Contemporary Climate Change as Seen Through Measurements

(Visit: www.uctv.tv/) Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences,reviews up-to-date data on temperatures of air and water, rates of ice losses and of sea-level rise and illustrate the driving forces of greenhouse gases in an energy-balance model of Earth. Recorded on 02/23/2016. [4/2016] [Show ID: 30556]
UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures
(www.uctv.tv/gradcouncil)
Explore More Public Affairs & Politics on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/public-affairs)
Public Affairs UCTV goes beyond the headlines to explore economics, public policy, race, immigration, health policy and more. Hear directly from the researchers so you can be informed to make important decisions.
Explore More Science & Technology on UCTV
(www.uctv.tv/science)
Science and technology continue to change our lives. University of California scientists are tackling the important questions like climate change, evolution, oceanography, neuroscience and the potential of stem cells.
UCTV is the broadcast and online media platform of the University of California, featuring programming from its ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated research institutions. UCTV explores a broad spectrum of subjects for a general audience, including science, health and medicine, public affairs, humanities, arts and music, business, education, and agriculture. Launched in January 2000, UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California -- teaching, research, and public service - by providing quality, in-depth television far beyond the campus borders to inquisitive viewers around the world.
(www.uctv.tv)

[@canadiannuclearman]

This is uploading in 2016, 4 years out of date. I'd like to see an updated presentation for 2020.

[@NikolaStamenkovic6]

Who wouldn't?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

if you search more you will see more. There's a lot of great recent lectures. Try Professor Peter Wadhams.

[@matthewstone1362]

I was a skeptic. Then I heard about during the ozone crisis in the 90s. Freon containing chloroflourocarbons was to blame. Turns out Dupont,one of the worlds largest chemical manufacturers, had a patent for freon which was coming to an end. Freon was the only delivery system in sprays and in fridges etc. Needless to say it was making them a fortune until the patent ended. Low and behold Freon is banned and new patents were created. One of which is hydroflourocarbons. Guess what that is..... greenhouse gas. I'm now more of a skeptic.

[@samlair3342]

Matthew Stone I’m skeptical of skeptics. [Ironic, right?]

[@matthewstone1362]

@@samlair3342 that's it? You are lacking a point.

[@Luckma1]

@William Perrigo yeah sure the co2 is produced somewhere, the efficiency is what matters. Use atomic energy and there is no CO2 (Thorium looks really good on paper but somehow no one seems to care except china and india). Yeah it is really hard to find out the truth because today the data is just too big and gets produced by only a handfull of companies (Satelites). This data is then used by everyone to produce their predictions and calculations, of course everyone comes to the same conclusion if everyone uses the same fraudulent data the same computation models and so on.

[@ofdrumsandchords]

Matthew Stone Yes, we are lacking a point, your reasoning is not convincing. Chlorofluorocarbones were forbidden in 1987, and replaced by hydrofluorocarbones. Both are grennhouse gas, the purpose was to fix the ozone layer. Today, chinese companies still use CFC illegally as it's cheaper. HFC are on the list of greenhouse gas since 1997, will fall under the Montreal protocol and finally forbidden. What did you prove ? That big companies always find a way to direspect the law, even if it's destroying our environment and kill people ? That's a scoop. About climate, you have to be a little more rigorous, because you didn't use any credible argument to contradict agw.

[@suziesmith2142]

@@Luckma1 We are carbon. Everything is carbon. C02 is produced by everything, everywhere. Far and away the largest source is the ocean. It covers 72% of the earth's surface. Humans, power plants, cars, etc., produce trace gas. When it's warm, the oceans out gas more C02. When it gets cold, it out gasses less. We're learning how to stay warm and alive while polluting less, (although C02 is not a pollutant), and we'll get better as we go along. We're all OK.

[@donready119]

As you can see by my other comments, I disagree with some of this. However, I thought Mr. Cicerone did a great job of looking at the data and concepts. Thank you, but my money is on cooling. We are still in an ice age, just a warm period of it.

[@augustlandmesser1520]

LoL!!

[@samlair3342]

Milankovitch thought the same thing; but, any possible cooling won’t come until far too late to do anyone or anything any good.

[@MrArdytube]

Your money is on cooling.....? You probably would be right if we were to remove the impact of AGW. In fact, I have heard similar predictions from climate change skeptics going back 20 years.... But so far, these projections have been as frequent, and as inaccurate, as predictions of the end of the world. Maybe we should start a kick starter investment opportunity where climate change skeptics can put their money where their predictions are? Why don’t you propose a concrete prediction and time frame in which you would be willing to commit your net worth.... i will bet that in five years the earths temp will be measurably higher, and you can bet it will be measurably lower... ok?

[@donready119]

@@MrArdytube I farm and already I have bet money on cooling. This year in the continental states, Oct through May was the wettest and coolest on record. I ordered my seed corn in 2018 with shorter heat units just in case. It wasn't enough as I could not plant it here in Ontario until June 10. If there is an early frost, it will be ugly. States like Ohio, Illinois and Indiana had a cool, wet planting disaster. 2017 here was cool, cloudy and wet. Even early corn never matured properly. I cannot predict the climate, just like everybody else. Even the IPCC said it could not be done but I am running with Zharkova et al on the grand solar minimum.

[@richardnailhistorical3445]

@@donready119 The reason you are seeing the 'cooling' is because the 'Polar Vortex' is broken & cold air is being pushed from the Arctic south, happening in Northeast big time. Reason Polar Vortex broken......... extreme heating in Arctic forcing cold air south. What is happening has clear scientific evidence and was predicted - suggest you remove your money on cooling bet!

[@DonMeaker]

The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This means that no finite set of past state measurements can ever be sufficient to predict even a single distant future state with confidence. This has been known since Edward Lorenz published 'Deterministic Chaotic Flow' in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, in 1963. Anyone who pretends to predict a distant future state in a Navier Stokes system with confidence from past state data is either incompetent, or a fraud.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

that's why supercomputers are used for global warming models - the supercomputer does the iterations using chaos math.

[@shoobidyboop8634]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Hahahahaha, good one. Oh wait, you're serious.

[@Semnyi]

Thanks for sharing

[@DonMeaker]

Thermal radiation is proportional to the 4th power of the difference in temperature. That means that a small increase in the earths temperature will significantly increase the heat radiated. This makes the earth at least meta-stable. In general, warm is good, since warm permits more water to evaporate, which increases rain fall. Very little corn would grow in Iowa under an ice sheet.

[@dustinjoiner9977]

I like how you brought up one small area that you think would benefit from increased temperatures while disregarding the rest of the world. When in reality small increases in warming would be and have been detrimental to the rest of the world. Not to mention that Iowa would not benefit from increased temperatures that would ruin the farming area making it too dry and increasing dry periods. And there is no reason to think that Iowa would be under an ice sheet if global warming wasn’t happening.

[@DonMeaker]

@@dustinjoiner9977 Increased temperatures would increase rates of evaporation from the oceans near the equators, putting more water into the atmosphere which would cause more rain in the temperate zones. Global warming really is wonderful. Increased glaciers- global warming, decreased glaciers- also global warming. Early frost- global warming, later frost- also global warming. Floods-global warming, droughts, also global warming.

[@stevejones2310]

@@DonMeaker best use the term climate change rather than global warming. Effects locally can buck the overall mean temperature rise for which solid data exists and is thus incontrovertible.

[@DonMeaker]

@@stevejones2310 The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid Flow with changes in temperature and density. They are and chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means distant future states can't be predicted with confidence. Warmest temperature in US was 1913, in Death Valley, which recorded 134 ° F.

[@DonMeaker]

@@stevejones2310 there is no mean temperature. For Cauchy distributions the mean is undefined.

[@kjr2868]

I watched the whole presentation and I have a lot of respect for leveled headed sensible and open minded lectures like this one, presented by Prof Cicerone! I do have a couple of questions on the sea level and ocean temperature points raised. 1) How much does sub terrarium volcanic heating and tectonic plate movement have on ocean temperatures? 2) Where do we see sea rise? I have been walking on the same beach for 50yrs, we get 2.5m to 3.5m tides depending on the full moon and king tides etc. It is never less than 2.5m, twice a day 365 days a yr. The beach hasn't changed? It is still there, the sand is still there. The only diff is it is cleaner, and there is more fish in the harbour, because over my life time the city stopped dumping raw sewage into ocean. In the city the air quality is better, despite the population growing nearly 400% since I was born in the 60s.

[@bobleclair5665]

24:13 , I would think the water temperature measurement of the Gulf Stream might be very beneficial to understanding the effects it has on the arctic ice conditions and phytoplankton,

[@douglasengle2704]

The ever proving mechanism for Arctic warming is warm Arctic Ocean waters migrating more frequently and deeper into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region, so your idea is very relevant of tracking temperature of the Gulf Stream. That I would think would being done.

[@laomark9583]

excellent, broadly intelligent, presentation. thank-you

[@maritzadiaz984]

I agree

[@yousifatobiya7279]

The summary of climate change is easy. It is the change of humidity in atmosphere, which produce between the (land)and the(seas & oceans) on the other hand... Occurring of rains, snow, storms, and floods at time and in unexpected places, confirms my theory(the change in the directions of winds)which must be balanced... How to reduce the heat of the earth and atmosphere? We must supply the earth with a natural cooling places... Results: ---------- 1- To balance the water vapor which produces between the( ground)and the(seas and oceans )... 2- To balance the pressures of the air in the atmosphere... 3- To balance the directions of winds which caused the climate change... 4- To control upon the storms and harricans... 5- To revive the the first theory of climate change (dynamic horizontal movement). 6- To balance the percentage of gases forming the atmosphere. NOTE :The lack of water vapor is of land not of seas and oceans... These studies had completed and sent on July 26th 2000... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@yousifatobiya7279]

How to reduce the heat of the earth and atmosphere? We must supply the earth with a natural cooling places... Results: ---------- 1- To balance the water vapor which produces between the( ground)and the(seas and oceans )... 2- To balance the pressures of the air in the atmosphere... 3- To balance the directions of winds which caused the climate change... 4- To control upon the storms and harricans... 5- To revive the the first theory of climate change (dynamic horizontal movement). 6- To balance the percentage of gases forming the atmosphere... NOTE :The lack of water vapor is of land not of seas and oceans... These studies had completed and sent on July 26th 2000... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@mikeharrington5593]

Yes, great video. He gives a very balanced and easily understood assessment, and where the data or consequence is not conclusive, say only probable, he clearly says so. As such I am very satisfied that his presentation is wholly accurate and unbiased. Sadly this great citizen passed away on 5 November 2016.

