Steven E. Koonin, Ph.D.-- What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn't and Why it Matters.

[@anthonymorris5084]

Another voice of reason in the climate discussion.

[@charlesashurst1816]

What you call reason I call rationalization.

[@charlesashurst1816]

Human beings can rationalize anything out of existence that is there or anything into existence that isn't there. There is no limit to our capacity to alter our perceptions through self-serving filters.

[@charlesashurst1816]

Exhibit A: People who believe Donald Trump is a saint. Right there is the mighty power of rationalization.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@charlesashurst1816 Reason and rationalization are synonyms and why are you bringing up Trump? Haven't bashed him enough today? Trying to get your quota of "irrational" demonization in for the day?

[@johnduggan8656]

@@charlesashurst1816Nobody believes Donald Trump is saint. There are no living saints. They do however believe that he will make the changes that they want.

[@JesseP.Watson]

Thank you, very interesting talk.

[@poetmaggie1]

Because of what government is saying about Climate, because Government is mostly funding "research" and its a pick and chose for what the "facts" are, I don't believe there is a real problem.

[@SamWilkinsonn]

Don’t get your facts from the government then. Lots of climate scientists that analyse internationally gathered and validated data. It’s not some global conspiracy, if you believe it is then you’ve fallen into the anti-intellectualism help and I’ve lost all hope for those fools.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@SamWilkinsonn You missed her point - the government is funding the research. There are two entities in the climate discussion, the scientific community and the "climate movement". They are not synonymous and nor is their message. Science tells us that the Earth has warmed by around 1C in approximately 200 years. The climate movement is the domain of the Left, activist driven, misrepresents the science, makes hyperbolic apocalyptic claims of a crisis of which there is no evidence. You're conflating these to entities.

[@alanrobbo6980]

The Government also WITHDREW Funding from those who Disagree with the Preferred views.

[@margyeoman3564]

Everything industry ,shipping , factories, space races, weapons for war. Everything continues while they rob countries and peoples of time and lives. What a waste.

[@thomasnicodemou5160]

You don’t believe there is a real problem? And you believe that the moon is made of blue cheese

[@christinehede7578]

There is zero reason to limit emissions.

[@FernandoWINSANTO]

What about 1500 active volcanos, 30 - 50 yearly eruptions and other sources of C02 ...

[@danieltudor6165]

Reason is not countable, but your IQ is

[@christinehede7578]

If you believe the climate change hysterics more fool you. Climate has always changed and always will.

[@AnnKelly-v8v]

There has been a greening of many parts of the earth providing more food for more people

[@annettemack4825]

The problem isn't that we are so much listening to the data, we are experiencing it. Believe what you want to be told, but don't move to Bangladesh.

[@alanrobbo6980]

Question 2: Has the 2000 American Nuclear Bomb tests, and the Russians Bombs had any Long Term effects on the Climate, and Has this been taken into account with all the Models used to Calculate Climate Change, Global Warming & Net-Zero Scam.❓

[@Dragases6894]

No impact at all.

[@alanrobbo6980]

@@Dragases6894 is that your Opinion, or Scientific Data ❓

[@danieltudor6165]

It is something you can calculate, the energy released is high, but it pales in comparison to radiation retention from greenhouse gases

[@roblouw1344]

I am visiting New York next month. Do you know if it is possible to visit the tide gauge station?

[@anthonymorris5084]

Sure, just don't wake up all the migrants sleeping there.

[@tiitulitii]

How much is urbanization and the areas of asphalt impacting the temperature may not have been taken into account globally.

[@tiitulitii]

It is global asphalt change.

[@NickB1121]

They're moving temperature monitoring equipment to the big cities and near airports. Hence the heating hysteria

[@Desperado070]

I'm still waiting for the new ice age from 1970 😂

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

focus on God free will sovereignty for divine central authority unity

[@AnnKelly-v8v]

Read patrick moore and bjorn Lomberg and freeman Dyson

[@glennmitchell9107]

Name one leading right-wing politician who believes climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, supposing Speaker Johnson is a leading right-wing politician.

[@vhawk1951kl]

"right-wing being a cognate or synonym of or for sin or sinful for devout followers of that queer religion modernism eh? Or more simply right wing=dislikeable or bad, depending on your religion the great global warming swindle is much better kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYrLdISsatmBqbM

[@alanrobbo6980]

Question ❓ I note from the CO2 & Temperature Graphs, that it looks like a Hockey Stick.‼️ SO: This so Called ‘Hockey Stick' on Climate Warming started just after the Discovery and Wide use of Microwave Transmitters, is this just a Coincidence❓ And All thees Climate Models, has the Increased Electric Radiation been taken into account ❓ Has any Research been carried out about The Affect of Radio Radiation, (Mobile Phones and the like) on Heating the Atmosphere, all the Mobile, TV, and other Transmitting Antennas release MegaWats of Energy. This Must have an effect, after all CO2 is only a very small part of the equation.

