) of renowned scientists see anthropogenic climate change as a matter with better than 5 sigma certainty - that is less than one in a million chance of being wrong.
@@kahotamph No. If you look up miocene glaciation it's when the Northern Ice started to form and its been getting cooler every since. That just doesn't sound as good as warming. We're going onto an ice age again. PS, So I won't listen. lol. I'm also a scientist by education and know what 6 sigma is 😀.
It's important to understand what is "air humidity" - it's not how much water is dissolved in the athmophere! It's a number from 0 to 100% and it's the percentage of water molecules that go from the athosphere to to a body of water in relation to the number of molecules that leave the body of water. Another important point is that the solubility of water in the atmosphere increases with the temperature - that means the air gets dryer even if the same mass of water is disolved if the temperature increases. So ... we don't contribute directly to the amount of water in the atmosphere but we contribute a lot indirectly when with the carbon we put in the atmosphere. From the point of view of electromagnetic radiation (light and heat) the humidity means nothing but the mass of water disolved in the atmosphere means everythng.
He told 100 million dollars a year just to keep the machine running? The US - the country that contributed the most to the invasion of Ukraine - gave the US military-industrial complex 1000 years of Hexaflop supercomputing time since the war started. BTW, when I said "contributed" I meant "put more effort into making it happen".
The emergence of multiple massive level dams should be added to the list of climate change contributors and it would be interesting to see a comprehensive study regarding it and its correlation to the melting of the polar ice caps..
too much weed !
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
* * * * * * *
I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago.
This must all have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions...or possibly from horse and cattle farts.
When will Rush start playing?
Very good lecture!
That temperature graph bears as much resemblance to the real temperature record as the New York Times resembles journalism.
The NYT is considered the preeminent news journal here in the U.S. ( aside from some loons on the far left and the right). It isn’t perfect, but no one clearly does it better. So if I understand your point, pretty good graph of estimates of world temperature. If you have a better graph of the temp., though, feel free to provide a reference. No crayons ( or sharpies) please.
The Earth is cooler from atmos/GHGs/albedo not warmer.
To perform as advertised the GHGs require "extra" energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body.
Because of the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmos molecules such a scenario is not possible.
No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven climate change or Gorebal warming.
there is something i have asked before about climate models,that is the refrigeration affect ,of water on changing state from liquid to gas, this uses huge amounts of energy., if a model does not include this nett energy usage then it will be a lot less accurate. to condense again it will release energy high in the atmosphere which can be raidiated outwards much easier and quicker. this all results in a negative feedback.
most water vapour doesn't rise higher than the Troposphere 12km up. so any radiation of heat out into space will be minimal at best.
4121Z0N4: I remember my first beer too.
All the old textbooks show a big bulge in the temperature graph in the 1930's and 1940's. Why has this warming been removed from the graphs in recent times? The raw unadjusted temperature data shows some warming in recent decades comparable to the warming in the 1930's and 1940's. After the data has been carefully adjusted upward it becomes the fake temperature record in this video. The satellite temperature record shows slight cooling on average since 2000. But the government graphs composed of carefully chosen and adjusted weather statiion data always show warming.
The urban Island heat creep is relevant for any city or forest clearing or where any change other than natural has occurred. This is measured in Temperature, but now every micro climate is effected at different rates. Who and how is this accurately calculated and constructed into the modelling. The clue is in here. Easy to hide and hard to argue against when they control the homogenised Temperature data. Cheers
I would have to see the graph. If you know the title of the textbooks, they may be out of copyright and available on the internet time machine as PDFs
@@trevorbertram8801 stop and think for a moment. When urban island effect was stronger? When termometer readings were higher than real values? in 1930's or now? Corrections they made should be opposite. Current readings should be lowered not past readings.
@@NEW-nm7gc th-cam.com/video/Gh-DNNIUjKU/w-d-xo.html it is nice because it uses only "official" data
Maybe the models don't work because they're based upon presupposition that isn't correct. If they can't predict the past accurately that's an issue.
Panic over mild increases that are part of historical ebb and flow is futile and expensive.
Im about 15 minutes into it and he still hasn't actually said anything......
With your input, I jumped to 23.
I thought the first 15 minutes were pretty good actually
A new theory means more grants, a possible book, more lectures, more debate... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You get the picture.... IT's like the health industry always coming up with a new diet every so often... What is it now KETO? What happened to PALEO?