[@williamtalbot9864]

Mike Harrington Hey Dork, what's up?Just a little obsessed with climate change, wouldn't u say?

[@mikeharrington5593]

William Talbot It is becoming more important to act now, rather than having to adapt to a far more difficult situation in 10-15 years. I equate it to getting vaccinated before you work in a kennel of rabid dogs.

[@aFarmerinfield]

If you put two graphs, CO2 (since 1960) and Temp. Anomaly (since 1880), you will find interesting thing, i.e. why Temp. Anomaly went down assuming the CO2 maintain steady.

[@chrisjohnson8666]

At 42.08 min the radiative forcing (W/m2) of various gases over the time period 1750-2011 was given. Why was water vapour at ~30 times that of CO2 ignored in this graph?

[@galvanaut7119]

That is because water vapour is extremely short lived (~10 days max). Its atmospheric concentrations over time are in reaction to the temperature, so it is a magnifier to more constant(long lived) factors, such as CO2 concentrations. Also, its range is limited and practically the same at any point in time. 100% humidity is the max now as it was 250 years ago.

[@jgalt308]

The following may help explain your misconceptions.... www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#3eabbdc83238 skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-stratosphere-global-warming.htm

[@gregggoodnight9889]

You cannot tax or control water vapor or the sun. Don't ever expect these to be discussed objectively.

[@Wheelman_PCAS]

Is anyone refuting the logic that a warming planet increases H2O vapor presence in its atmosphere?

[@gregggoodnight9889]

@@Wheelman_PCAS it is not that simple. You are correct that water vapor itself is a positive warming feedback. However, clouds formed by water vapor provide a cooling impact. In total, current total environmental feedback is likely slightly negative, not strongly positive as assumed by the current models that have demonstrated to be grossly overstating in terms of the cliimate's CO2 temperature sensitivity. The feedback issue alone destroys alarmist claims of runaway climate impacts from co2.

[@MarkFrankUK]

Outstanding lecture. Calm, clear, transparently honest - nothing is overstated, uncertainties are accepted - and the result deeply alarming.

[@Fjellstad69]

Very good presentation. Refreshing and informative.

[@donready119]

Satellite sea level rise. I read a great critique of its accuracy. The author described it as a failed experiment after going into too much detail on the difficulties of doing this from orbit.

[@donready119]

@Gnome Add Sorry, I have read and watched way too much and do not remember. I will do a search and if I am lucky, will post it.

[@donready119]

@Gnome Add wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/11/sea-level-rise-slr-satellite-altimetry-fit-for-purpose/

[@atwaterpub]

A thoughtful and scholarly talk. Well done. Thank you for uploading.

[@RodMartinJr]

+atwaterpub Ironically, pointing in the wrong direction. Climate Change is not the problem. Ignorance of our current Ice Age IS the problem. UN is condemning warmth, promoting global cooling, all within an ongoing Ice Age. You know about those two little white things at the poles? When the current interglacial of the current Ice Age ends, those little white things become BIG white things. And we get 90,000 years of glacial climate. And guess what? Our interglacial is already 500+ years overdue to end (W.S. Broecker, 1998). Oops! No matter how eloquent the BS, when you're looking in the wrong direction, the eloquence becomes empty rhetoric. How many people can survive on glacial climate food production? If we now produce enough to feed 11 Billion, but 2-3 billion are currently starving, then what happens when Canada, half of the US, and half of Europe end up buried in permanent snow cover? But that's not all. Colder oceans mean less evaporation, fewer clouds, and less rain, making farming elsewhere far more difficult.

[@atwaterpub]

Rod Martin, Jr. The nice thing about youtube is it can be an impartial forum where the facts could be allowed to speak for themselves without aurhoritarian censorship. Intelligent viewers can weigh the data and make up their own minds.

[@maritzadiaz984]

Rod Martin, Jr. Our planet is heating not cooling, cold doesn't disprove Climate Change any way! !

[@clearwaterlakota8405]

+atwaterpub What you say about KZbin is exactly why it's the world's number one cause of declining intelligence. Unvetted information being disseminated to monkey-minded individuals without academic training, and the result is that YT is a cesspool of ignorant conspiracy theories, New Age nonsense, fringe pseudo-science, gossip, sensationalism, and general stupidity. Look at the view counts for any academic or scientific video and compare that to a conspiracy video about the same topic, and this will tell you all you need to know. The people have spoken and they have resoundingly rejected carefully-assembled and well-vetted information in favor of emotionally addictive idiocy. We're not an intelligent species, and the democratization of information isn't something we can survive as a civilization.

[@atwaterpub]

You make a good point that is well worth considering. As a rebuttal I might say that the vetting mechanism itself appears to be broken in many cases. In Psychiatric Studies, Nutritional Studies, Economic Studies, and even Archaeology the vetting mechanism of academic research is distorted and even destroyed by the influence of the economic interests of Corporate Capitalism. In that case, taking the information directly to the people and letting them decide may be the best way to advance the cause of truth and honesty.

[@nickbagnall]

There is good reason they use temperatures dating back to 1880, as it shows a nice increase from a particular cold period, the little ice age, however, three periods in the last four thousand have been two degrees warmer than today. Notwithstanding, the ice cores show that carbon dioxide has 700-year lag behind, which is obvious as the oceans degas as they warm.

[@misterguts]

27:50 This plot looks like a control graph from statistics, an average bounded by 2 SDs. In an industrial control case, outside the grey area would represent something "out of control" and needing a nudge back into control. I have never seen sea ice measurements plotted in this way, it's very instructive (as are all his other graphs).

[@davidschafer9577]

Both NSW and Berkeley lectures I found very interesting. In both nobody addressed the issues of:what parameters are used to model climate. How accurately can the parameters be measured. What weight is assigned to each parameter in the model. And margin of error. We all know that there are many factors that have far more influence on climate than just CO2, but all the Climatologist simply ignore the greatest green house chemical H2O and effect deforestation. In the Berkeley Lecture he only goes back to 1880 that just biased. On energy adsorption he ignores H2O and solely focus on CO2....why? Let's assume all his data is valid, ignoring "climategate" data mess. Why is data set solely CO2. Where are the other parameters and their influence? He doesn't even give earth's orbit and tilt a mention which would seriously effect Ice cap melt N vs S. Ice core CO2 data actually shows it much high in ages passed. The oceans absorb vast amounts of CO2: kelp forests and animal shells. Acidity is questionable? He states sun spot energy increase at .1 while CO2 at 1.5% just doesn't make sense! CO2 is the gas of life.

[@crangonvulgaris9820]

Regarding CO2. More, of even a good thing, is not always better. , Water is essential for life, walking in the rain can be enjoyable, drowning less so.

[@cfarinho]

There's no question of conspiracy, there is a question of group think.

[@stevejones2310]

On behalf of the skeptics?

[@georgesmith4639]

I'd like to have seen some attention given to the sediment core data that gives temp and CO2 indications going back millions of years. There are presentations of that data on other threads showing CO2 was up to 25x current levels and temperatures much higher than anything seen since the beginning of civilization. This presenter seems to conclude man has caused levels of CO2 and temperature that are unprecedented in all of earth's history.

[@andthegreatcolddeathofthee1737]

They say that if we don't do something the earth will be like Venus because Venus is a greenhouse planet. The problem is that Venus barely has any CO2 or none at all. The heat is created by atmospheric pressure.

[@suziesmith2142]

He works for Big Green 8-) Take THAT all you nutters who accuse all of the questioners, by denigrating them and calling them deniers, while you scream big oil!

[@svigil777]

I'm using this presentation in comments on "Climate Change is a Hoax" videos. And there's a lot of them!

[@christianlibertarian5488]

Scott Vigil . Good luck with that. I tried similar things in the past, but data doesn't seem to have any effect on the deniers. Try it on Trump--not likely to change his mind. I don't know why, but the deniers are immune to any idea which doesn't already agree with them. Undoubtedly we are all like that in our own ways. But this is going to kill us.

[@tycurtin7565]

You are correct. These are B.S. measurements that he cherry picked. Antarctica is overall gaining ice!!! It's very clear. It's due to the pacific decadal oscillation, which he NEVER EVEN MENTIONS!!! Sea level rise has been stasis for 200 years, since the little ice age. It's not accelerating!

[@Hummmminify]

@Jeffrey Johnson Why don't you travel North of 60....up here where the change is really showing up where it's warming up at least 3 times faster than the rest of the planet. Better yet why don't you go up to Siberia and see the massive military build up along the Arctic Ocean of Russia's armed forces. Putin is planning to be "Johnny on the Spot" when the Arctic Ocean is clear of ice. If that does not scare the bejesus out of you nothing will. Of course, Miami, New York City, Atlantic City and San Francisco Bay disappearing under water might be a clue as well.

[@IcelanderUSer]

Ty Curtin That’s a flat out lie.

[@IcelanderUSer]

Hummmminify so true.

[@MrArdytube]

Quite a remarkable lecture. The speaker illustrates that enormous uncertainties remain in this very complex problem. In acknowledging those uncertainties, it is clear that he is not focused on promoting radical alarmism. That said, the flip side of these enormous uncertainties is that we just do not know what will be the future impacts of our current actions. It may be that the results of our actions will he manageable to a greater or lessor extent. But it is also may be the our actions will result in various catastrophes for which our grand children will curse us. We are rolling the dice on a bet that has some limited immediate upside, and potentially catastrophic long term downsides

[@gregggoodnight9889]

Hi Ardy, I agree that this lecture has a lot of good information in it and contains little overt climate alarmism. However, after studying climate change for over a year, I would suggest to you that the lecture is also quite notable for the scientific areas that it does not discuss. In short, this lecture represents climate change orthodoxy, supportive of the IPCC's position and green advocacy positions. It ignores the contributions of natural climatic variation in general. The TSI argument (total solar irradiance) is misleading. Although TSI is relatively constant, the primary impact of the 11-year solar magnetic cycle is the modulation of cloud coverage that provides a cooling impact. The impact of clouds from a heat balance standpoint is 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than CO2 impact and thus is very important to the earth's radiative heat balance! (please see papers by Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark for current thinking on the impact of clouds). He With respect to the 1.7 Watt's/M2 greenhouse impact of CO2, he might have mentioned that this very minor energy impact is roughly equivalent to 0.3C of additional warming for a doubling of CO2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. At the current rate of an increase of 2 ppm of CO2 per year, it will take us 200 years to double current levels. This puts Ralph's "feedback" discussion in perspective, as CO2 alone cannot explain the global warming of the last century that undoubtedly has a significant natural component, Current best thinking on total feedback from all causes is negative to neutral, not positive. The negative feedback mitigates the possibility of runaway global warming. Lastly, while there is not an overt conspiracy, the financial and political pressure to perpetuate climate change orthodoxy is huge, and beneficiaries of all sort are not open to alternative theories and explanations of data.