[@danieltudor6165]

This is very easy to test and they have no effect whatsoever, the energy is wo weak in those transmissions that you might laughed at if you mention this

[@poetmaggie1]

Then there was 2020.

[@mohebalikalani2115]

thank you, economy will rise by using jet plasma machine and compressed gas(Air) in isolated structure in water pool with more than 80 % efficiency , in first level it transfers compressed gas(hot air) temperature from engine to sea water in pool for steam electric generator, steam combines with high cold Air pressure to produce pure water and electricity , New energy from sea will change world soon, there are other source of energy that with international cooperation in coastline we can reduce effect of global warming, sea is huge source of energy, further more we can prevent these phenomena like cyclone and flood and wildfire by using this hot seasonal atmospheric condition, recent years in summer, geothermal energy happens in surface of coastline, there are many countries in coastline with seasonal hot weather and water condition in comparison with middle Ocean, its more than 12 degrees , in sum-up, by using this energy not only is economical but also reduce global warming in countries like Japan, China, India, Mediterranean countries, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Us, Canada, (Africa and Arabian countries....) . I invented new method base on air pressure rules and quantum physics ionization sea water minerals in strong dynamic permanent magnet(SMCO) with special frequency(1500or 3000)/minute bases on paramagnetic and diamagnetic particles and electrical microwave wave field and electric chemical reactions and photon wave from semiconductors Cations like(K+, Mg++, Na+, H+, H++, li+, H2, ...) are transferred to in the second level into up level by vacuum pump from storage into combustion chambers and they combine with O2 and N2 ,... as major part of fuel (more than 50%) for producing electricity and fresh water and fertilizer. this machine produces 150Megwatt-hour/hour and 20000M3/DAY fresh water and fertilizer. 7 methods zero pollution for reducing global warming I mentioned in my profile. (G20 countries can solve these phenomena).

[@poetmaggie1]

poor countries will increase their energy use ONLY IF They are Permitted by those who are the Richest.

[@paladancray7242]

The UNIVERSE Decides along with the Sun EH! Geee another climate grifter???

[@vhawk1951kl]

The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@stevemarshall3986]

​@vhawk1951kl that's not a comment. It's an essay

[@charlesashurst1816]

Is climate science a religion? No more than Maxwell's equations are a religion. If Maxwell's equations are a religion, at least it's a religion that actually squares with reality for a change. Using Maxwell's equations, people can construct radio transmitters and receivers. Picture a gigantic room filled with radio receivers all tuned to a punk rock station, or whatever the current vernacular is these days. What a racket, right? Now picture Earth's atmosphere being filled with CO2 molecules, which are radios tuned to a certain wavelength in the infrared band. As solar radiation in the infrared, visible, and UV bands strikes Earth, some of it is absorbed and re-radiated in the infrared band, which then excites all these CO2 radios. Thus, CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere affects Earth's temperature. That is the gospel according to Maxwell.

[@charlesashurst1816]

What’s the point of even arguing anymore? Wind, solar, and storage now provide less expensive electricity than from hydrocarbons? It’s no longer a matter of how much is this going to cost? It’s a matter of how much money are we going to make in switching to clean energy? You could pay more for the privilege of polluting, but why?

[@SamWilkinsonn]

You forget storage requirements, complete national grid upgrade for all the extra power, electrical power is only a small amount of the energy we use, etc.

[@anthonymorris5084]

We have to continue arguing to dismantle fallacies like the one you're spreading. If what you're saying is true, governments wouldn't be spending billions subsidizing these forms of energy. They wouldn't have to mandate them. The free market would demonstrate a winner. There is also no such thing as "clean" or "green" energy. It's pure language manipulation. Please enlighten me, how is bulldozing farms, meadows, jungles, forests and deserts to lay fairly useless solar panels characterized as "green" energy. This represents permanent and unprecedented plant and animal habitat destruction. I thought that this was what we were trying to avoid. There is no technology available today to back up wind and solar farms when they fail. Wind and solar require coal, nat gas and oil to back them up. This cost isn't reflected in your cost claims.