Sir
You're absolutely adorable - in knowledge and articulation. It's incredible how you deal with even outrageous, purposeful lies of deniers. Hats off to you.
Ooo
fact of the matter is all climate predictions have been wrong to the actual temperatures, and recorded data of temperature has shown that we are not the warmest in the last 100yrs
The
Sun transmitts at an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K,
with
an emission spectrum, peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the
visible spectrum. Entering Earth's atmosphere, about
55% of the incoming sunlight is infrared photons. They strike the
Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere in the black
body temperature range of 255K. The other 45% is white light and of
that, about 30% of that is reflected back into outer space, which is
what you would see from outer space looking back at the Earth. That
should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike
the Earth and be reradiated back into the atmosphere as infrared
photons. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5%
total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared
photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more
outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing
infrared photons than reflect incoming photons. That being said, all
things being equal, the planet must heat.
Except co2 itself has a lower specific energy retension and lower specific heat index meaning added to a nitrogen atmosphere at less then 1 % means cool not warm ? Right ? Plus co2 added to nitrogen increase the opacity meaning more photons are kept from entering in the first place right meaning again cooler ?
Additionally as far as i can tell atmospheric insulation is primarily determined by density and water, water vapor is far more prevalent and insulating.
So if the laws of gases and thermodynamics haven't been over turned.
Wouldn't pulling co2 out of the air. Cause the air to actually... get slightly more warmer ?
Doesn't seem very logical and counter arguments so far haven't been very rational or make any sense.
Marc Jackson: Why are you so angry?
To summarize, we don't have the ability yet to model climate for the next 100 years...Exoflop!
Great lecture!!!
Is this not the guy from the "Crying Game"?
lol!!
Lol. Yeah, his judgement wasnt too great in that, he certainly didnt predict that little surprise did he? ... im not sure we should trust his predictions on this with that past record.
great lecture 🎉
He is correct when describing the difficulties of solving N-S equations.
One can then recognize that no current computer model can be adequate.
It's sufficient to ask what mesh resolution did UN use in their (non peer reviewed afaik) studies.
If there was an adequate computer model it would have a ripple effect in science and engineering and that just never happened. You would not need supercomputers to design airplanes.
Also might I add: great closing to the lecture.
N-s equations are as easy as two plus two equals twenty two.
Dan Britt explains it much better in his lecture "Orbits and Ice Ages".
where can i watch these live?
+Cj Lucansky
On the PI website.
"Taking some mitigating action" Dr. Palmer didn't discuss an important underlying notion that it might not be possible to mitigate our risk at this point. This is a discussion worthy point. Some experts feel that we would have needed to make global policy changes back in the late '70s in order to have any chance at corrective action.
th-cam.com/video/Gq_bjaI0NTo/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MannyLopez
I have figured out the fallacy of Palmer's wedge demonstration used to shift the swings of the climate ball, with the claim that the wedge represents manmade CO2. This is another Palmer deceit.
The magnets provide the energy to swing the climate ball, just as the natural climate forces provide the energy to swing the climate. One of the magnets, not the wedge, represents manmade CO2. What Palmer's wedge did was change the influence of ALL the magnets on the climate ball in a single direction and magnitude. It would correspond to changing ALL the natural forces affecting the climate in some one direction, not increasing the effect of only one of the forces, manmade CO2.
Obviously, that is NOT what is happening in Earth's climate.
If Palmer wanted to simulate increasing manmade CO2, he would make one of the magnets stronger. I doubt that would produce the effect he desired, which is probably why he didn't do the right thing. If he had a device with dozens of magnets, better representing the true complexity of the climate, and he increased the strength of one of the magnets to mimic manmade CO2, most likely there would no observable effect on the swinging of climate. Exactly what we actually observe in today's climate. It changes, but with no discernible relation to manmade CO2.
or she correctly pointed out that the illustration was cute but did not represent real world challenges to prediction such as the climate of a planet. It did show a property of this universe which has nothing to do with statistics.
You are of course right !
Technically there is another problem .
The magnetic pendulum is TEMPORALLY chaotic . This means that its movement is described by a finite number of non linear ODE (ordinary differential equations) and it can be shown that there are 4 fixed points (equilibriums)with equal probability because the magnets are symetrical with regard to the axis to the pendulum .