[@roberthicks1612]

"But it is also may be the our actions will result in various catastrophes for which our grand children will curse us." What evidence is that this could happen? History? No, all history says that the climate will not get worse than it is. There is no evidence that higher co2 would cause any harm to humanity. Nor is there any evidence that increased temperature will cause any harm. For instance, the insistence that a higher co2 will result in all the ice in the world melting flies in the face that Antarctic FROZE in when co2 was between 1500 and 2000 ppm. Not a single co2 based model can yet explain that. IF Antarctic does not melt, and the Himalayan Mountains do not crumble to the sea, the ice age we have been in for 4 million years will not end. IF it does not end, the interglacial period we are in will eventually end and that means the temperature will be about 11°C globally. History does not support any evidence that mmcc will cause a disaster.

[@davidjohnzenocollins]

Thumbs up for your comment, Ardy Hagen. But that's not why I'm writing this: I want to be the first commenter who isn't a climate change denier nutjob.

[@roberthicks1612]

1) we aren't denying climate change. We are demanding proof that man is responsible, using standard scientific methods, which the alarmist can not do. 2) demanding proof does not make us nutjobs. Accepting their propaganda without proof does make you one.

[@MrArdytube]

Gregg Goodnight Gregg I also have been studying this issue for many years. And one thing i have learned with certainty is that there is no end to arguments. One thing is certain.... there are lots of scientists who have looked at the issue and think it is likely that there is a high risk that there is a problem. . That does not prove they are right.... but imo it does prove there is enough information to conclude they MAY BE RIGHT I certainly have not read any PROOF by the skeptic community that there is zero risk. We deal with uncertain risk all the time. Regarding orthodoxy issue The science behind climate change concerns has been around since 1860. And scientists have been persistently working on this issue since then. This work has been going on for very long prior to the so called orthodoxy Also the “orthodoxy”. Extends across institutions, scientific disciplines, scientific roles and types of funding, and national borders,,. Including india and china who have substantial economic motivation that coal is innocuous Imo, there is such a comprehensive consensus that it is untenable to maintain certainty that there is no problem Are green house gasses rising. Yes Do green house gasses have known forcing properties that would impact the climate absent all other things being equal.... yes In simplest terms, that is the prima facia case for concern. We can argue about other things... but i think there is no argument that can dispute a valid case for concern If you want to get into details. I suggest you check out the channel. Potholer54

[@jetlagger3357]

Chicken meat is blown up to twice the sice, books start on page 22 after 22 pages of basically totally irrelevant content, and still many youtubes start at minute 7 after 7 minutes of basically totally irrelevant content. It's amzing that this just continues ...

[@plantpotpeople]

Could the artic be warming due to H.A.A.R.P. and the other ionesheric heaters in the northern hemishere? I noticed a lot of the heating is around the alaska region.

[@RosyOutlook2]

And seven decades of weather and climate modification, covering our skies with aerosols and calling them contrails is a joke on us.

[@61shirley]

The ipcc have called the last 20 years "the pause", but haven't given an explanation of why the climate hasn't warmed for 20 years even tho co2 is apparently higher

[@xponen]

+Daniel Bostock , the 'pause' was because of equipment malfunction. They re-check the data by sending an expedition to location. They found faulty buoys: news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/global-warming-hiatus-091715.html

[@RodMartinJr]

+xponen Wrong! Satellites give a far more complete (thorough) picture of the entire planet and are far more reliable. Some people with an agenda dropped a large chunk of their weather stations from their record and the temperature record from ground stations shows a sudden jump (heat spike). This was artificial because they seem to have chosen only the warmer stations -- the ones at airports, parking lots and near airconditioning exhaust vents. Talk about fraud! We live in an Ice Age and the UN (and NASA) loony tunes are promoting global cooling. Psychopaths!

[@maritzadiaz984]

Rod Martin, Jr. You are scare human!!

[@61shirley]

According to the RSS satellite data (the very satellite designed to measure changes in the temperature of the climate), whose value for March 2014 is in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents just over half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict. We've only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational. In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over 3,000 Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world. ocean temperature measurements by Argo have risen by about 0.01°C

[@thetombaxter]

+Daniel Bostock There's not been any world wide pause, only localized as shown in the video's charts.

[@roberthicks1612]

I noticed that no where does he mentioned that all that ice that is melting is storing energy that would normally be radiated away. THAT is why the earth is warming. Ice is melting and turning into ocean water, resulting in about 15 to 20 calories per gram of water being stored long term in the earths ocean. Calculate that and tell me that it doesnt have a close relation to the difference between what the earth receives and radiates.

[@tommiecharcoal]

I'm sticking with those who show me old newspaper articles about "global cooling" and talk about the corruption of science and question the motivation of "talks" like this, those who don't rely on "authority" to bully everyone into acceptance of a narrative that justifies enforced "remedy"

[@WildBillCox13]

We are experiencing a slight warming period during a cold epoch. To that end, greenhouse gasses help prolong the warm spot, but they will not likely stop the cold from returning. Nor will any human impact. The highly polluting byproducts of our efforts to profit from economies of scale, however, will certainly poison the seas enough to render food fish and mussels too toxic to eat. Toxicity builds in the gonads. It directly affects both zygote and fetal development. Higher lethal mutation rates won't mean a smaller population, for times of trouble make humans breed like mad*. We'll go crazy, trying to promote the species--it's hardwired into us. But fear not. We'll kill ourselves off with increased toxicity in our food chain long before we boil ourselves into stew. Our bodies were not made/evolved/genegineered by space aliens to be able to process metal contaminants. Nor can we endure PCBs. Or high levels of pesticides based off nerve gas agents. Honestly, what are they thinking? The big problem with pollution is: the guys doing it have all the money. So we lose. Our children lose. And their grandchildren lose, but greed is extremely near-sighted.

[@WildBillCox13]

*Victorian England, the death rate was off the charts . . . and so was the birth rate. Many, many, of the women were pregnant or lactating until they died in their 40s.

[@bobroberts7305]

Very true.

[@isaacadjetey9496]

Pls i need help in my project work

[@RosyOutlook2]

Maybe you should study something which isn't based on controlling humanity.

[@bruceellacott9616]

I understand that earth based stations are unreliable due to warming caused by urbanization.

[@grindupBaker]

You understand very slightly correctly. Some of the land-based stations have poor accuracy in measurement of anomaly due to warming caused by urbanization. 71% of Earth's surface is ocean, maybe 1% seas & big lakes. 28% is land. So some of the 28% is affected. A small portion of the 7,400 thermometer stations on land are affected to a significant effect by Urban Heat Island effect. When they are simply omitted the difference is very minor. The scientists estimate the adjustments to the small portion of the small portion that are affected by UHI. The adjustments cannot be perfect. The resulting error in global assessment is a small residual error in a small portion of a small portion. It's somewhere in the 3rd (thousandths) of degrees. It's in the trivial noise.

[@grindupBaker]

+Bruce Ellacott "I understand that earth based stations are unreliable due to warming caused by urbanization". I notice that the speaker discusses this & discusses that varying methods are used to adjust for it at 18:36 through 20:00. You didn't mention that so it's evident that you are hearing impaired and could not hear the audio. There's a subtitles / close caption feature that the hearing-impaired such as yourself can use so your can actually listen to a video's audio before commenting on it.

[@johngage5391]

I understand that some major fossil fuel industry players have pumped a billion dollars a year into a misinformation campaign about climate science and to control the politics to delay sensible action to address the main cause of the problem, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Here's a bipartisan, market-based, revenue neutral approach to do just that: citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend Economists agree this would be effective, good for the economy, fair, and have global reach. After thirty years of delay, Congress is finally considering action: energyinnovationact.org

[@bobd251]

@@johngage5391 The corrupt "climate scientists" don't need any help disgracing themselves. No misinformation needed. Just honest information is enough. Exactly which "fossil fuel industry players" are involved? And exactly what did they do? And how did you come to "understand" this? I suspect that you just made this up. But maybe there is something to it. So let me know.

[@bobroberts7305]

Ignore those who criticize and deny your truth - you are correct, they are lying. See the truth at www.surfacestations.org/ But don't bother trying to share it with them - they will refuse to even look at it and will probably accuse those running that site (and you) of being a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry, or maybe of being a Russian troll. They aren't interested in any facts or data that threatens their desired world view. They bitterly cling to their climate alarmists nonsense and refuse to even look at, much less consider, any reality based, observation based facts.

[@garynorthtruro]

Open water allows waves which accelerate ice break-up.

[@bobroberts7305]

The loss of north polar ice was due (if climate alarmists bothered to actually read peer reviewed published science they would know this, but they rarely do) to changes in wind and ocean currents, changes which are known to happen from time to time and have happened many times before, which resulted in abnormally high ice loss due to the resulting conditions. This, combined with a natural warming trend already in progress due to several factors including but not limited to a hyper active solar cycle, also caused warming of the ocean, which results in outgassing of dissolved carbon dioxide, as well as warming of formerly permafrost dominated regions, allowing more carbon dioxide to be released from these land areas as well. If you look at the long term record of temperature change and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes you will see that temperature change often happens first and as temperature rises, an increase in carbon dioxide begins to follow, NOT LEAD, NOT CAUSE, after a significant lag time. The warming of the Earth due to normal, natural events is what is driving the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and we have known this, but for political and ideological reasons it is being denied by climate alarmists, the true "DENIERS" here.

[@MsBiggles51]

I'm just curious: has anyone seen a global temperature anomaly chart where the reference period is another time (such as 1920 to 1950 for example?) The period 1950 to 1980 was colder than the rest of the century so will exaggerate any warming. (I remember the Ice Age is coming scare.) It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the particular period is chosen deliberately because it makes it look like something alarming is happening.

[@mns8732]

Linda Edwards : better listen again. The time period reference is far earlier than the 50's.

[@MsBiggles51]

@@mns8732 At 16:20 he says it's between 1950 and 1980.

[@bonnieprather610]

Linda edwards, science illiterate?

[@MsBiggles51]

@@bonnieprather610 That's no problem Bonnie. You can always study.

[@ThekiBoran]

It isn't just that, NASA and NOAA have committed fraud by manipulating the temperature data. They fraudulently reduced the temperatures of the 1940s to make it appear like we're seeing a major spike in temperature. This is a crime.