[@AtHomeTacticalDefense]

Wind and solar costs are still 100% additive on top of a functioning grid that is capable of handling 100% of demand 100% of the time. That’s why everywhere wind and solar are installed, the cost of electricity goes up. Europe pays 3-5 times for electricity, as compared to the U.S., due to their green energy policies.

[@SamWilkinsonn]

hogwash

[@charlesashurst1816]

@@AtHomeTacticalDefense Clean energy has many challenges to overcome, which it will overcome. Clean energy is the future. Why? It's less expensive.

[@chrisconklin2981]

NASA: "Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas." NPR: "There is a growing body of evidence showing that hurricanes are intensifying more quickly, turning from less-serious storms to very strong ones in hours or days. Superheated ocean waters hold a lot of extra energy...".

[@SamWilkinsonn]

Both correct. What’s your point?

[@chrisconklin2981]

@@SamWilkinsonn Don't fall for slick propaganda.

[@johnduggan8656]

See Table 12.22 in AR6 Low confidence in direction of change for Wind Mean wind speed Severe wind storm Tropical cyclone Sand and dust storm

[@vhawk1951kl]

The entire religion of global warming or climate change is based upon one fundamental misapprehension which, if you remove it, causes the entire theory or religion to collapse, and the fundamental misapprehension is that there either is or can be, any such thing as a Global temperature. It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate. Planet Earth doesn’t have ‘a temperature’, one figure that says it all. There are oceans, landmasses, ice, the atmosphere, day and night, and seasons. Also, the temperature of Earth never gets to equilibrium: just as it’s starting to warm up on the sunny-side, the sun gets ‘turned off’; and just as it’s starting to cool down on the night-side, the sun gets ‘turned on’. The ‘temperature of Earth’ is therefore as much of a contrived statistic as the GDP of a country. (If the Earth was in equilibrium, that is, if it absorbed and re-emitted the Sun’s radiation perfectly, as a ‘blackbody’, then its rotation would be irrelevant, and the temperature would be a constant 6 ⁰C. Mocking up the effects of Earth’s albedo brings the ‘blackbody’ temperature down to -18 ⁰C, and including greenhouse warming brings it back up to around 15 ⁰C.) ‘The climate’ is difficult to define: is it a trend over one decade, century, or millennium? For what sized region is it defined ? Weather is very variable - how can we go from weather to climate? Furthermore, climate change on human timescales is a very small effect, and the empirical data needed for climate models have large ‘error’ bars. If you cannot define what is changing, you cannot say it is changing; It is essential to understand that no man apprehend or experience the entire plant -the whole-thing all-at-once. You cannot even sense apprehend experience yourself - he-whole-thing, all-at-once, so how could you possibly experience something as gigantic as the planet on which you live, other than piecemeal and seriatim - little bit after little bit. If you remove the fallacy that there either is or can be, any such thing as a “Global Temperature” , the entire edifice of climate change and/or global warming, collapses, because it is contingent on the idea that there can be , or is, a “ Global Temperature, which is a thermodynamic and mathematical impossibility. While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate'. If temperature decreases at one point and it increases at another, the average will remain the same as before, but it will give rise to an entirely different thermodynamics and thus a different climate. If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees. These two cases would give rise to two entirely different types of climate, because in the former case one would have pressure differences and strong winds, while in the latter there would be no wind.

[@NiceTriGuy]

Not only is the concept of a global temperature elusive, basing pubic policy on the fact that you know what it should be is ridiculous.

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

You sir are in denial. In 30 years you will find things in sea level ya'll don't expect.

[@Bluepilled-c5t]

We have heard all this before, a long time ago

[@danieltudor6165]

I endured this whole video because it is the smartest climate change denial one in a long time, but it remains however a denial one, it offers no real counter argument but it saws doubt in all climate science. The thing he fails to understand is that while the planet, some resilient species, even humans, will not go extinct, but our society, way of life, hopes for further development, economical stability, etc, these are fragile, and therefore the path we are on is very dangerous to us. We built a lot of infrastructure based on the assumption that current climate will hold and all we know and love about our lives will come to a screeching halt when we push it too far, as we all know there is no reversing it in acceptable timescales so we cannot afford to risk it, it is already doing too much damage to endure on the long run. This video helps fossil fuel companies push their agenda, it helps russia, Iran and other lazy greedy entities now on the detriment of all of us in the future, I hope the old man can live with himself when he realises his folly.

[@einarreitz3571]

According to you, There should be no alternative interpretation of climate data. In your world the only thing that influences our climate is the results of our negligence! What a simpleton you are!