By setting the wedge, the symetry is broken so that there are still 4 fixed points but the probabilities are no more equal because of the broken symetry . This is trivial undergrad mathematics .
This pseudo analogy has absolutely nothing to do with climate and teaches nothing about the predictability of (probabilities) in chaotic systems . Climate is SPATIO-TEMPORALLY chaotic . This means that it is described by non linear PDE (partial differential equations) equivalent to an infinity of ODE . As there is no stable equilibrium (the system can by definition not be isothermal) , it follows that there are NO fixed points and the probabilities that the system (=pendulum) is somewhere are not known . There are also no "symetries" that could be broken by a "wedge" .
A somewhat better but still wrong analogy would be to have an infinite plate with an infinity of magnets moving on the plate and a pendulum of infinite length . Then an invisible wedge is inserted somewhere but it will also move . You can observe the pendulum and make all averages you want,yet you will be unable to say whether there is a wedge or how it moved .In other words you will be unable to predict the trajectory of the pendulum what is obvious because the system is chaotic but you will also be unable to predict the probability where it stops or even IF it stops regardless whether there is a wedge or not .
P.S
However it is relatively easy to prove that increasing CO2 (everything else being equal !) increases temperatures .
The catch is that everything is not equal so that the temperatures don't increase everywhere and all the time .
There are many much stronger factors (ENSO, clouds, polar caps, volcanos, aerosols etc) which overide all the time at variable places the CO2 effect . This can be easily seen in the fact that the temperature averaged over the surface of whole globe is never constant but fluctuates up and down all the time what means that the CO2 is only a (negligible ?) part of the story .
Now factor in weather Modification going on for 60 years minimum.
Why do climate change models don't account for change in rate of photosynthesis due to increase in carbon dioxide in atmosphere?
Photosynthesis is pegged to much more than CO2. Increasing CO2 concentrations aren't going to turn the world green and lush, I'm afraid. You still need nutrients, water, and O2 to match in scale for every plant in question.
Earth Dog, you are incorrect; the Earth has already become greener because of the increase in CO2, which has the side effect of reducing transpiration, and reducing water need. Plants expire oxygen as a waste product, they don't need it themselves, what they do need is available Nitrogen, from their roots, fixed by soil bacteria...
@@Ironic1950 Sources please
...any elementary grade physics textbook?
Do the models actually hae to be realistic/functional? Who is going to critique??
Can someone show this to D. Trump? Maybe the catchy colors will make him understand (doubt it)
In spite of the questionable analogy of the wedge=C02, real data is more important than theoretics. Actual data shows the "pause" is real and getting longer and longer and longer. Now actual cooling is setting in an still the theoretical modelers can't accept the facts of the real world.
I agree. And we will know by about 2023 at the latest
No. Your data is either wrong or outdated. You've been conned in believing this.
@@CyrilleParis There have been nearly 60 attempt to explain the "pause" by the alarmists and to date every one has been a "theory" that cannot be tested or if testable shown to be wrong. The con is believing the IPCC and its political agenda.
@@purplechum9 There is no "pause" except in your intelligence. Check the data : data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
No pause. Every decade is hotter than the prior one, going on 5 decades now.
Cheeky... 7:30 then 46:57. Brilliant 1:00:15 - 1:02:16.
We exiting the last ice age. Weather is warming. That's it.
first you say your going to do something and do nothing then if forced you promise to spend lots of money and do something in a few years making it somome elses problem failing that you blame your political enemies for inaction,, only crisis can create change and only crisis ever could
I wonder what would happen if the chaos theory were applied to the outcome of climate science itself...
ha - dry so dry
The singer for The Who ,,,, ha. Mother Earth wants us gone.... ❤️❤️🌎❤️
Greg Dick? Are you serious? That's almost as good as Senator Markey's expert on global warming Dr. Titley.
'CO2 very very very long lived in the atmosphere'...be there for 100's of thousands of years' 1:07:20 I don't get that, it's very very very dangerously heavy.
I just love how in the "information age" people still ask questions as if there is no answer. I learned about the carbon cycle in high school science class, which explains why co2 is very long lived in the atmosphere.
by the looks of your other posts, it is apparent that you are not a curious person.
Tim Palmer's answer was somewhat misleading. About 75% of CO2 will go away in 20 to 200 years and a small percentage takes hundreds of thousands of years. There is already a CO2 sequestering system that works and could be scaled up inexpensively if needed.