[@wangfire7736]

Big white blanket or tarp on the deserts

[@georgelet4132]

For one thing the temperature graph at 16:15 is bogus. This documents it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jIu6c3mqqtB_r7c at 1:20 in the video Currently: NASA shows 1.5 degree C warming from 1880 to 2000 at 1:35 NASA 2001: 0.5 C warming from 1880 to 2000 at 2:05 National Center for Atmospheric Research 1974: no warming from 1870 to 1970 at 6:42 2017 NASA temps are far outside the 95% confidence interval of the 2001 data at 7:12 They actually have “hid the decline” as in the 2009 climate-gate emails.

[@danthomas9077]

All the "data sets" as Ralph was quoting from here are for a roughly 30 year period, 1951 to 1980, and if you use just that 30 year period the earth has warmed and C02 has gone up, but use a longer period and all that "rise" goes away. Most all the "warmers" use the same data sets that are touting global warming, "tell a lie often enough, it soon becomes fact" anyone can cherry pick any data, to get what you want. Ralph tries to do a good job of convincing himself and us that he's really behind what he's preaching, but I swear I can tell just by his "hand fidgeting" that he doesn't even believe himself.

[@grindupBaker]

+GEORGELET4 Yours is all rubbish. Heller/Goddard: at 1:20 in the video Currently: NASA shows 1.5 degree C warming from 1880 to 2000 is for land only. That's correct for land only. Earth is 71% oceans. at 1:35 NASA 2001: 0.5 C warming from 1880 to 2000. You lie. It shows 0.7 C warming from 1880 to 2000 not 0.5 C warming from 1880 to 2000. That is the oceans. at 2:05 National Center for Atmospheric Research 1974: no warming from 1870 to 1970. That's only 3% of Earth's surface so it's irrelevant. at 6:42 2017 NASA temps are far outside the 95% confidence interval of the 2001 data. That's because the coal/oil shill Heller/Goddard "adjusted" the baseline to show one 0.3 degrees lower than the other. at 7:12 They actually have “hid the decline” as in the 2009 climate-gate emails. The decline in quality of tree ring proxy the last few decades (due to human industrial effect on trees) was hidden by smoothing it with the instrumental data of the last few decades. Pretty stupid to use tree ring proxies now it's actually being measured. The procedure wasn't actually hidden, the two types of data were described in the paper.

[@georgelet4132]

Fraudulence by NASA and NOAA. The Obama administration turned NASA and NOAA into propaganda tools for the man-made global warming scam. The global record is very specious and full of holes. Large areas have no record - it is simply made up. NASA and NOAA have corrupted the good U.S. temperature record which shows little or no warming compared to the 1930's in order to match the made-up global temperature record. The warming over the last century to correspond to the increase in man-made CO2 has been fabricated by NASA and NOAA: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqHbY2pjZZWBnac The US Temperature Record : NASA And NOAA Cooking The Books At :35 James Hansen in 1999 laments that the U.S. was not warming even though the U.S. temperature record is reliable and the rest of the world is not At 5:20… NASA changes the good U,S. data record to match the garbage world temperature record At 7:55 January 1989: US Data Since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend At 9:35 Measure vs Reported. The BLUE line vs the RED line. At 10:14 the alterations made. At 10:54 adjustments made to exactly match increase in CO2. At 11:30 data from stations is fabricated by NOAA

[@susancavanaugh333]

You did not mention the satellite thermometer temperatures and why you said just briefly at the end that there has been a hiatus of rising temperatures. Why leave this out? What is the state of measuring cloud cover and what affects it?

[@heckler73]

Where did he get that 341 W/m^2 value for his "cartoon"? That does not agree with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for calculating the radiative flux (which should be ~1360 W/m^2 at TOA). Did he forget to specify some detail there?

[@bobpeckham]

+heckler73 I think the 4fold difference is difference between area of circle and area of sphere, 2 different ways of looking at the same thing

[@heckler73]

bobpeckham And that is an _incorrect_ metric to be applying. Nasif Nahle's experiments, as discussed in his 2011 paper, demonstrated why that is the case. During the daytime, the incoming flux (or insolation) is ~1000 W/m^2 _at ground_ and ~60 W/m^2 at night. To arbitrarily average the TOA value (which is where that 341 value comes from, as you noted) is a misapplication--never mind, misunderstanding--of the physics. What makes it worse is this gentleman tries to imply it is _measured_! It most certainly is *not*.

[@RodMartinJr]

+heckler73 Brilliant. But a far more pressing fact is the idea that we currently live in an Ice Age and these guys want to cool down the planet. Now, that's a huge elephant no one seems to be talking about. Warmth and CO2 promote life. CO2 is not a pollutant and they're treating it as soot! CO2 has been at starvation levels for millions of years. Why else would plants evolve C4 species? Modern increases in CO2 are greening the planet. The entire dialog on climate is upside down, inside out and backwards. Quibbling about details, feedbacks, climate sensitivity, and missing the larger issue that life thrives on warmth and CO2. The Holocene is already 500+ years overdue to end (W.S. Broecker, 1998). This should slap a scientist awake at the implications. Anyone who knows what glacial conditions were like will be sounding alarms in order to save humanity from near-extinction. Ironically, there are some people psychopathic enough to commit mass genocide just to take over the place. Rockefellers, Rothschilds and their ilk. Conspiracies are dirt ordinary and sloppy, muddy thinking individuals are flinching at the pejorative implications. Time to wake up and start thinking far, far more critically.

[@bobpeckham]

+heckler73 Sorry but when it comes to trying to understand AGW I prefer to rely on the work of atmospheric physicists rather than one fringe biologist, but hey that's just me.

[@heckler73]

bobpeckham I agree, to an extent. However, this is a matter of _radiation_, not just atmospheric dynamics. I know the foundation of the GH effect is false. I have proven it, myself, using first principles. PS I am a physicist. ;-)

[@MAHillsgrove]

So why do academic lectures always start with long meaningless introductions? Perhaps, you people need some classes from your multimedia department. Yes, the information is good. The presentation is painful. Truth need not be boring.

[@IcelanderUSer]

The importance of climate change outweighs the need to make it shiny and appealing to those who have no attention span. Sorry, but I find your comment absurd.

[@jasondashney]

@@IcelanderUSer It's absurd to not want to see pandering and time wasting? Time is the only thing they aren't making more of and I don't like mine wasted on an introductory circle jerk. I think YOUR argument is absurd. By your logic, if he was up there naked and masterbating the whole time it wouldn't matter simply because "The importance of climate change outweighs the need to make it shiny and appealing ".

[@donready119]

Ocean acidification at 1:02:00. I live on the Niagara escarpment limestone, about 410 million years old, formed by coral and marine organisms if the geologists are right. Also, if the scientists are correct (many theories change over time) C02 was about 2000ppm, about 5x greater than now. Obviously, the C02 didn't hurt the oceans back then.

[@RodMartinJr]

Exactly! And according to some estimates, the CO2 levels which existed when shellfish and corals first evolved were between 4,500 and 7,000 ppm. I saw one report that condemned the scientists who worked on ocean acidification, blaming them for shoddy work, using a shortcut to achieve the desired pH using an acid other than carbonic. I'm trying to find the specifics on this last one.

[@RosyOutlook2]

@@RodMartinJr Spare us the bull boys, the weather is controlled and the oceans are full of iron fertilization. Iron and alumina nanoparticles in the skies, ACID rain. You think all the crap in our skies are from one or two degrees of so called warming?

[@RodMartinJr]

@@RosyOutlook2 Wow! Attitude! Controlled? Somewhat, but not perfectly. Nanoparticles? Hell yes. "You think?" How do you know *_what_* I think from one comment. Simple answer: You don't! How about pulling back the attitude a bit and engaging in a real conversation?

[@gbeachy2010]

Someone should tell the current corals that they shouldn't be dying off. Same with birds and insects. Don't they know better?

[@sidvicious6505]

@@gbeachy2010 coral reefs are dying from ocean pollution, mining, tourism, and over fishing including blast and chemical fishing. Birds from insecticides, pollutants, -ocean birds mostly from pollution killing or pushing fish deeper into the ocean Insects- insecticides

[@reference2me]

98% of Canada is to cold to live in but if we have a warming ..the areas that have been unlivable ... will be livable

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

only the soil is not good enough for growing food at scale

[@merlin3921]

The key point that he made in his presentation - "Recorded History". It's pathetic that people don't rationalize that the earth has gone through some massive changes over 4.6 billion years - yet we are fixated on what has happened in the last hundred or so years. Crazy.

[@WeddingDJBusiness]

My thoughts - With regards to water vapour if you look at the equator and the subtropical areas. The equator gets the full effect of the Sun's heat/ UV more than any other latitude . The resulting effect is moisture, and increased rain adding to humidity rise, and cloud increases. This is part of the Earth adapting to maintain equilibrium or homeostasis to balance things out. The temperatures stays very balmy during the day and night. The extremes of temperature are buffered The vegetation, insect, fish life all prosper. People flock to these zones for holidays. At other latitudes and land masses away from water ie desert regions like the center of Australia you will get the extremes in temperatures. The weather patterns that normally force clouds through pressure systems inland don't usually get as far as some of the central land masses because of this you get greater temp differentials. What the speaker fails to point out is many of the inaccuracies in recording measurements, and how CO2 is only one driving factor of Climate. We are from 1880 looking at 0.8 of a degree not including any inaccuracies of record measurement. The main driving factor is of a political government agenda to introduce carbon tax. The simple solutions install nuclear power stations to get clean and reliable power subsidize electric vehicles. Educate people on population so we can become sustainable Stop using toxic chemicals in the environment like the pesticides ie Altrazine , round up etc. and stopping dumping on people with genetically modified food which is another environmental time bomb waiting to go off.

[@WeddingDJBusiness]

@@MartinGugino The students, Greenpeace, and the Scientists are not driving carbon tax. Governments the UN/IPCC have been actively involved in CO2 and climate since the 1990's funding the science to the tunes of billions of dollars. Governments are now paying carbon credits to try and meet some hypothetical climate of 1880 as if that was an ideal. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJ-kq6J6qdx2eMk Margaret Thatcher introducing the IPCC agenda in 1989.

[@RosyOutlook2]

@@WeddingDJBusiness Since before then.

[@RosyOutlook2]

@@MartinGugino You don't think so, but that doesn't mean your correct, and try a one world governance global conspiracy, only a child would be naive enough to think conspiracies are theories. The weather is controlled and that controlled weather used as a weapon is the best CONvincing model for climate change.

[@ruthstclaire9247]

Is CLOUD SEEDING an elephant in the hall? I not a scientist and don't think I am amongst the bright sharp thinkers. So please could some scientist please talk about cloud seeding. How can people talk about human actions causing the destruction of earth, and not ask questions about what substances we put into clouds?

