PALEOCLIMATOLOGY Part 1

[@mybirds2525]

I find complete ironic that KZbin decided to slap a "context" on this when in fact this video is very heavy in data and very light if at all in any comment. That will tell you a lot. I am good enough scientist that while there are points I might be critical and/or supportive of what he says, I am not wanting to be involved in splitting hairs. I want a good open discussion of the science here and I would suggest that people would do well to learn a great deal from this video. We are so profoundly devoid of any "rational" and "data" driven discussions that I find his presentation very profoundly important and wonderful. KZbin should quit their Context notes on such discussions and just let people see the truth for themselves.

[@JoeCoxJodo]

@@mybirds2525 I get censored a lot lately. How about you?

[@yokosucks]

You are assuming that the UN climate change label is about science when, in fact, it is purely political. Its purpose is not to be informative but to be persuasive vis-á-vis The Narrative.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

YT puts that banner on ALL videos about climate.

[@ramieskola7845]

Yes it should but it won't. It's 'their' corporation and they can suppress or promote whatever they want. This is against the law in US, since the platform is not regulated like other publishers are. The law is only for the peasant class to follow.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

@@ramieskola7845 give me a video about climate where it is absent, please.

[@scottjones6921]

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

[@mark4asp]

Bizarre. Given the vast number of loony climate activists out there who know nowt - one would expect they'd come here to learn the climate history they so badly lack.

[@johnmorgan5495]

I have a small brain but I am trying hard to follow this imprtant information. All brilliant, Thank you Tom Gallagher.

[@TBonerton]

Simply put, humans cannot predict or adjust the Earth's climate to suit our needs. HUMANS must suit our needs to what the EARTH gives us.

[@vesosobot4094]

Best explanation of complex material I have ever viewed. Thanks much to Tom Gallagher!

[@andrewjackson7785]

What a great presentation

[@Turbohh]

Excellent perspective on a very complex issue. Lot of interesting details. Thank you very much.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

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

[@scottekoontz]

It's not wrong to shot it, but wrong to claim that is what is happening now. Solar irradiation is lower in the past 60 years, yet we warm. CO2 is higher than it has been in millions of years. It's CO2. Clearly.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

It is wrong. It is just deceiving. Studies show co2 is a major knob of global temperature over the Phanerozoic. To show the absence of correlation by ignoring the sun luminosity change over that period as well as continental drifting is dishonest. And of course you are right about the last 60 or 40 years , the sun activity is on a decreasing trend and cannot explain the current warming.

[@paulmicks7097]

We can safely say the Holocene is ending and Obscene is underway.

[@Yvanlemay]

This is a great finding!!

[@scottekoontz]

We can safely say that a 20,000 year cycle is not what we are witnessing within decades. This is grade-school stuff.

[@patrickjamessmith1]

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

[@mark4asp]

Yes - albedo applies to the whole earth - land, water and clouds. For me, the most dramatic thing about water reflecting light is in how the incident angle of the light is so important. The more acute the angle of incidence - the more light is reflected. There are some studies on this.

[@marcobsomer5574]

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

[@philippesarrazin2752]

Il faut avoir des connaissances solides pour noter les insuffisances. Il reprend un graphe clasique de la sphère dénialiste : 12:00 it is so wrong to show that co2/temperature over the last 500 million years without saying the sun is warming by 1% per 100 million years and without talking about continental drift whihc is going to impact the thermohaline circulation and the capacity to build ice caps at the pole. Un bon nombre d'etudes montrent que le CO2 est un facteur majeur de l'evolution de la temperature au cours des 500 millions d'années passées.

[@stephaneg.8623]

Brilliant presentation, thank you!!

[@lonniekennedy6130]

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

[@HoserEh82]

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

[@jimr5855]

In the same breath he noted the southern hemisphere ice study showed the opposite, CO2 lagged temp... aka... no consensus.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

See Caillon 2003 and Shakun 2012. CO2 lags in Vostok, for sure. Why would it lag in the NH ? THe 2 hemispheres have different profiles.