@4121Z0N4
My understanding is the following laws of physics are used to quantify the IR absorption spectrum properties of co2.
Beer-Lambert law,
Kirchhoff’s law,
Planck’s law,
Boltzmann distribution,
Stefan-Boltzmann law,
Einstein coefficients for emission and absorption.
@4121Z0N4
I gave you a list of laws of physics scientists used to calculate the heat absorption properties of co2. You can use them to calculate the heat absorption of any gas.
Are you claiming that co2 does not absorb heat?
@4121Z0N4
I assume you are talking about the ideal gas law.
But that is not relevant to what is being discussed here.
What we were discussing before you crashed the party with your "questions and insults" tourettes was how long co2 stayed avaliable to the atmosphere.
"And Sodom had pride, fullness of bread and abundance of idleness. Neither did they strengthen the hands of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and commited abomination before me so I took them away as I saw fit."
The take away i got is that its all about Risk management.
OK. We solve the equations and come up with better predictions but the elephant in the room was only slightly addressed. How can we stop the present trend of the Earth heating up. Global energy production by humans is going up and right at this moment fossil fuels are being hunted down in the Northern Hemisphere like never before as the ice melts. The nearest scenario I can think of is we are driving at 100 m.p.h into a brick wall and we are trying to calculate how long it takes us to unclip our seatbelts.
+Hazza No Ordinary World Yes, at rate of about 400 cubic km melting/Year(might be somewhat realistic estimate todays melting in Greenland) consumes equivalent amount of energy in a decade that equals about 0,3 degrees celsius warming of atmosphere(the whole mass of it), if instead same amount of energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. Of course the total net amount of worlds ice melting is more relevant number, but to give just some scale/example. Oceans been "masking" the issue partly by taking in CO2 and also heat. Backslash is certain(actually happening right now also) by many means, not only burst of heat coming out from the oceans(ecological also). Oceans omits for ex. 1000-times more capacity to absorb heat as the atmosphere. We have increased already 40% of atmospheres CO2 and CO2 as the second largest contributor to GHG-effect(total effect from all GHG:s about 33C and CO2 about 10-25% of that). Significant amount and will have both expected and unexpected(abrupt also) consequences.
Apparently Manhattan's going to be flooded permanently by 2010. We're in real trouble.
LOL at the guy at 44.12.
Ok, we've shown that even super computers can't model climate effectively. The youngster asking the first question was right. By coding the program in a certain way you can solve problems with less computing power. According to the IPCC graphic, humans emit 5B tons of CO2 per year and 150B tons are emitted by natural sources per year. How does the CO2 molecule emitted by humans know it's supposed to stay in the atmosphere for 100's to 1000's of years? When the earth gets too warm, water evaporates from the surface, clouds form blocking sunlight, rain falls cooling things down. That's negative feedback, not positive feedback.
The human addition of co2 shifts the balance so that it now accumulates differently and rises over time, in a way it would not if we added 30 gigaton extra per year... is it not? Not watched this specific talk yet. NASA have got some good data: climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial not harmful. CO2 is plant food, it is how living things grow. We are in a CO2 drought, dangerously close to the 'death line' of 150ppm where photosynthesis stops, and we need more of it not less. The dinosaurs enjoyed temperatures 10 degrees warmer than today, with CO2 levels around 1000-2000ppm, and they remain the most successful animals that have ever lived. In the Cambrian, 540 million years ago, CO2 was up around 7000ppm and instead of the planet boiling away, an explosion of new species appeared. CO2 does not drive temperature anyway. Temperature moves first, and 800 years later CO2 follows it, up or down. Don't believe what NASA, the NOAA or the IPCC say, they all alter observation data to deliberately produce misleading results, aimed at scaring the public and policy-makers into introducing draconian tax and energy policies that will drastically reduce your standard of living. In reality, there is no imminent 'climate catastrophe'. The polar ice sheets are increasing not decreasing. There is no catastrophic sea-level rise. The frequency and intensity of storms have been steadily falling for several decades. The oceans are not becoming more acidic, they are not acidic at all. Dying vegitation produces around 440 billion tons of CO2 a year, the oceans produce around 330 billion tons annually, animals around 150 billion tons, compared to 35 billion tons from human activity. This whole thing is the biggest deception ever purpetrated on mankind.