[@yousifatobiya7279]

Lost of (????)L daily as a form of vapor of water from the ground,has a big effect to rise or reduce of temperature by veiling the rays of the sun,and decreasing the earth's radiation... Vapor condensation creates clouds that veil the sun totally,earth and atmosphere ... This a mount of water vapor became produced from(seas and oceans)... This means,the percentage of water vapor which produced from the ground and the (seas&oceans )is difficult... This means the pressures of the air in the atmosphere are different too... This case means the change in the directions of winds,which some called climate change and some called global warming, and then NINO and then LANINA, and this year they called global cooling... Results : These directions of winds, must be balanced... These studies had completed and sent on July 26th 2000... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@grahamlancaster6585]

I could come up with the same data if I only went back as far as his year starts but if he went back another 100 + years the whole graph changes for the cooler plus as CO2 goes up has anyone noticed ( not in his lecture) that from 200ppm to 300ppm the temp goes up 1.6C fact and from 300ppm to 400ppm+ the temp is halved only going up approx .8C - A science fact as CO2 get thicker it does not keep more heat in - you have to double the amount of CO2 each time to increase the temp ie to get temp to rise another 1.6C the CO2 levels have to go to 800ppm + - this is a science fact that was calculated before computers and has since been proven correct with computers - this is part of the facts they don't tell you - it mucks ups their figures and hence why no climate change temp rise and ocean rise prediction has never came true and will not as they keep putting the time frame back and at smaller levels - funny that

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet.

[@RodMartinJr]

+Vance H -- Good to save the planet, but we need to be headed in the right direction. Global cooling is the stupidest direction for our status in an ongoing Ice Age. Those two little white things will grow much larger at the poles when the Holocene suddenly ends. Dumb! We need to get rid of pollution, but CO2 is as much a pollutant as is oxygen. Dumb! Calling it a pollutant is like calling all the water vapor emitted by industry and automobiles a pollutant. Dumb! So, what is smart? Promote Global Warming, because life thrives on warmth. During the Cretaceous thermal maximum, we had +20C warmer for 14 million years and up to 4000 ppmv CO2 WITHOUT Earth "burning up." For NASA to be calling our minor thaw "Earth's fever" shows just how unscientific they've become. What kind of psychopath promotes global cooling in an ongoing Ice Age? We've had Earth jockeying back and forth between glacial and interglacial periods for 2.6 million years. We either need to prepare for the cold or to end the current Ice Age.

[@maritzadiaz984]

Rod Martin, Jr. Stop global warming, Man-made! !

[@clearwaterlakota8405]

+Rod Martin, Jr. - You're jumping the gun, though. We weren't about to collapse into a new glacial period. Even though there may have been a very slight cooling going on now in the absence of global warming, the factors that would normally plunge us into the ice box won't occur for thousands of years. In the meantime, we're going to lose large portions of our coastal cities, or we'll be forced to pay trillions to protect them. Humans are adapted to the ice age --- both phases of it --- and humans have never existed on an earth that's as warm as we're beginning to see now. We're not dinosaurs! Try adding even 5 degrees F to your average summer temperatures and I doubt you'd be very happy about it, unless you live on the Pacific coast north of San Francisco. Large parts of the inhabited world would become unbearably hot if we were to see the worst cast scenario of global warming. I agree with you that global cooling would be a disaster too. Civilization has arisen during an amazingly stable period of climate, so we don't know how we're going to respond to warming or cooling. So far, it looks like we're not going to do enough to keep climate stable, and so our descendents will be saddled with centuries of rising oceans, lost cities, airports, harbors, marshlands, etc., and constantly-changing agricultural conditions that will make it difficult to plan ahead for farmers. All of which is going to happen eventually due to natural causes anyway, but.... since we CAN do something to stabilize climate, why wouldn't we? If you believe that we're inadvertently preventing a new ice age then of course you'd conclude that we're doing exactly what we should be doing. But aside from that one study that predicts a very slight 30-year reduction in solar energy beginning soon, there isn't any evidence that we're heading for anything other than a much-warmer world. p.s. --- I live in Texas, so my bias is against further warming! As Hank Hill said to Dale, "We live in Texas, and if it gets one degree hotter I'm gonna kick your ass!"

[@macullage]

Kasper, I bet you don't know the difference between an Insulator of heat energy, vs. a Conductor. That is how I know you're a rude, ignorant Denier. YOU shut the fuck up. Maybe you are also a "Space Architect" [which don't exist, a$$hole. Got kids? They'll burn like briquettes. Man makes air a more potent INSULATOR.

[@clearwaterlakota8405]

Donald Kasper You precious toddler, do you believe that there's an old gray-bearded man named God who controls climate? Every species that has ever existed affects various aspects of the biosphere. It's a complex interconnected system, Humans are the dominant force right now. We're changing the chemistry of the oceans, changing regional and global climate, and causing the extinctions of thousands of species every year. We're an ecological catastrophe. Educated people have known about greenhouse gases for over a century, and the vast majority of climate scientists have known that burning fossil fuels increases GHGs and warms the biosphere since the 1950s or 60s. Who are you? You're nobody, bellowing belligerent bullshit that validates your personal beliefs and your religious and political preferences. You're radically uninformed, aggressively ignorant, and violently incompetent. You're telling people to shut the fuck up because you refuse to face reality. Grow up, kid. We've got to face the fact that everything we do has consequences, and this gravy train of abundant cheap energy is running out of steam. Or you can just keep on believing that there's no such thing as an atmosphere or greenhouse gases and that God or the sun controls everything, in which case you'll have to re-write atmospheric science from the ground up, since there's zero evidence to support your delusion.

[@yousifatobiya7279]

Three theories or forces dominate or control upon the planet of the earth... Firt: The forces or the theory that dominates upon the atmosphere is the end of the first theory of climate change and global warming (dynamic horizontal movement)... The occurrence of storms,rains,snow, and floods at times, and in unexpected places ,because of the end of the this theory,which needs to balance... Second:The force or theory that dominates upon earthquakes, sinkholes,cracks on earth , volcanic eruptions, dry lakes and rivers, flow of sweet water from the side of dead sea,the formation of new islands, or hills and mountains, and collapse of mountains, & , & ,&... These phenomenons because of the end of the second theory of climate change and global warming(dynamic vertical movement)... This theory becames out of control or balance... Third: The water is revolving or orbiting the earth... Note 1:The earth has a new orbit... Note 2:The earth has tilted 2 degrees... These studies had completed and sent on 26th July 2000... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@ElisabethDevyt]

How dare you?

[@yousifatobiya7279]

The occurrence of stoms,rains,ice, and floods at times and in unexpected places,confirms my theory the end of the (dynamic horizontal movement )which needs to balance and it sill under control or balance... But about earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sinkholes, tsunami, dry lakes and rivers, flow of water from the mountains and hills,explodeand of eyes water from the ground, formation of new mountains or islands, collaps of mountains ,and cracks on ground,& ,& ,&,they are out of control or balance... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@Mrch33ky]

37:54 According to the graph there were several periods of time previously when the CO2 level was higher than today. Assuming there was no industrial civilization 100k, 200k and 300k years ago those warming would have to be "natural" or dare I say it "cyclical", no? Seems today is consistent with warmings of the past. Right on time as a matter of fact. Not sure how he can claim in good faith that this current level is "unprecedented" when clearly according to his own graph it isn't. Also if the CO2 and Methane axes of the graph began at zero (rather than 175 ppm and 294 ppb respectively) both would appear much less dramatic. If the past readings are anything to go by then looks like we are in for a cooling period followed by another ice age.

[@maritzadiaz984]

Please save our Planet, Im recently in California being here for 3 days and it doesn't rain😩sad!!!

[@yousifatobiya7279]

Do not attack the earth, this is how nature and land get angry ... Everything has a weight ... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@aga9618]

1:04

[@CallistoXena]

10. után

[@kimweaver3323]

Well, he shoots down the hoary Science/Climate Denier talking points as well as I have ever seen. Bravo, Mr. Scientist.

[@hyzercreek]

Right, because there are people who deny science.

[@rickhillier7626]

And the others deny reality. :)

[@tycurtin7565]

He shoots down nothing. He regurgitates measurements and explains them in a way to fit his CO2 driving climate hypothesis. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE

[@richarddavis8783]

to mitigate warming: the step that should be taken to control rising seas and to cool the planet. the proposal is to have desalination plants spread offshore along the coasts. how far apart will depend on the measure of arctic ice melt and the capacity of the plants. the objective is to take water from the seas as fast as the artics melt keeping ph levels equal the plants are to be placed on floating platforms. the distance from the shoreline to be determined by environmental concerns over waste ejecting back into the sea. plants to be powered by solar and wind with excess power directed to the mainland. their construction will provide worldwide employment putting a giant dent in impoverishment. a third of our earth is desert. freshwater production will make them bloom. real food will be so abundant that starvation will be a thing of the past. farms will preserve the forest and mitigate carbon emissions. good example: freshwater farming will cool the sahara and northeast africa, bringing cooler air over the atlantic ocean mitigating hurricane seasons, and saving trillions in damage desalination extracts minerals that can be used for our benefit. the benefits seem endless. the main one being that all nations come together to overcome ice melt.

[@garydates8034]

Burt Rutan; the Real Climate Change Data,4 professors explain climate change( look at what your being told by watching these two videos)

[@sylvanslave]

Why cannot we approach human population as the driving cause???

[@Mrch33ky]

no reproducible lab experiments to back up that claim, hence the skepticism on the parts of many

[@alangardner8596]

It's Antarctica not Anartica there are two t's in Antarctica? Apart from that it's a very good lecture and very informative.

[@jasondashney]

1:04:30 is true in an overall sense, but FFS you can't possibly equate it to climate science. If ANY scientist has anything to say that goes against the popular narrative with climate change they are immediately shouted down, shunned and silenced and that means there are absolutely no honest intellectual debates about any of this. It's unfortunate because I see bias and gaps in logic on both sides so it's incredibly hard to find out the real truth, and further to that, an honest debate about what we do and don't know. One thing is for damn sure, there is absolutely not a consensus amongst climate scientists. At all. How much is man caused? How much will man contribute? How much is due to planetary orbiting and solar impacts etc. People need to understand how science is supposed to work. You see ranges in predictions that are multiples of each other. That doesn't sound like much of a consensus to me. This presenter seems to be one of the most pragmatic ones because he fully admits the amount of stuff that's still unknown and that makes me trust him. The more certain a speaker is about this incredibly complicated project, the less I trust them on either side.

[@1lightheaded]

I have not heard of anyone being shouted down and the science is not furthered by debate among people who have no knowledge but have an opinion anyway.

