Thankyou Roger and Thomas, such a complicated system to try and understand.

Enlightening Energy In v Energy Out graph at 8:30. Very interesting presentation, this is such a complex issue that reducing it to one main influential parameter (CO2) feeds the sensationalist monster but starves the intelligence fairy.

Wow. So mankind actually has zero effect on climate, CO2/methane does NOT trap heat in the atmosphere, and we should be more worried about cold than heat. Way to go, brutha. Ignorance is truly bliss, delusion comforting.

at 33:00 of this video it shows the earth's temperature following Earth's Obliquity but not C02 - C02 is rising. My theory is that as the globe was getting colder over time the earth's vegetation was also slowly dying off and drying out as would be millions of plant life species and creature species. If the vegetation was dying and drying out this would lead to massive fires that release C02 into the atmosphere as would the C02 in dying plant and animal life also be released. This would explain the increased C02 levels. You could also add increased need for fire by man at the time cutting down trees, building shelters and burning massive amounts of wood to keep warm....

This seems to be quite clear, CO2 causing climate change is a myth. I'd say this was brilliant, the climate change drama is a political/science/money farce.

It seems to me that the natural state of our planet is actually glacial due to the amount of water on our planet and our distance from the SUN. However, the sun's cycles often warm the planet enough to reduce or eliminate ICE and snow for periods but it will always go back to glaciation.

baffled that someone would dedicate so much of their time on mental gymnastics such as these. sad!

thank you so much for explaining all of this - this gives me debate points when dealing with climate alarmists

When you get right with the biblical history, any more of as well, appreciate your efforts

At 1:08:08 Mr.Gallagher presents a table that suggests (or at least says) that "solar insolation on the earth changes by 100 W/m2 between summer and winter" as well as at other times. This is obvious nonsense and I stopped watching this little video at that point. Solar insolation is a term used to describe the total amount of energy from the sun irradiating the top of earth's atmosphere. It is normally expressed as an average over the entire planet of around 348.5 W/m2. The earth moves around the sun in an elliptical orbit and the radiation no doubt changes sightly between the apogee and the perigee of that orbit but the average is still 348 W/m2. Summer and winter are terms used to describe the effect on different hemispheres at different points on the earth's orbit over a year but the total amount of solar insolation is exactly the same irrespective of the planet's place in its obit. When it is 'winter' in the northern hemisphere there is less insolation in that hemisphere but this is exactly balanced by the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere and vice versa. The earth is a ball circulating around a furnace. It doesn't matter where in the obit the ball is, the radiation from the furnace is exactly the same (for a circular orbit). If the presentation makes elementary schoolboy errors of this kind, one assumes that the balance of the 'information' is potentially equally unreliable.

@1:09 False. It is a hypothesis until proven.

@8:10 'Atmosphere GHG' list is lacking the greatest contributor H2O.

@40:48 The charter of IPCC is unscientific. IPCC was tasked to find and publish evidence to support AGW hypothesis. This task is not science.

Roger needs to answer the following: How much of the climate do we "control", and what is the ideal concentration of CO2? In doing so will lose most of his followers. The primary forcing is CO2, and we are responsible for all of the increase. Since there is less solar irradiation in the past 60 years or so, it's clearly not the sun. It's not earth path or wobble. Primary forcing for the past 200 years, as Roger would have to admit, is CO2. "Ideal" concentration is a question a middle school child would know, but Roger should answer that as well. The ideal would be a level between 180ppm and 350ppm like we have had for millions of years (estimated at 3 million years), i.e., a natural level had we not disrupted it. So to answer the question today, keeping it at or below 420ppm would be ideal. Better would be 350ppm, but that's simply not going to happen. Roger will not answer those questions because he needs his followers to remain duped into thinking we are not the cause of the rapid warming. His duped followers will not accept those well-established answers because they have been fed a lot of far right-wing nonsense.