How can he say. near the end Q&As that a molecule of CO2 stays around for 1000's of years. He has already talked about the Carbon Cycle. CO2 cycles the C. Absorbed by plants (for example) eaten by animals, metabolised, and released, or just dies back into the soil humus layer, or the newly forming carbonate rock layer under the sea.. Who knows. The main point being that the molecule of CO2 was NEVER CREATED AT ALL!. The carbon was always there in the first place!
Furthermore, as I understand it, the CO2 "window" of absorption (12 to 15 micros) is already closed. Push more CO2 into the atmosphere, but the "window" cannot close any further. It is at 100% already. 1,000 ppm won't change that! It is why farmers who can afford it build huge GREENHOUSES for heaven's sake!
So, we could possibly enjoy a nice lifestyle like they did in the warm Roman Empire period. OR we could all freeze to death with malnutrition and no electricity like they did in the mini ice age 1800's. Depends on whether the CO2 alarmists get their way. How's that for chaos theory! Wonder which way the pendulum will swing?
@@andyrowlands50029 You would be absolutely right : Co2 would be good for us... if we were dinosaurs or plants. Alas we are not.
@@CyrilleParis Indeed we are not, but CO2 is not harmful to any form of life on Earth, unless the concentration were to exceed 1% or 10,000ppm, which is unlikely in the extreme.
Awesome lecture. Worth listening all the way to the questions. "Climate change" is just the wrong framing though. If we pay more attention to psychology we might realise the ignorant will never take to the idea. Climate is constantly changing, so the phrase is devoid of useful content. "Global warming" is better, since on average that does have some content and information. But if the energy input from the Sun is not equally lost as radiation then the Earth would rapidly cook in a matter of years. So the real issue, the existential threat, is neither climate change nor global warming per se, it is species migration, ocean circulation, habitat changes across major zones, habitat pollutions, and mass extinctions. Once those things can be measured to have irreversibly changed beyond uncertainties, then there is something even sceptics will have to take seriously. Astoundingly, I think data on mass extinctions over a century or so is available, and is utterly shocking, and this is something that should be a major focus of public discussion and policy making.
What about the sun and ocean influence? Very poor position
Al Gore is gonna turn on the internet to control the weather. No point well made-2 major factors in the weather are the sun & the ocean. Basic concepts that are not being taught: the sun drives all climate-it provides light, warmth, & the stuff of photosynthesis. The sun emits radiation across the spectrum-most of what we receive is in visible light, specifically the indigo region. UV occurs at altitude & over large spaces of water. Dangerous x-rays are captured by the Van Allen Belts. The sun has its own weather-prominences, flares, coronal ejections, & sunspots. Sunspots are cooler regions on the sun because the magnetic field twists the solar currents around & spreads them laterally across the surface--therefore more of the other surface areas are more luminous. Oceans contribute water vapor & depict the basic difference of high pressure & low pressure. This leads to front creation & air mass composition all of which are pushed along by jet streams. Oceans are also the largest sink for co2 & absorb radiation only up to a certain depth & then it is in the aphotic zone. As the fetch circulates so do air pressure parcels & wind belts & ocean currents all of which create a routine weather pattern & a fairly typical climate of any location.
chaos is not the solution go back to the a room where you are allown and this will open all your feelings thats all.
our wedge is the SUN
©️52:06
What percentage of the total atmosphere is Co2 from fossil fuel burning by humans?
Unknown. To begin with, volcanic emission is most likely 10 times (perhaps more) higher than previously thought, mainly due to the incomplete measurement. And since whatever is not emitted naturally, MUST be anthropogenic, underestimation of naturally produced CO2 leads to an overestimation of the anthropogenic factor.
0.0016% That's from all human activity. Not sure what it is from fossil fuel burning.
Job 37: 9-16 NLT
9 The stormy wind comes from its chamber,
and the driving winds bring the cold.
10 God's breath sends the ice,
freezing wide expanses of water.
11 He loads the clouds with moisture,
and they flash with his lightning.
12 The clouds churn about at his direction.
They do whatever he commands throughout the earth.
13 He makes these things happen either to punish people
or to show his unfailing love.
14 "Pay attention to this, Job.
Stop and consider the wonderful miracles of God!
15 Do you know how God controls the storm
and causes the lightning to flash from his clouds?
16 Do you understand how he moves the clouds
with wonderful perfection and skill?
17 When you are sweltering in your clothes
and the south wind dies down and everything is still,
18 he makes the skies reflect the heat like a bronze mirror.