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

I am 76 years old. When a small boy we drove in my father's new Ford pickup. As I sat on his lap steering the snow reached the power wires on the poles. The poles were not as tall in the early 50's. But the snow plowed out of the road was more than 10 ft deep. During one storm my father measured the snowfall for 48 hrs. It snowed 7 ft in that length of time. I can remember in 1971 throwing snow out of my driveway as high as I could throw at 20 years of age. The past two years here in Cashmere it has gotten to -10° both of the last two years. For 1 or 2 days. February has been very warm in comparison to my youth as the warmth comes in from the Pacific. A huge volume of warm ocean water now exists which has occurred since my mid 50's. This huge volume of warm water has occurred since the 90's. It brings warmer weather after the first of the year.

[@sdev2749]

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

[@ramieskola7845]

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

[@DrSmooth2000]

Interesting. Have noted two papers one on Miocene and one on K "Decoupled CO2 at the m.y. scale in Cretaceous" Leaving a 'mystery forcing' if Miocene Climactic Optimum was only 560ppm by plant stoma proxy it couldn't have been so warm to explain vegetative distribution I was partial to idea of vegetative forcing as in colonizing Sahara and Arctic reduced albedo. Gave me another possible explanation/factor.

[@mark4asp]

Please cite your papers then - so we can read them and consider your evidence. DOIs will do for me.

[@ianhorsham7751]

Interesting! Thanks very much guys. Science focusing on real world data and not some computer algorithm. James Croll would approve I'm sure.

[@NorthOlbo]

Great distillation of an enormous amount of data, the veritable tip of the (melting!) iceberg. So many questions pop into mind through this talk, but one I’m curious about is if the oceans are the great transporters and vault of heat energy, where did they come from and is their volume constant? Assuming that early mantle volcanism generated much of them (from what source?) shouldn’t there be a steady increase in volume based on that alone, aside from ice melting. And how does isostatic rebound from the melting of enormous thicknesses of ice, especially along coasts amplify the speed of ice field collapse and retreat. The idea of the default world being dry, dusty, ice capped and cold sounds a lot like Mars. That may be our interwarm period planetary analogue, assuming water is buried in their somewhere. Lots of reasons here why we need to avoid the homocentric attitude of “everything important is only happening around me” and put more weight in the last post glaciation CO2/temp/solar relationships, and extend that back even more to really put our little warm island in the time perspective. Looking forward to part 2.

[@rogerandtom7719]

Roger and I appreciate your recognition of the significance of these findings. Your observation is excellent; the Energy Balance is the critical question in assessing whether the climate system is going to be able to change. The only way to accumulate enough energy in the system that we know (moving into and out of ice ages) is to use the Water Systems. No minor gasses in the atmosphere can even come close. The configuration of this great heat energy storage and transportation system in the geologic past has made all the difference, when the continents were optimally located to facilitate continuous cumulative heating and distribution. The Clear Disconnect between Temperature and CO2 concentration through all of Geologic time on Earth is integral to the reexamination of the findings of many researchers. This finding is contrary to all of the current popular press and Political Views. Fresh eyes are needed to rework all of these suppositions. If the Earth is indeed heating beyond what we might consider normal, then we need to really study the major drivers of the system. Part 2 will try to illustrate the scientific reason CO2 and Temperature are not linked. Part 1, investigated the real experimental results from the historic, geologic tests that the world has already run on itself. We need to learn from the past, before idealizing and theorizing the causes and effects of complex Climate Change.

[@TandNFox]

Rapid change in long term climate is too difficult to work out Gasses from deep in the earth both from under the sea and on land have been expelled for millions of years Some may not be from organic origin but from a chemical reaction deep within . It is optimistic to only consider carbon dioxide as the main changer without all other natural factors which are not properly understood . now , therefore we must not become paranoid over that which cannot be calculated !