[@jasondashney]

@@1lightheaded Are you for real? You literally haven't heard of a single scientist who's been insulted and had people try to cancel him for even slightly questioning the "settled science"? Check out the Great Barrington Declaration. Signed by scores of scientists with impeccable credentials. Google the term and see what people have to say. These men and women have been the subject to intense scorn by people like you who are so ideologically driven that you honestly believe that anyone who doesn't see things the way you do. "and the science is not furthered by debate among people who have no knowledge but have an opinion anyway" is a perfect example of the twisted "logic'" you guys use. If it goes against what you believe, it's junk science by definition and therefore unworthy of debate so it doesn't exist. It's the most narrow worldview every and is completely irrational and irresponsible.

[@stevejones2310]

Shouting down only occurs on social media, I reckon. And not in scientific conventions or scientific press

[@Neutraal37]

Can some one explain to me how humans were cause of CC prior to the industrial age?

[@dalewolver8739]

They killed lots of dinosaurs and barbecued them which caused lots of smoke and co2

[@jgalt308]

Where did you get the idea that they were? Present climate change is driven by increased CO2, from sources which were sequestered, and released by the industrial age, and is explained here by the FACT that for 800,000 years the atmospheric CO2 levels varied from 180 to 280 ppm. Therefor everything above 280 ppm can be attributed to human activity.....also, in natural cycles, temperature increase precedes CO2 level increase....however, in this instance, because of the rapid increase of CO2 directly, the CO2 has become the driver of temperature, and not the other way around, as it would be for the normal climate cycles.

[@personzorz]

Effects that were very mild compared to industrial effects came from cutting down and burning forests for farmland and making large rice paddies which leak some methane

[@suziesmith2142]

@@jgalt308 In the Cambrian, it was 7,000ppm and life literally EXPLODED on land and in the ocean. There was no acidification. In fact, Mollusks were born at that time. The earth is now greening again, due to humans producing a trace amount of C02. And C02 does follow temperature. For example, when the ocean is cold, it holds C02 and when it's warm, it out gasses C02. Same thing with beer- cold beer has no foam, (unless it's Guinness and then Nitrogen mixed with C02 makes that creamy foam), but warm beer out gasses more C0A and it gets foamy. The ocean is by far the largest source of atmospheric C02. We need to stay warm and go places, so we use power in different forms. We produce a small amount of C02 when we do that. We certainly need to pollute less and we're working on that but, C02 is not a pollutant. It's plant food. Plants like it. And, the more of it, the more efficiently plants are able to use water. We're all doing OK. The earth will do what it dang well pleases! Just don't let your opportunist political thieves try to take your money by shaming you for being human, needing to go places and stay warm. People are not a pox on the earth. We belong here. 8-) Freeman Dyson does a great job of explaining how the C02 molecule behaves on a logarithmic scale. Give him a listen and you'll worry less. Life is short y'all! Peace.

[@jgalt308]

@@suziesmith2142 Actually, those estimates have been revised downward, to around 4000 ppm and the life form structure was entirely different, and is entirely different now from what it was then. All the rest of your green CO2 is good thing, is in fact "false" since all present plant life, for that last 800,000 years has evolved to adapt to the 180/280 ppm....and for humans in terms of food value, the forcing that is taking place is neither positive nor beneficial, as nutrient value is decreasing and some are actually becoming poisonous. ( a directed search regarding these effects will provide you will the appropriate articles and the research papers that support them. ) But, of course, if you were actually interested in the evidence and the correct understanding of climate change ( the present warming ) you would know this already.....and the 100 ppm increase, has actually interrupted the glaciation cycle that has dominated the last million years and stopped it in its tracks......all 100% of it is human contribution....and without which ( the glaciation cycle ) much of what you know as earth, would have been underwater. But, things do go extinct...they just have never been responsible for their own extinction, until now.

[@bobroberts7305]

The basic argument about a so-called lack of energy balance is deeply flawed - here is why: It is based entirely on flawed estimates. This post will be pages long if I explain it in detail, I just have to say you need to read up on how the so called "energy imbalance" is ESTIMATED to understand how flawed it is. Is there missing energy? Then it is NO DOUBT due to flaws in the estimates, very likely a key flaw results from errors in how much energy is stored BY LIFE in chemical changes resulting from life processes. This energy doesn't disappear - it goes into chemical bonds and so does not wind up being radiated. If you bother to check, NASA has noted an explosion of life in the biosphere, a greening of the Earth, as early as 1980 which they attributed to warmer temperatures and more carbon dioxide. This greening of the Earth has been confirmed by recent peer reviewed, published works which not only confirm a general greening and explosion of life in the biosphere, directly contradicting claims of an ongoing mass extinction with hard observational data, but also a finding that the deserts, which climate alarmist dogma says are becoming more barren and lifeless, are actually greening. You have a choice. You can believe humans are evil and are destroying the Earth or you can examine the actual available data and see that whether humans are or are not responsible for the measured steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (they are not - history shows that as the world warms atmospheric carbon dioxide levels naturally increase - and if you want to challenge this I'll give a short description of how and why but it would be better if you research it yourself) the fact is this increase in carbon dioxide is producing more life, not causing a mass extinction. What extinctions of species are being caused by humans are basically among species that were on the way out anyway and are pushed past the brink due to land use changes - ironically in some cases caused by the construction of "green energy" production projects such as wind farms (kill many birds and also threaten other at risk species at the locations where they're built) and solar plants (documented that they put at greater risk already threatened species that are struggling in the areas where they are built as well).

[@yousifatobiya7279]

60% of the(land)breeze and the(sea)changed in Iraq and this difference arrived at other countries of the world... This difference caused the change of the directions of winds,which needs to balance... You spend more than 100 years to study the age and the thickness of the ice at the poles(north and south ),but you didn't spend one day to return ice to his place... I think that science is for the Americans and the Europeans !!! ??? ... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@joekisonu2008]

burn more coal......warm this iceberg up......i'm tired of running a furnace 7 months a year and wearing earmuffs and gloves 5 months a year........give me some heat!

[@lcwilliamlee]

I just read that he (Ralph Cicerone) died on November 5, 2016. What a loss for all of us.

[@maxotaurus5140]

William Lee Bless him. And he had a long fruitful​ life *and* avoids the coming hell on Earth.

[@scotthullinger9955]

If it comes from a university in California, then rest assured that it's a load of crap.

[@richardnailhistorical3445]

' we have a lot of data; we need more data; need to look at the data; data doesn't tell us;' etc. etc. etc.. Hello, hello, just about everything talked about here has been talked about everywhere, nothing really new (yah, 2016 I know). Ok let's get into the heart of all this subject, i.e., fossil fossil fossil fuels is the cause of everything that's going wrong. Update: fossil fuels is what makes modern society, it's how it's all done, I need wood to heat my home, w/o fossil there is nothing! What really pisses me off about these types of lectures is the ignoring of the obvious .... e.g., would 2 billion humans put out less CO2 than 8 billion - THAT IS THE QUESTION! Will 12 billion put out more CO2 than 8 billion - that is the next question? The resuls of those facts are obvious, we don't need 'more data' to understand anything there! Because population is a religious issue we avoid it and dive into the caldron of data searching for answers - which will NEVER be found! Humanity is committing 'social suicide', simple as that and will well deserve the outcome!

[@miked5106]

8:30. His Earth Energy Budget diagram actually disproves the Man made GHG Effect Hypothesis which is totally dependent on the mythical LWR emanating from the Earth's surface. In order for the Earth to 'emit' LWR you'd have to put the planet in a laboratory vacuum as heat only 'radiates' in space. In the absence of LWR, CO2 does nothing. LWR is the theoretical match that lights the CO2. It's not there, so no heat transfer exists. The 390w on the diagram is nonexistent. You can stop watching after 10:00. The Earth cools every night via conduction and convection. The atmosphere, N2 & O2, acts as an insulator similar to the air in a storm window. It allows the Earth's surface and oceans to cool more slowly. The thought that the atmosphere can warm the warmer Earth's surface is absurd. There is no man-made climate change.

[@kenmarriott5772]

What about Sun effecting warming through sunspots, effecting magnetic field, effecting cosmic rays, effecting cloud seeding.

[@Mrch33ky]

Design some experiments, get them funded, published and reproduced and get back to us with the results

[@MrDavidBFoster]

edit

[@yousifatobiya7279]

The people plan their future, but you didn't plan the future of the earth... The world makes sins ,when he did not study and hear the studies and the advices of the others... Yousif A Tobiya Forcibly displaced

[@WeddingDJBusiness]

For those wanting to do something else maybe if we all wear white clothes and reflect the heat back. Just a bit of humour :) Let's just focus on population and pollution and the CO2 will be part of that solution. Otherwise this just drives mad ideas like the last video I watched on genetically non biodegradable plants.

[@rickengman1042]

It's getting colder now every year winter start early and ends late. Same thing happened in past weather heats up then cools down, weather is right in time with past.

[@MAHillsgrove]

We could really use the data, charts and predictions. Some of us are fighting the trolls paid to lie, and it's imperative to always have hard facts available.. Help out those of us fighting the war for truth and action.

[@bobroberts7305]

Actually you better not bother to present the data and charts, because they're based on observations and consistently show that the predictions of you climate alarmists TROLLS are consistently WRONG. Even the IPCC reports confirm this. Just review the predictions of each report - oh, I forgot, you don't bother to actually read them or the science they're supposedly based upon. So I'll summarize. With each report the IPCC has to revise their graphs because the predictions made in the previous reports failed to come true and in fact despite the fact our carbon production (the human race) has continued to rise at or beyond their worst case scenarios, the rate of surface warming has slowed down and has come in BELOW their best case predictions. It's a fact, even you can look it up, but like other climate alarmists you most likely won't and even if you're part of the 1% that actually does you will find some excuse to deny it.

[@NewPipeFTW]

@@bobroberts7305 Cant agree with that. The recent IPCC reports always low balled the models while reality showed an exceeding of those predictions. New oberservations just confirm the predicted trends. Global average temperature increased to levels not seen since 2000years on this globe. We are still heading into an unprecedented climate change while experts trying to figure out all the processes involved others keep denying there is a problem. Cause turning the global climate clock back to pre human conditions doenst effect them or something..

[@olavi88]

Mr Cicerone told that thermal expansion of ocean water accounts for may-be one third or half of the sea level rise. But with the global warming there should be thermal expansion of land masses, too, and therefore the diameter of the Earth's land mass should increase a little also. Has anybody measured by satellites the changes of the diameter of Earth's land masses? And isn't it so that the disrepancy between the old sea level rise data measured in ports (ca 1.4 mm/year) and the sea level rise data from satellites (3.3 mm/year) is caused by simultaneous ocean water thermal expansion and land mass thermal expansion?