Can you do that?
The Hebrew word for "stormy wind" is cawphah and means a hurricane.
So we all are going to get covered with sores before we go to heaven.
@@JamesJones-uj6wk Did you realize that nobody is going to spend eternity in Heaven. For those who don't spend eternity in everlasting torment will live blissfully in the New Jerusalem for ever.
The New Jerusalem
Rev 21:9 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife."
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Rev 21:11 having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.
Rev 21:12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
Rev 21:13 three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west.
Rev 21:14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Rev 21:15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall.
Rev 21:16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal.
@@pastorpresent1134 Can you please stop ranting with quotes from pre-bronze age illeterate desert savages?
@@CyrilleParis John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Some day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
If you don't confess that until after your death then you'll spend eternity in constant torment (where the fire is not quenched).
@@CyrilleParis The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it?
Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth - through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves.
Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer - not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22841-what-s-the-real-agenda-behind-climate-change-alarmism
This is a clever bit of deceit. Here's how it works. As a physicist, Palmer knows that a new theory has to account for known observations and make verifiable correct predictions. For a new theory about climate change, that means correctly explaining the geologic climate changes of the past from first principles (in this case, CO2), and correctly predicting future climate changes; in the near term that means global temperatures and perhaps major storms and heat waves. Failure to do so detracts from the theory's credibility.
All the climate models based on the Warmists' theory of manmade climate change so far have a record of complete failure to replicate geologic climate changes from application of their principles to any initial conditions. They have a record of complete failure regarding global temperatures as measured by satellites, the most reliable method and the method with the most complete coverage of the earth, as well as major storms and heat waves.
So how does Palmer rescue the Warmists' theory? By invoking chaos. Since climate is so complex (he argues), and predictions so undermined by chaos (he argues), it follows that even a true theory will fail to produce correct predictions and fail to reproduce the events of the past from initial conditions. In other words, failure of the models does not discredit the theory. Which makes the Warmists' theory unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Which makes it, in fact, a religion.
Palmer wants us to believe that Catastrophic Manmade Climate Change is simply true even though it can't be proved to be true because chaos controls the output of the models. Despite the fact that after forty years, none of the dire predictions have happened. So human society (Warmists say) must proceed to spend trillions of dollars on an unprovable theory in order to prevent catastrophes that can't be reliably predicted because of the complexity of the climate. And do so just in case the theory is true, for no better reason than that the Warmists believe it is true so passionately.
your pathetic logic disintegrates about 3 sentences in. how do you live with such confusion?
You nailed it . look at those two comments, nothing but crap.
someone does not know what they are talking about, it is not the guy in the video.
What you say about the failure of the climate models is absolutely untrue. Eiher you are absolutely confused and don'tknow what you are talking about, or you are a blatant liar. Or both.
Do you smell oil ?
yes - snake oil!
You would do better if you used beer and how it reacts on a warm day in retaining CO2 vs a cold day and is drinkable one day later. The worlds oceans are the great repository of CO 2. Yes they have increased by .5 degrees since 1700. Yes the temperature increased to 1998. But due to a lack of increased solar activity based on NASA observations and previous climate observations, we are moving cooler in overall solar output.
says someone with an empty you tube account
Ok, I have no clue what the climate will do in the next 20 or 100 years. Unfortunately neither do the climate scientist.
They bases for all their theories rely on modals. While ignoring the two inescapable limitations of large scale and long timeline modals. First when you add or divide millions of times using the result of one calculation as the input of the next. The modal quickly reaches a point at witch the even infinitesimal amounts of error at the starting point overwhelms the accuracy of the output. The other problem is that systems of physical forces do not scale. For example when flow goes from smooth to turbulent. When forest growth reaches the point at which it chokes out undergrowth or when the rate of growth of the ocean's surface area is overtaken by the rate at which it is evaporated and excess water is transferred to subterranean aquifers. These are things that are not yet understood by science we are only now starting to understand how these transitions are triggered and what the forces involved are. No one can honestly say what the results of a sudden shift to a climate ware it rains on the Sera desert every day will be. How much water can the sand retain, what percentages will be retained at what depths and how will this affect the rate that water will be transferred to underground aquifers. What is the capacity of these aquifers.
Climate scientists certainly have a clue. It will get warmer, just as they have predicted for 50 years now, and have been entirely correct about.