[@stanyeaman4824]

Take a look at the terraced palaeobeaches at Glen Roy, Scotland. These are the beaches of a glacial lake. These beaches formed at progressively lower levels as a morrainal dam wall was progressively eroded away as the glaciers retreated,- sometime around 11,000ybp. This all hangs together in a logical way. Science beats emotion and superstition based on ignorance every time. Time to kill off this climate alarmism with facts.

[@JoeCoxJodo]

If you thought the C@^!d Mass Hysteria Event zealots are ideologically captured......wait until you see the reaction to ever more undeniable proof that the Climate Change scare is a massive academic hallucination....😂 But there will be enormous opposition from the politicians and "experts" who have staked their reputations to the table.... We are going to see a conversion of interests and an unspoken mutual agreement to close ranks and to double down 😁 it's going to be fun!!! 😄

[@Jebediah1999]

Yeah wondering where the winters have gone where I am. Such an amazing coincidence.

[@JoeCoxJodo]

@@Jebediah1999 This is exactly the point the above comment is alluding to..... An Ice-Age termination event.... Yes - climate change is occuring....both man-made and naturally occurring. This is the point. How come there is such MASSIVE backlash against including in our understanding that there is also evidence for an Ice-Age termination event occurring? It's baffling. I thought we were following the science? Or are we done with following the science now?

[@TheKamperfoelie]

@@Jebediah1999no coincidence, it is because the earth is warming. But not because of CO2. Look up Patrick Moore, Dr Happer, Dr Wijngaarden.

[@Jebediah1999]

@TheKamperfoelie charlatans. Where does the carbon in fossils come from originally.

[@costrio]

Many people don't wish to discuss some topics, pehaps because they don't know what they are parotting on about? I think this video presenter knows what he is talking about. Moving on to part 2

[@fabiolaribeiro1969]

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

[@MrSammer1972]

Thanks, this was great

[@costrio]

A few SpaceX rocket flights ago, I notice some brown clouds, which i assumed was dust from Africa.

[@maxtabmann6701]

The correlation between temperature and dust during the glaciation maxima is an important finding but it is a typical case of misattribution due to lack of data. The true correlation is most likely to the water content in the atmosphere, but scientists cant measure that. What is clear is, when water in the form of ice was fixated at the poles, it was lacking on the rest of earth and that dryed out earth during the glacial maxima. Thus the rapid melting at the transition to the holocene increased the evaporation of water and acted as a feedback mechanism for further warming. Therefore the dust shows that water is what determines our climate, not CO2.

[@dadesway]

An interesting idea, but it equally lacks empirical data. The notion of dust having being found on ancient ice fields does give a mechanism for the melting of the ice . . . The decreased albedo of the dust covered surface provides for more energy absorption. The absorbed energy should melt the ice (underneath) . There may be some mixing of water with the dust on the surface but the albedo of the 'slush' will still be lower than the pure snow. You could say a little dust can go a long way.

[@maxtabmann6701]

@@dadesway It lacks empirical data, but is consistent with other observations. At the end of the glaciation there was 3km thick ice from the pole down to 55degree latitude. All this ice melted within 2000 years and raised the sea level by 100 meters. The north sea before that was dry land called dogger bank that got flooded. It is only logical that this rapid rising of the sea level caused a significant increase in evaporation. This cleans the air from dust without question. Note that your remarks misinterpret what I said. I said nothing about dust on the ice. I referred to ice core samples that also measured dust content of the air.

[@maxtabmann6701]

@@mark4asp you dont seem to have a lot of knowledge about science in general. Einstein once pointed out the difference between proving and disproving. No matter how well your data agree with your theory, you can never prove a theory. On the other hand, one single counterexperiment can disprove a theory. Therefore you have to live with the fact that the CO2 greenhouse theory is not proven and never will be. But many aspects of it have already been disproven by experiment.