[@johnoleary7519]

Expect a 2 degree C rise in global temperature above base by 2018 and a 3.5 degree C above base by 2020. Welcome to runaway greenhouse. Have a nice day.

[@droverholt]

didn't happen by Decmeber 2018...infact it is cooling. Look at teh real data, teh satelltie data at Univ of Alabama and Nasa, etc. Regular solar and PDO cycles. Real science!

[@GoreBullWarming]

[29.11] NOAA just recently changed from 30% to 15% sea ice....because it showed a 2015 being worse. If you really want to see what sea ice extent is google "uss sea devil 1987 north pole". As far as I know the north pole doesn't look as open in 2015 as it did in 1987. If it did it would be on the front page of every news paper. There are so many inaccuracies in the temperature record it is very hard to make any claim of global warming. also as mentioned below: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

[@xponen]

+Bill .WattsUpWithThat , misleading. The submarine have sonar to find thin ice, it doesn't surface at same spot every time. It's always thin where ice is refreezing.

[@RodMartinJr]

+xponen And far more irrelevant! Because we live in an ongoing Ice Age and the Holocene interglacial of our current Ice Age is 500+ years overdue to end (W.S. Broecker, 1998). Melt the damned ice. End the current Ice Age. All change brings its problems, but cold is far, far more deadly. I dare you to grow crops in the snow when permanent winter strikes Kansas once again.

[@maritzadiaz984]

Stop man-made global warming now!!

[@godkingofspace]

+Rod Martin, Jr. The entire history of humanity has been during an ice age, we are dependent on THIS climate and THIS biosphere to have any habitat to live, a transition to a "hot-house" earth would decimate the human population. You are slave to your corporate masters. Edit. Sorry just reading more of that "W.S. Broecker, 1998" you seem to think supports your assertions... Did you even read it? or did you just think no one else would? Either way that's really sad for you.

[@grindupBaker]

+godkingofspace The cooling into the next interglacial period "ice age" started 7,000 years ago. It takes 10,000 years or more to get cooled much. GMST should have cooled 1.2 degrees over 7,000 years but it only cooled 0.6 degrees over 7,000 years because humans started CO2 increase 6,000 years ago (rice paddies, livestock) & humans started CH4 increase 4,000 years ago. Google Bill Ruddiman because it's fascinating. It's irrelevant now. Humans swung it right off the cycles and are firmly in control in a fun totally-out-of-control human sort of way. Very interesting.

[@moussaouiahmed]

????

[@grindupBaker]

+Moussaoui Ahmed Yes. No. No. Yes.

[@maxotaurus5140]

grindupBaker Beep! Wrong! It is no, yes, yes, no!

[@donready119]

The first graphs of global temps have a problem. The only good 100 year records are the continental USA. The majority of the rest of the land mass was poorly covered. Oceans, hardly at all!! The temperature of the oceans was only known since about the 1970's. Most ocean records were a bucket overboard or engine coolant readings and this in the shipping lanes, maybe 2% of the ocean. Those in the shipping business don't give much credence to their accuracy.

[@RodMartinJr]

It has become increasingly obvious to me that, because of problems like those you've mentioned in your many comments, someone is *_pushing_* this agenda. I think Dr. Tim Ball nailed it when he mentioned Biggest Oil Rockefellers being behind the demonization of CO2. When you add that to David Rockefeller's admission in his Memoirs, it all starts to make sense. David R. bragged that he had conspired for decades against the best interests of the United States, all to produce a One-World government. America has too much freedom.

[@danstrayer111]

The big problem with all climate change denial is that denial in itself, and in your case, another tired conspiracy theory, is that in no case is any actual evidence ever presented which shows that everyone else is wrong. This is another variant of the idea that "My ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge". We don't HAVE to present evidence like the scientific community, we just have to deny at all times the validity of science. It is an empty argument with nothing substantial inside of it. It the very same play Trump makes on a daily basis, but as long as it's what people need to hear to validate their pre-conceived notions, it passes for truth. And somehow...someday..this will become reality, right?

[@donready119]

@@danstrayer111 Good point about presenting evidence. I am all for it. Don't know how you figured I am a denialist. I see the effects of glaciation where I live in Ontario: drumlins, eskers, moraines. The ice left and it will return. Climate changes. Evidence in science should show the error bars, usually left out of showy graphics. My points about ocean temps are a perfect example. Our long term measurements are poor. I have seen the map of weather stations from a 100 years ago and world coverage sucked, especially the oceans. I went to Rutgers U and downloaded their northern hemisphere snow extent data. No trend there. The last 2 years have shown huge snow mass increases for the northern hemisphere, way above the standard deviation zones. Go to the DMI site. The video had a nice graph of greenhouse gas forcing. However, it left out water vapour which is about a 1000 times more important than C02. I have spent way too much time looking at data and drawn my own conclusions. Time will tell what the truth is.

[@danstrayer111]

Don...yeah sorry that conspiracy part was directed at Rod. So the rest of it: Ocean temperatures, like land temps, are very misleading if not handled correctly. For one thing, ocean surface temp is not an indication of how deep that temperature goes, therefore the total energy accumulation cannot be known. Deeper ocean measurements are needed to ascertain that. Land temps are another.....measuring permafrost temperatures mean almost nothing, since permafrost, or any ice, can and will absorb huge amounts of energy WITHOUT showing a temperature increase because the phase change from solid to liquid takes energy without producing measurable change in temp.. See "latent heat of fusion of water". Huge snow increases can be a statistical outlier, or confirmation of steadily warming climate, depending on how long that goes on. Heavy snow is without a doubt a sign of warming. I'll just wait for someone to call me out on that. Water vapor is by far the biggest volume of GHG, however it does not linger nearly as long in the atmosphere as CO2....water vapor can precipitate out day-today, by the CO2 will not, so the relative importance comes with qualifications. Also, methane oxidizes to CO2, so this adds another variable to the CO2 volume as permafrost thaws. SO, in opposition to all of this and much more, we have primarily republican/science denying/religious fanatics whose only rebuttal is "no..it's fake...not real...no evidence...no..no..no", without offering ANYTHING of substance. Like Inhofe bringing the snowball into Congress to show that climate is not warming..what the FUCK was that all about? Can you believe ANYBODY could be that stupid? They don't even know what the word "warmer" even means. Just deny everything,.

[@RodMartinJr]

@@danstrayer111 What's your definition of "denialist" and deny what? Do you know what a conspiracy is? Please define. It always helps to know we're on the same page, using the same definitions.

[@timbozza1678]

IR absorption from GHG is mostly from H20 and not CO2 as this guy says. GHE warms the Earth very little. Most of the 33°K of surface temperature warming is from autocompression of Earth's atmosphere. Whether a gas is a GHG or not matters little. The GHE is immeasurably small.

[@1lightheaded]

Incorrect

[@timbozza1678]

@@1lightheaded articulate

[@firesmith1373]

According to jim hansen NY and FL is already under water.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

According to Jim Hansen - he is correct indeed. Thanks for trying.

[@andrebalsa203]

Great video. "Must watch" for any college student. And compulsory for all politicians and presidential candidates.

[@sysvrev0]

Hear hear! EVERY citizen should have some base knowledge of the measurements and models (THE science - what we can measure), that are in use to predict/model/forecast/guess(approximate) future climate. THE science in Climate Science. More Time = more Data = better Models.

[@grindupBaker]

+Dennie D I don't know climate models of course because I've never worked on that software. I've written other computer simulations, much simpler than climate models of course. I can offer the basic obvious - if the grid box is to be reduced from 90 km x 90 km to 10 km x 10 km with the average height reduced proportionally then the compute time will be, obviously, 9**4=6,561x as long or a supercomputer 6,561x as fast as Jaguar would be needed. Bit of a problem. You'll recall that the white mice needed to pay Slartibartfast to make an analog computer the size of Earth and exactly the same and put some species of apes & whatnot on it to do some computations.

[@bobroberts7305]

@@grindupBaker- Even the IPCC admits climate models are deeply flawed and explains why they cannot accurately predict future climate states more than a few days out. It's in chapter 9 (if memory serves) of the IPCC reports going back at least 3 of such reports (they didn't have to explain, or maybe didn't care to explain, why their predictions continually had to be adjusted in the first or second reports, but I believe by the 3rd that pretty much became mandatory when critics pointed out how they kept reducing their gloom and doom predictions and demanded to know why).

[@kamladeviram4363]

Sea level rise in 1991 that was when i had to come back to London from living in isle of man to buy another properties. The teachers cook helpers and parents at king william college in castletown in isle of Man wanted free education for their children. Kuwait and iraqi war started. Sadam Husain was throwing all the babies out of the incubaties in hospital while i was saving a kuwaiti baby Al Sabah who was under my care in Hyde Park Square London W2.

[@RosyOutlook2]

Well dear you're so full of it.

[@crangonvulgaris9820]

The babies and incubators story is bogus , used to garner support of the american population for war in middle east .

[@bobd251]

He acknowledges he is using "adjusted" land/surface measured data, and then he notes that these were all good adjustments (yeah I'm sure they were pal er.... peer reviewed. Nothing to see here... move along). If adjustments were made due to "urban heat island effect" then recent data should be cooled. Is he saying it would be even hotter than his charts show now? Then why is it when guys like Tony Heller use unadjusted original data and compares it to this current adjusted "consensus" data it clearly shows that they have cooled the past (1930s-40s) and warmed recent measurements? And surprisingly it matches their theory of CO2 driven warming... like a glove. Hmmm... Interesting.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Tony Heller has been thoroughly debunked

[@bobd251]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Tony Heller has not been debunked. He is telling the truth.

[@bobd251]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 That's like saying all those claims that the Italian mob was engaged in illegal activity has been thoroughly debunked. We asked the mob if they were engaged in illegal activity. And they said no. You see? Thoroughly debunked : )

[@tommiecharcoal]

Did all those people in the audience drive to the lecture hall? Or were they shipped in on buses? Did this talk really need an audience, or is that to try and prove it has popular support?

[@bobleclair5665]

If co2 is plant food and we’ve been cutting trees well before the Industrial Age,,I would think maybe it’s not the co2 that’s the problem but deforestation,,it’s obvious that the shaded part of the road is usually cooler than the unshaded,plant a tree,,it rains more in the forest than the dessert, plant a tree,,,the rains cool the oceans,,we cut trees for the sake of electrical wires to air condition our homes,,trees take in co2 and give us oxygen and also contribute to the ozone layer which helps protect us from harmful uv rays, and trees hold the ground together from floods,,the list goes on,,we need to green our planet earth,,we need more trees

[@RosyOutlook2]

We need the military and private firms to stop manipulating our weather. It's not climate change which causes severe weather it's weather modification.