Wow! Soooo much missing from those models. For starters, yep, I guess you need a 'longer' wedge. Starting point does matter. Second, it's important to understand the physical properties of the different CO2 states and how those interact with H20 vapor. And most importantly, your models and theories were based on models that failed to include the major drivers of weather, accurate ocean oscillations and solar forcing especially as relates to full vertical column radiation, solar winds, sun spot activity (not just minimal impact stratospheric irradiation). I will interested to hear your theory in the future about what happened when the planet cools significantly for years, decades, or longer. Understanding geomagnetism and solar cycles, both short and long-term, and all spectra of solar radiation are indispensible in even beginning to gain a longer term understanding of how the weather might change in the near and far future. Try programming those variables into your model and see what happens. I'm sure your lecture was convincing to many, but some of us prefer prediction models that contain ALL of the critical variables. If you can't represent the weather with a reasonable degree of accuracy, best not to panic the planet. It's not acceptable to use the excuse that there isn't enough computing power. I doubt that. 5C rise is complete fantasy. And you completely left the Russian modeling off of that chart. Their modelling was MUCH more accurate in predicting the actual temperatures we have experienced because they drastically reduced the level of carbon forcing. Add all of the critical variables into the model, including the 20+% weaking of the magnetosphere and you come to one overiding conclusion: 1 Don't throw your winter boots. 2. Pray current magnesphere weaking doesn't continue at its current rate or speed up and that there are no strong MCEs. The focus, energy, and dollars would be better devoted to at least upgrading the power grid, least one of those CMEs taking out the whole system. THAT would be true chaos and within 48 hours when store shelves are empty. CO2 is an imaginary enemy. Best to direct focus and limited resources on truly urgent matters.
VERY GOOD ANALYSIS. I AGREE TOTALLY.
Summer 2017 the leaves burnt off my yard trees and my flower bushes turned brown at the first of august. fall is october not the first of august. my lawn that i usually mow once a week, did not need mowing after the first of august. This is caused by coronal hole mass ejections { radiation }. There arer no sunspots { the normal sun action} So we have a grand solar minimum that means global cooling. If it is like the maunder minimum we will have food shortages. Possibly starvation. Earth heat comes from the sun. this minimum is on a regular cycle. 20 years no temperature rise. WHY IS THIS NEVER MENTIONED BY THE GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOW THE PAUSE PEOPLE. MY HEAT COMES FROM SUNSPOTS NOT RADIATION FROM CORONAL HOLE MASS EJECTIONS.
And NOBODY is a "climate change denier." The climate is ALWAYS changing. The real question is "how," not "if. The IPCC seems to think they understand how. They clearly don't. They (intentionally) based their model on incorrect and incomplete data. Any conclusions based on that model, including other models, are merely opinions, likely to be no more accurate than next month's weather report, if that. And you are recommending further reducing the number of weather and climate temperature drivers from the equation? Really?!
We are overthinking these, our planet has a finite volume, how naive (i don't want to be rude and say stupid) must you be to believe that we humans and all of our needs and activities have no effect on our planet's whether. We just need common sense, is a common knowledge that the oxygen we breed was produced by cyanobacteria, yes it took millions of years but to
believe that no matter what we throw to our planet it will have no effect is idiotic to our detriment because earth will remain until the sun decides or other factors, we'll be gone along other creatures that depend for their survival.
Surround a fake temperature graph with a lot of pompous chit chat by a learned fellow and some people will believe it. Greg Dick? That's as good as Senator Markey's global warming expert Dr. Titley.
the kids question rocked th man of science. I know nothin of science but I know when people are lying, confused etc.it reminds me of one time in the midwest a truck got stuck under a free way under pass and evry government official city engineer were on scene trying to figuere out the problem. when a child on a bicycle comes up and says simply let some air out of the tires. math and science is a mystery to me but common sense is not. the science guy was trying to figuere out if that kid was right as he was dribling nonsense out of his mouth. altho that was a start. I think part of the problem with a lot of problems are over thinking them
the reason the man of science was rocked, is he was trying to think of how to explain his answer simply enough for the kid to understand.
he replied that the problem wasn't pixilation (or aggregation) but the underlying equations.
even after that the kid still didn't understand and in effect asked the same question again.
being polite Tim said that maybe this approach might work as might many other approaches.
fresh eyes can often see something that others don't, but in this case the kid lacked some basic understand of the issue, so came up with an simple solution. simple solutions are attractive because they are easier to understand, but that doesn't make them viable.