[@mark4asp]

@@maxtabmann6701 There is no greenhouse gas "theory". It's not science; it's hocus pocus. Nor is there a greenhouse gas testable hypothesis. This is the preferred situation for advocates of the idea - so they can claim that their greenhouse theory will never be falsified because no one knows what it is. Notice how they hardly ever talk about it nowadays? - Now that they claim it's "settled science"; and that discussing it in a bad light is "denialism". You know f-all about me, and what I understand about science. Go away snob.

[@mark4asp]

@@maxtabmann6701 Ah - deflection - classic logical fallacy. How about you put up the evidence for : "The true correlation is most likely to the water content in the atmosphere ... "? If there's no evidence which scientists can measure how can there possibly be a "correlation"? Just now you told me about how little science I understood. At least I know not to misuse the term "correlation" when all I have is a guess.

[@johnbaxter189]

Wen we take water into the aquation we have to consider the plant life on the surface. All plant life is water and water is a lot warmer Wen formed into plants. Less plantlife means more water in the oceans More plantlife reduces ocean levels thus effecting temperatures. Increased CO2 seems to build more plantlife.

[@terenceiutzi4003]

Yes, plants are all made of carbon, just like people with different amounts of water but plant rely on sunlight for energy so they cool the environment.

[@mark4asp]

"Less plantlife means more water in the oceans"

[@thegeneralist7527]

The data suggest ocean circulation, as influenced by continental drift, is the major determinate of the Earth's climate.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

must have been a pretty fast drift we missed

[@philippesarrazin2752]

The sun warming 1% per 100 million years, continental drift and co2 are the 3 major knobs

[@ramieskola7845]

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

[@toddberkely6791]

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

[@scottekoontz]

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

[@rovert1284]

Unproven and I doubt in 20 years it'll be considered correct. CO2 doesn't stack up with historical data.

[@philippesarrazin2752]

@@rovert1284 What data ? What era/epoch/time are you talking about please ?

[@alanramsey2761]

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

[@scottekoontz]

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

[@mark4asp]

Most bullshit ever.

[@peternewcombe328]

if that is true... what does it mean and is it good or bad? "ever" is a very big word.

[@scottekoontz]

@@peternewcombe328 It's bad says people paying attention. Sorry, let's use "since man walked the earth" instead of ever.

[@peternewcombe328]

@scottekoontz why, then I'd be assuming man controlled climate since the moment we appeared on earth?

[@scottekoontz]

@@peternewcombe328 Controlled? I guess if you want to call it that (wrong word) then go ahead. We don't control the climate, but as we all know we can modify it. Man has been altering the climate (not controlling it) but only recently has it been of consequence. 40B metric tons of CO2 emission per year makes a difference, as we all know. Not sure what you thought we "controlled" the climate, because if we did it would be much easier to fix the warming issue.

[@scottekoontz]

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

[@peternewcombe328]

Why should we think the current situation cannot be informed or understood using past situations? Accounting for all the differences we know of... all information can promote better understanding.

[@peternewcombe328]

I'd be more concerned about somebody who ignored past data and said it was irrelevant 😉

[@scottekoontz]

@@peternewcombe328 You should think about how the current situation can be explained using long past situations. Did the Earth's orbit change drastically? Is solar irradiation much higher? Accounting for all known natural forcings -- it's clearly not natural forcings.

[@scottekoontz]

@@peternewcombe328 I'd be more concerned about people who said "it's the sun" or "it's our orbit" claiming it's relevant. Seems you have a LOT of reading to do. Good luck!

[@peternewcombe328]

@scottekoontz and yet there are always "natural forcings" at play. given past very broad ranges of temperature, CO2 levels, and sea level.... on its face ... clearly we cannot simply attribute climate change to post industrial human activity. ignoring all the climate change that took place prior. We ALL have a lot more reading to do. People will understand more fully only when they are prepared to do so. I have a hard time with the idea there is one big climate knob and that humans control it. Seems somewhat arrogant.