[@bobleclair5665]

It seems people aren’t aware of geoengineering

[@suziesmith2142]

Well at least for the northern hemisphere, we have far more trees than 100 years ago. We actually had too little C02 😊 Things are getting better.

[@mgg7756]

Full of deniers in the comments. Amazin

[@dalecarpenter8828]

full of crap believers ! ... in fairy tale so called science ! try the real science the thundebolts project !

[@corchem]

This gentleman just indicated that Mars has virtually no greenhouse effect (at about 12 min into the video) yet Mar's atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide! Earth's carbon dioxide composition is 0.04%. I guess physics is different on Mars??? It has also been published that 2015 was 0.01 degrees warmer than the next hottest year yet the graphs show what looks like exponential heating! Satellite data show nearly no heating for the last 18 to 19 years running. Let's be honest, the IPCC made predictions based on models created by "climate scientist" and the actual temperatures nearly 30 years later are out of the range predicted. If you make predictions based on science, and the predictions are wrong over time, your "science" was wrong...

[@xponen]

+corchem nah, your sources lied to you, and Mars' atmosphere is thin, akin to climbing Everest, hence the cold.

[@corchem]

Thank you for revealing your lack of comprehension. It has nothing to do with the temperature on Mars, but rather the solar radiation input vs. the radiation output back to space ratio. A 95% CO2 atmosphere should absorb radiation, yet it seemingly does not by admition of this very video... That is not to say it would be warm. Quite frankly I wonder how you maintain 310 K.

[@xponen]

corchem Mars really have very little air... that sliver of CO2 it had is absolutely miniscule compared to Earth. It couldn't warm planet Mars. It's absolutely below freezing out there.

[@corchem]

+xponen It has nothing to do with temps, its the energy in/out ratio... Mars has more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, having more CO2 (more than double Earth's) those molecules should be holding a noticeable amount of energy and apparently they are not. The energy they retain is negligible, just like here on Earth. That is why with the rise in CO2 on Earth, temperatures have NOT increased in any significantly correlative way....

[@xponen]

corchem ... temperature is energy; low temperature, low energy. Also, Mars barely had air to screen the sun compared to Earth; which is soo dense with air, the sky turn blue... Physics.

[@dreamdiction]

5 minute waffle into

[@theevermind]

Starting with the net energy balance of the earth is a good place to start. He mentions how light reflecting off of white things reduces the energy absorbed by the earth. He also says anything that perturbs the balance has the potential to alter the climate. Why then do all climate change discussions revolve around CO2 which is only a (small) part of the equation? Why aren't we increasing the reflectivity of the earth? We could change building codes to require all buildings in warm locales to use white, heat-reflecting roofs. Less energy absorbed -> more sent back into space -> less environmental warming (including urban heat island effect). Heat-reflecting or "cool" roofs are known to reduce energy demand ~30%, which means less electricity consumption & its associated fuel & pollution. Lower energy bills pays for the new roof materials. Less warming, greater comfort, lower energy consumption, and it pays for itself--it's a win-win-win-win plan. Similarly, parking lots can be covered with heat-reflecting canopies. Floating reflectors can be installed in reservoirs to reduce evaporation as well as prevent warming. We could run trials with aerosols. Even if we chose to not pursue it, we could at least get data. Isn't it about time we actually start doing something about heat gain besides talking, running analyses, and politics-as-usual?

[@edpiv2233]

dMb The entire argument has to revolve around CO2 because that something that can be regulated. There is no profit regulating the reflection of glaciers in Greenland. The entire argument hinges on positive or negative forcing. Every climate model only takes into consideration positive forcing that's why they have all been wrong. We know very little about how cloud cover impacts the forcing though the observation shows that there is negative forcing due to the lack of correlation between the increase in CO2 and temperature.

[@theevermind]

EdP IV As I understand it, another flaw beyond only considering one variable, CO2, in the climate models is the that the models are calibrated to the rapid run up in temperature in the late 20th century, and they attribute all the gain on CO2, which is why models' amplification factors are so high, and why they will perpetually overestimate temperature rise in the future. I agree that CO2 is their target because all traditional energy sources cannot change their CO2 output. A gallon of gasoline will always produce exactly the same amount of CO2. Consequently, regulating CO2 gives govt all power over energy & industry & the whole of the economy. Taxes, carbon markets, etc., absolutely will funnel money into the 'right' people's hands. The fact that they ignore everything else demonstrates to me that they don't really care about warming nearly as much as they claim.

[@josepheccles9341]

This does not take into consideration volcanic activity. Should you reduce CO2 by as much 250 ppm from current, you will starve the planet. All plants require CO2 to grow. It is shown in history that we are now very low CO2 in atmosphere compared to the 1500s. How do you account for that?

[@jgalt308]

Wow a bunch of statements which seem to be straining for meaning while bordering on the non causative, non correlated and nonsensical. For the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels have varied from 180 to 280 ppm, which would include the 1500's. And yes, everything has been taken into account.....the sulfur particulates from volcanoes and fossil fuels produce a cooling effect, although the precise degree of "cooling" is not known.....but that just makes the complexity of the problem worse, since without them, the warming would be greater, and since we are already warming, because there is a net increase in GH gases....removing the fossil fuel source of them, would accelerate the warming effects of existing GH gases, extremely rapidly..... P.S. no one is striving to reduce CO2 levels by 250 ppm.....we are trying to get back to the 280 ppm range .....as an ideal, or at least prevent further increases from present levels......but even this does not look probable. And for that 800,000 years, the plants have evolved to prefer that range....through natural selection.....so if you are going to radically change that, that the plants will "thrive" is just as nonsensical as the rest of your thankfully brief attempt to "educate" us. But hey, maybe they'll get really pissed and become man eaters... and we can appease them by sacrificing you?

[@peterjohnstaples]

So lets warm the planet with 3 billion acres of solar panels.

[@stephenking4170]

very comprehensive and open presentation of climate change alarmist theory. woolly qualifiers are sprinkled through almost every issue mentioned. The fundamental driver, the sun is what drives everything and CO2 is a symptom, not a cause. Anthropogenic CO2 is a miniscule fraction of that, so the fundamentals dictate that this is a storm in a teacup that people will look back on in a decade's time and wonder hat the fuss was about. Too many people have invested too much into this fallacy to stop the train yet. It's tragic really because so much energy and resources wasted on fallacious issues when there are pressing real conservation issues we ought to be addressing that we know will make a difference (plastics pollution, species loss, biodiversity protection protecting rainforests).

[@bonnieprather610]

It's really too bad you morons aren't going to be the only ones affected. esad

[@donfox1036]

He and others who had hoped global warming was caused by the Sun "no longer have a leg to stand on" yet these brave crippled scientists keep working to inform us of their fears. Good on 'em, I say.

[@maxfynd1418]

If you look at the temperature vs solar activity charts since 1960 you will see peaks about 1960 and then in the following years. You can see the trend in earlier years, the sunspot maxima correlating with increased temperatures. Let's assume that each peak delivered enough radiation to deplete the ozone layer thus increasing temperatures. Independent work has theoretically proven that solar highs may influence the following days, weeks and possibly much longer i.e. years. If another peak occurred while the earlier one remained temps would continue to rise despite the solar sunspot rate being less. The Earth under higher solar radiation may resonate at the same frequency as the Sun in a cumulative progression or kickalong effect. It looks like the peaks of the 1960s and later have increased the temperatures, possibly by reducing the ozone layer, in the later years. This remanence added to solar resonance in times of high solar activity may even affect digital measuring equipment giving an inflated picture of temperature change.THE TAKEAWAY FROM THIS IS TO USE ANALOG AND DIGITAL INSTRUMENTS AND CHOOSE THE MEAN..OR IF SATELLITE INSTRUMENTS MEASURING TEMPERATURES ARE USED, BUILD IN A SUNSPOT ACTIVITY COMPONENT SO THAT TEMPERATURES ARE ONLY MEASURED WHEN THE SUN IS QUIET. THIS COULD ALSO BE DONE AT SURFACE STATIONS. HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WILL CONDUCT AN EXPERIMENT TO SEE WHETHER HIGH SOLAR ACTIVITY LEADS TO DIGITAL ERROR COMPARED WITH ANALOG EQUIPMENT. It would be the test of the first part of the theorem if Greenland started to cool again in the next few years instead of melting at an alarming rate. Voilez! There could be incontrovertible evidence that the climate change could be solar induced and subject to digital error. Is it possible that the climatologists are not factoring in this effect of solar high remanence as peaks and relying on solar affected digital measurement? This is a serious contention. Also, what if the solar effect was 60% and the manmade effect 40%? Has anyone read any work that postulates this? Of course whether any of the data published re warming etc can be proven is debatable. Or we might in fact just end up living in Antarctica in 80 years if the negative is true. .

[@1lightheaded]

Which of the climate science fields did you receive your Ph.d in

[@georgesmith4639]

So according to the questioner at 1:06:32 the problem requires a "revolution" in the USA to completely change our form of government and economic system. Presumably he means a strong dictatorial force able to force a drastic carbon "marshal law" is needed. Presumably the kind of dictatorial force that exists in communist and strongly socialist systems. So does the increasingly largest CO2 emitter on the planet (China) also need a political revolution to move away from dictatorial communism/socialism? Does India who is also a top and increasing emitter of CO2 have to abandon it's socialistic system? It's an awfully convenient answer by those who detest US free market capitalism for ideological reasons to say revolution in the USA is a required part of the solution. As an aside, from Forbes.... "According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union."

[@jeffgold3091]

His ridiculous , childlike and totally wrong explanation of how tide gauges work reveals the shallowness of his requisite knowledge . Anything is possible if you dont know what youre talking about .

[@yededebdonkorotube2227]

Why don't we ever hear about climate change phenomena on other planets as it relates to our own eg. Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, et al.?

[@roberthicks1612]

Because if you hear about it, it destroys their claim its man made.

[@bonnieprather610]

Dumby

[@roberthicks1612]

We know there has been climate changes in the atmosphere of every planet that has one.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

we do if you LISTEN instead of waiting to HEAR. Try reading physics professor Raymond Pierrehumbert - he's now at Oxford.

[@vinlemarechal8296]

i will keep leaving this comment,as mentioned there is a heating effect in any built up area,towns cities etc.heard it said as 4 degrees.solution is simple as painting any and everthing white.white reflects heat dark absorbs.british army in india painted everything white in there camps to keep it cool.every town has black roads black pavements dark roofs dark brick buildings.it may only make 2 % differnce,and before you ask get your labour to paint from prisons and unemployed.if all countries did this may buy 20 30 or 50 years while we cut emmisions.