@21:18 Cloud prediction accuracy 25% to 35%? Did they demonstrate how they obtained these 'accuracy' numbers? I bet they did not.

1st 'draft' of Working Group 1 report is not published as such as far as I know*. Instead all report 'drafts' are finished and then all WG1,2,3 reports are edited to comply with the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers). Texts are edited, material deleted and material added to those reports by the IPCC bureaucrats. ---- *from an interview of John Christy So the work of the real scientists is butchered and their names cynically exploited in this psychological warfare operation.

When the ice is all gone and the ocean water reach your feet... then you will understand the logic of climate change.

incredible...your 3 parts...wonderfull information

as YOU EXPLAIN...the earth, climate, phisics of the earth it´s very very complex to say that CO2 it´s the guilty of "climate change". What´s the point to point to Co2 as the guilty molecule. It doesn´t have any sence

Seen anomaly in your records around 1036 AD? kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWmaZ5-Gj5KIkLc

12 K vues ? curieux. excellent

pourquoi si peu de vues pour une vidéo aussi intéressante ? Merci pour ce très bel exposé.

après 3 ans, 8800 vues ? et 266 like ? La bêtise des interautes semble infinie.

Merci pour ce brillant exposé. Pourquoi si peu de vues ? Censure ? Dérange le changement climato-financier ?

Great presentation!! Very comprehensive and well presented. Thanks!!

Excellent synopsis!! Every climate scientist should see this.

A great promotional video. Thx Roger. We miss you out there.

12:00 it is so wrong to show that co2/temperature over the last 500 million years without saying the sun is warming by 1% per 100 million years and without talking about continental drift whihc is going to impact the thermohaline circulation and the capacity to build ice caps at the pole.

Brilliant, Al gore established the CCX in 2006 which is going to make him very rich when carbon trading starts. Al Gore put panic into the feeble minded while rational thinkers asked and continue to ask what is the evidence that co2 is the boogie man?

Brilliant. Surely your presentation negates the CO2 madness of Climate change. THANKYOU

Awesome presentation. Couldn't this issue be solved by requiring battery disconnect whenever connecting to shore power? I was thinking having a relay or contact or whatever you want to call it Automatically disconnect when plugged in?

Now the climate crisis people are trying to modify history to show that the temperature has not changed in the last 10,000 years. There are such papers coming up. These years will be recorded in history as when science succumbed to politics and fraud.

What happens when a group of skeptic scientists who are funded by oil companies gather all the raw temperature data they can, and they create their own algorithms and show all work? What do they conclude when they compare their results (temperature graphs, forcings) when compared to others?

Some rather "inconvenient" information there for the tax collectors?

"The Default Condition of the current world is Dry, Dusty, Cold and Glacial. Vegetation and Civilization both thrive is Warm, Wet, Non-glacial times". Great summary.

"Everything affects climate change" not just humans. Climate Change is going to be the biggest deflection in history to keep people from asking about the real problems in the world today. Sure, they want us to believe that 87% of scientists today believe humans are responsible for climate change when actually 100% believe we have an impact, but not to the extent the politicians and others want us to believe. It's a huge cash cow for them if they can keep us thinking it will kill us if we don't fix it. Ever notice how interviewers never ask these scientists what the ideal amount of CO2 is needed or ideal to sustain life on Earth? If we all sit in a theatre or university class, the CO2 level will be around 1500ppm to 2000ppm after 3 hours. If the CO2 level gets below 150ppm all insects die, all birds die, all animals die, all plants die, and all humans die. Does no-one notice that the Earth is getting greener because of increased CO2? A greener Earth means more crops and therefore more food to feed the World's hungry. Don't fall for this fake agenda. Climatologists are hypocrites, running around in big vehicles and flying all over the world spewing pollutants into the air we breathe. They should be sailing overseas on wooden sail ships or travelling over land on bicycles to reduce their contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere. The dinosaurs didn't kill the planet and they were much bigger than humans. The CO2 levels have gone up and down for billions of years and they will in the future. The planet will take care of itself.