He spent the entire lecture talking about weather, not climate - Palmer doesn't seem to know the difference!
It seems to me that this is just another bullshit scheme to get more funding for his "research", or , because he has realised that his current computers will merely add to global warming, it is his appeal for money for a more energy-efficient, less accurate computer. Huh?
Yes, it is really not possible to have even close enough good estimate about future climate for ex. so we have to put the total net-amount CO2 emitting close zero ASAP and also implement methods to remove it from the atmosphere and oceans. There is no good end result, if abuse of nature doesn't end. Can't see big relevant blocks of world divided, so that they can't work together. Have to undergo some kind of unification. If the worst doesn't realize, it will be good for long in the future have such good reasoning as in this lecture! No starting point to everything that exist now, because it has existed always already. Also because of this, it is absurd to ask why anything/everything exist, but understand that it means infinite complexity of the whole world independent of if there is certain limited amount of materia. For ex. Atheist are wrong as giving a zero probability estimate for gods existence, it is just that we have not much understanding in comparison to reality. No other space can exist due the same reason i.e. infinite, never ending and not having a capacity to include anything else and there is nothing else than everything that exist today at this infinite world.
Thank You for great video! Two thumps up!!!
Robusti09: Two thumps up?
Money is y he chose climate change
"Except you repent you will likewise paerish." And find out that you are not gods like you think.
Cirrus clouds? Sounds a lot like chemtrails.
Every single chart i see be it nasa or noaa or different videos all had different graphs with different maximums and minimums and even different curves for temperature. What am i supposed to think about that.
and all agree to an astounding degree.
Why are they all different, because averaging temperatures on a global can be done with different levels of accuracy and using different methods.
Like i could use large areas, as data points. Take the average for areas of land the size of california, add them all up.. and the graph is going to look different, than taking the averages fo areas of land the size of rhode island. The later is going to be more accurate over all. Both are valid. The graphs will look slightly different with different max and mins, but will agree to a high degree of accuracy.
What I wonder, is why you dont have the same questions about the piles of BS denialists like the heartland institute releases to deny AGW, and nor do you have the same quetions about their verified history of being totally and completely wrong every single solitary time. Like when they said cigs were addictive and didnt cause cancer. Or they said lead in gas was no big deal. Or when they said cfcs didnt cause the ozone hole. or when they said SO2 wasnt causing acid rain and that cap and trade of so2 would turn the us into a third world nation. Why no questions about that?
The question is what to do about what we don't know because there are too many "butterflies" yet to account for. Remember the Y2K hysteria?
Johnson Daniel Moore Donald Robinson Laura
(25:99min) ... Tim Palmer presents what he calls "an animation of reality" ... LOL ... an animation isn't and never can be reality, because it's just an animation!
In general throughout the whole talk Tim Palmer mentions again and again "amplifier" ... instead of "control loop" ... he should know better, that all of nature is organized in control loops, otherwise mankind would have become extinct already millions of years in the past.
Co2 is a lagging indicator to temperature. The little wedge would represent rising temp. This is a bogus presentation...
The little wedge is increased cosmic ray flux. When the sun becomes quiet with few sun spots the the magnetosphere declines and cosmic rays increase.
Increased cosmic rays create nucleation points which increases cloud cover and solar energy is reflected into space.
CERN did the experiments and proved this year's ago. IPCC and others totally ignite this. A paper on how this works can be found at Dr Nir Shiviv's web site.
Www.sciencebits.com
There is another very simple explanation why CO2 increases. The planet has warmed but not because of increased CO2...
Warmer water forces CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is so obvious. Put a Bootle of Beer on the stove and see what happens.
Wine and beer makers knew this centuries ago.
@bulletsholes Isn't is curious that Tim Palmer repeatedly states how unreliable the calculations and projections are - even admits that his 'Russian dolls' model contains equations that science cannot prove - but then comes down firmly on the side of alleged human-caused global warming. So is that conclusion a scientific or a political one? Is it related to his funding source(s)?
He correctly states that aeroplane contrails dissipate rapidly - but has apparently not been looking up recently ... to observe the trails that stay in the sky for hours and even days. Is he covering for his pals at the Oxford Geoengineering Programme who claim that stratospheric aerosol dispersion is just an idea?