Paleoclimatology Part 3

[@JohnGrayOnline]

Powerful presentations, full of testable hypotheses .. I've been very sceptical about the hyper-simplified single factor (CO2) IPCC story - great to see this radical challenge to the establishment narrative.

[@alexbraithwaite4550]

I have watched countless video’s of the science involved in climate change. This 3 part series are by far the best as it addresses the complexity of long term climate which the UN IPCC do not want us to know. This exceptional scientist destroyers the climate cult in this series. It’s a shame so few will ever learn the truth.

[@TBonerton]

Share it with those you know. I am fighting with my inner circle to open their eyes to this topic. Most people just believe the government. When you share the science many realize the climate farce fairly quickly.

[@scottekoontz]

IPCC report on all of this. Presented is making up pretty much everything he states about the IPCC. He presents natural forcings that require 10,000s of years or more are the only reason Earth is warming, and denies that CO2 is the primary forcing for the past 200 years. He lives and works with the climate cult, and I would guess he speaks at Heartland functions.

[@daveandrews9634]

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

[@tintinmars4661]

Very well presented démonstration of Real Science. I've learned more here than any other presentation on this subject, except Dr. Ian Plimer presentation. 👏 👏 👏 Bravo

[@geoffdaniell814]

An excellent presentation that should be prescribed viewing for anyone interested in Climate Change. It is incredibly sad and frankly frightening that the IPCC and its hangers on fail to appreciate just how complex the Climate is. After viewing these three presentations there should be absolutely no doubt left that the simplistic approach to climate change based solely on atmospheric CO2 levels is just wrong. CO2 is NOT the control knob so many believe it is.

[@scottekoontz]

Sad and frankly hilarious that this guy pretends that only natural forcings are in play, and all we have to do is look at long-term changes that everyone already knows about. CO2 is clearly the primary forcing of the past 200 years, otherwise there would be a study showing that the sun (nope) or Milankovitch cycles (nope) changes in orbit (nope) or changes in axial tilt (nope) are responsible. This guy has little concern of magnitudes, and confuses the lay viewer into thinking that 20,000 year cycles can be witnessed within 200 years, or that less TSI is the reason for the warming. What the "skeptic" scientists need to do is get funding from Koch Industries, start with all of the raw data that can get their hands on, perform their own algorithms, test results against Watts' most rural stations, and make all work open to scrutiny. Once that happens then we will see the "skeptic" lay people finally admit that earth is warming as all other scientists claim, and that CO2 is the primary forcing. Kidding. The study has been done and the skeptics are now deniers.

[@mikemurray2027]

@@scottekoontz Watch the videos before commenting.

[@Hudson-rs7ty]

​@@scottekoontz Predicting some warming as CO2 level rose was a no-brainer, any one paying attention knew that would happen to some extent decades ago. Dr. Roger Revelle's work back in the late 1950s showed CO2 levels were going up (probably due to emissions), the oceans would not absorb it all, and some warming would probably occur - and that was the first conception of the AGW hypothesis. However, he was not certain about or alarmed by the trend or outlook. However, one of his students (not a scientist) saw the obvious political and business potential in the idea. So Al Gore marketed the idea as a proven and accepted scientific theory without a shred of evidence to prove it. Fast forward several decades and the still unproven AGW hypothesis has failed the predictions test too many times to count. Runaway warming never happened and none of the apocalyptic forecasts about ice, polar bears, coral reefs, desertification, crop failure, boiling oceans and so on never came to pass. Real scientists projected these conspicuous and costly prediction failures all along, because the narrowly focused AGW computer scientists never accounted for CO2’s logarithmically declining warming effect, thermal absorption limit (saturation point), sink rate, and many other factors that prevent endlessly compounding CO2 driven warming.

[@scottekoontz]

@@Hudson-rs7ty "probably due to emissions" No, definitely because of emissions. "and that was the first conception of the AGW hypothesis" You're only 50 years off. 1890s. "Al Gore marketed the idea as a proven and accepted scientific theory without a shred of evidence to prove it. " With TONS of evidence backed by well over 90% of all scientists and 99% of all climate scientists. "still unproven AGW hypothesis" very well proven. Warming continues, continues at a faster rate as predicted, includes feedbacks as predicted, every decade warmer as predicted. Ice melting as predicted, permafrost thawing as predicted. You fail to understand feedbacks. Oopsie!

[@petergrimshaw492]

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

[@mariannefischer3613]

How telling that this series has such low viewership. People don't want their assumptions challenged. This presentation of actual science cuts the legs out from under those who claim "the science is settled and the debate is over".

[@TBonerton]

Many videos on climate change I see now are people crying that we need to agree to a concensus. If the narrative followed the science we could agree on a consensus. Instead the narrative follows what rich people/politicians want us to believe.

[@wilfredmcgillicuddy7902]

Very well done presentation. Thanks.

[@robertoingenitoiseppato6177]

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

[@Turbohh]

Perfectly said. Well argued. Learned a lot. Thank you very much.

[@ramieskola7845]

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

[@ramieskola7845]

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

[@icannotfindoneunused]

Very clearly presented and explained. Well done.

[@petergrimshaw492]

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

[@johnmorgan5495]

Brilliant

[@glenwarrengeology]

Who is this guy?

[@christophergame7977]

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

[@scottekoontz]

So why is each decade warmer than the previous when all natural forcings indicate we should be cooling? The predictions of warmer decades has been very reliable.