Hmm…interesting. Could you provide the list of peer reviewed scientific studies that you drew your data from?

Odd, he mentions that there is no concensus on CO2 and Temp coupling yet shows a paper that show the northern hemisphere temp lags after CO2, then drops it after. Some fantastic info here, I will have to dig deeper to figure out what seems off here...

Thank you guys for this excellent series. Absolutely the best, densest data set and content I’ve seen. Bravo!

Can I ask a question? The slide on albedo within the dust section - 1 hour and 2 minutes in (the slides aren't numbered as far as I can see). You show water has having very low albedo. Does albedo apply to water? Materials such a sand have a albedo where it reflects in all directions pretty well equally. If you are in a boat on a lake, water is dark in all directions except directly towards the sun when it is suddenly very light. Water reflects spectrally; sand has a diffuse reflection. I have not seen a decent mathematical treatment of this - an integration across the different reflections to give an overall albedo. What is the answer to this?

The models have no prospect of generating reliable predictions. The possibly valid uses of models include illustrations of ideas that have been generated by previous intelligent reasonings.

How does a presentation like this only get 35 likes and 13k views after 3 years? I am only up to the start of part 3 but the subject matter and presentation is excellent. Looking forward to a bit more detail in part 3.

Who is this guy?

Absolutely stunning. I cannot thank you enough for this Roger. I've always contended that those with genuine a mastery of a subject are able to distill it into plain language to others without compromising the fundamentals. That is precisely what you did here. Fair winds!

Presenter does not comprehend magnitudes well. Sure, show timescales in 10,000,000 years, then pretend the current situation is related.

Hottest June ever: June 2024, beat previous record of 2023 Hottest May ever: May 2024 Hottest April ever: April 2024 Hottest March ever: March 2024 Hottest February ever: February 2024 Hottest January ever: January 2024 Hottest December ever: December 2023 Hottest November ever: November 2023 Hottest October ever: October 2023 Hottest September ever: September 2023 Hottest August ever: August 2023 Hottest July ever: July 2023 (may be beaten in 2024) Hottest year ever: 2023, may be beaten by 2024. 2nd hottest on downward: 2016, 2020, 2019, 2015, 2017, 2022, 2021, 2018 Hottest decade: 2014 - 2023 Hottest decades base 10: 2010s, 2000s, 1990s, 1980s... but 2020s will become the hottest.

IPCC scientists clearly know far more than this guy when it comes to the climate of the past 200 years, but also they know more about the natural forcings that preceded what is happening today. When "skeptic" scientists perform the work, then come to the same conclusions. Earth is warming, and CO2 is the primary forcing.

58:40 Water vapor does not magically appear. There are a few ways to temporarily increase water vapor to some significance, and one major way to permanently increase it. A large volcanic eruption can increase it temporarily, but we are warming the planet with out additional CO2 and that will cause an increase. It's a feedback. 1:06:00 Note that C-13 changes clearly indicate we are pumping CO2 faster than it can be naturally eliminated. It appears this is a non-scientist acting as a "skeptic" who presents cherry picked portions of actual science. He even wonders aloud why the people who know 100x more than him (IPCC) would not follow his "skeptic" footsteps, and clearly he has not read the reports.

13:00. Interesting, so the holocene climate optimum was more of a northern hemisphere phenomenon that reverses as we approached the present

Most of these graphs are wrong/weird in several ways. They tend to be clipped and simply incorrect at the most current endpoint, plus many missing citations and units. If the point is to say how natural forcings have affected the climate in the past, then OK, but at 7:25 we see and hear that sunspots are on the rise. But he failed to include the simple fact that TSI has been in decline for over 60 years and sunspots in decline for about the same time period. TSI down, sunspots down, temperature WAY up. We know about natural forcings, and if this is simply to show how things used to work naturally, that's fine. This does not show in any way what we managed to do to the climate by increasing CO2 by 50%.