[@christophergame7977]

@scottekoontz Thank you for your comment. Why do you say that all natural forcings indicate we should be cooling?

[@christophergame7977]

@scottekoontz Thank you for your comment. My remark meant to say that the models cannot, of themselves, generate reliable predictions, because they do not have the necessary mathematical characteristics. They can generate projections that agree with observations only vaguely, because they are tuned to do so. Can you show that they have proper mathematical structure to generate, of themselves, reliable predictions?

[@scottekoontz]

@@christophergame7977 "Why do you say that all natural forcings indicate we should be cooling?" Because all natural forcings indicate we should be cooling.

[@scottekoontz]

@@christophergame7977 I see you believe some forcings would show warming, some cooling, but deny that additional CO2 would warm the planet. You cannot have both. Asking for "proper mathematical structure" is an odd way to put it. I have a math degree and I can assure you that makes no sense. In science if parameters A, B, C... N are observed and and all scientists from all countries coming at the issue from several disciplines using a variety of funding claim A explain the result, then why argue that A cannot be the reason for the warming? Try this: If a study was conducted by skeptic scientists who started with all the raw data they could get their hands on, and they used their own algorithms and published all work and all results for review, would you accept their results before seeing them?

[@andywomack3414]

13:00 The extreme vertical exaggeration in these diagrams of global circulation gives a distorted picture of the process and may lead many with a false impression of atmospheric depth. In fact, the earth's atmosphere is incredibly shallow when compared to the size of the earth. I would include a diagram that represents the true dimensions of our planet's atmosphere and the effect that must have on the actual patterns of atmospheric circulation.

[@chrisconklin2981]

I have heard that if the earth was the size of a beach ball, the atmosphere would only be as thick as a sheet of paper.

[@ramieskola7845]

30N is roughly 3000 km from equator. ASSP: tropopause thickness is 15km we get some idea of the dimensions of the Hadley cell 15/3000 = 1/200.

[@andywomack3414]

@@ramieskola7845 That point has never been made with any diagram of global circulation that I have seen, which might lead to a general misunderstanding of the true scale of the system. Besides, if I needed to dump megatons of pollutants into the air I would prefer the deep atmosphere view of the diagrams rather than the shallow atmosphere view of reality.

[@ScottW-o4o]

It is a crime that this2 year old video series has such low view statistics.

[@Turbohh]

Now I am wondering about acid rain and carbonic acid. Rain Ph here is 6-7. We blame coal and fuel combustion. I know they are both there (sulfur etc and nitrates) but never thought about carbonates. Time to punt? LOL.

[@nigelliam153]

I thought the acid rain that caused damage to paints etc in the 70s and 80s was largely due to sulphides in diesel and the problem was solved with emissions stands making petroleum companies remove it

[@NullHand]

​@@nigelliam153 Mostly was (is) the sulphur in coal being burned in coal fired electric generating stations. Scrubbers, and then conversion to nat gas fixed that in the West. Turns out though, that the same sulfates that were causing acid rains were also "masking" some of the inbound solar radiation.... Just as what happens with volcanic sulphate.....

[@scottekoontz]

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

[@marcobsomer5574]

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

[@ramieskola7845]

Stupidity? Yes indeed. Most are shmucks who don't appreciate the deafening effect of algorithmic suppression by the platform. Are they 1st time in the internet? 😉👍

[@vthilton]

Save Our Planet Now

[@anthonymorris5084]

Use birth control.

[@chrisconklin2981]

Yes, I have watched your videos. Regarding the conclusion you gave in the last three minutes of your series, I agree, politics, group popular thinking, and bias have no place in science. I would say that the same applies for those who promote climate change denialism. Let me take you to task on two items. First, the past is dead. You give a lot of history but the past had little impact upon human induced climate change. The major factor of global warming is CO2 accumulation, derived from fossil fuels,. Check the carbon isotope ratios. Second, climate models are accurate. We have the data. The IPCC is not speculating. Certainly, I wish we were wrong. Your caution is dangerous. Thanks for the paleoclimatology videos, I enjoyed them.

[@robertwells1989]

All climate models are accurate?

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@robertwells1989 It is true that predictions of the future are not an absolutely accurate activity. The question is the degree of certainty. So, when I say "accurate" I mean "with a high degree of certainty". Take the predicting of the coerce of hurricanes. There are a large number of models that do so. Over the years some models so better. It is the same with climatology. Over the years they have gotten better. I assume you did a google sears using "how accurate are climate models" or "climate models are unreliable".

[@robertwells1989]

Google? No. I read the IPCC v6 report which states.. at the global scale the most recent IPCC assessment concluded "there is low confidence in most reported long term (multi decadal to centennial) trends in tropical cyclone frequency - or intensity based metrics". In fact is it not expected that increased storm activity will be measurable for some time yet, perhaps until the end of the century. Accuracy and degrees of confidence should not be conflated as they are different metrics. Another interesting paper on N. Atlantic storm activity: www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/ Though models may predict increase both accuracy of projection and IPCC confidence levels are yet to be qualified.

[@AegonCallery-ty6vy]

The hallmarks of a true believer. Main one, attaching certainty to an inherent system uncertainty just by stating it. Watch the video again..

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@AegonCallery-ty6vy Rather than nit-pick the particulars of this video, let me give you some background. The presenter is Thomas Gallagher. I suspect a link to the Friends of Science organization, see their website. This organization has ties to petroleum industry. A wiki search of Friends of Science is interesting. The point is that this is an attempt to discredit climate science. I am a true believer and this video is slick propaganda.