I am so thankful to have found this video. I am working in an environment association and I have spent the last weeks trying to understand the IPCC papers, but despite reading lot of definitions of Radiative Forcing it wasn't jet clear in my mind. Now it is, finally! Thank you so much!
I just posted the 1st version with obvious typos and mistake 4,900 m instead of 5,000 m. Here's the corrected version 2. Technical but simple explanation of the "greenhouse effect" in answer to a question below (2nd post after proof reading with an obvious altitude numbers mistake corrected): ----------------------------- Well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) exert control on Earth's Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) by setting the range of altitudes in the troposphere from which the well-mixed greenhouse gases and also water vapour send transverse electromagnetic radiation (LWR) to space (Earth sending LWR to space is what prevents it from simply continuously warming due to Sun's radiation until it vaporizes and beyond). Currently, the average altitude is 4,900 m where the average global temperature is ~254.8K and thus it sends ~239.2 w / m**2 to space, approximately matching the average 240.1 w / m**2 that Earth's troposphere & surface absorb from Sun. It should be obvious to everybody that if more well-mixed GHGs are added then the increased concentration through the troposphere will raise this present 4,900 m to a higher altitude because it needs to be up a bit higher where they are thinner so enough can make it through to space without getting absorbed on the way there. Just as an example only suppose various GHGs added raise it to an average altitude of 5,000 m. Now in order to still send the necessary 239.7 w / m**2 to space air at 5,000 m must warm to where air at 4,900 m was before, so it does. The atmospheric lapse rate varies in the range 5-10 degrees / km depending on moisture content with a global average of 6.75 degrees / km so the 100 m altitude increase raises air temperature by 6.75*0.1=0.675 degrees and this will be the global warming caused by that GHG increase (required to balance it out and get the energy back into balance in=out) because the atmospheric lapse rate will always set itself at that global average of 6.75 degrees / km so it must all warm by 0.675 degrees all the way down to the surface (where we are so now we notice). To be clear, the non-zero atmospheric lapse rate is absolutely required for a "greenhouse effect" to operate. If the atmosphere of some planet was absolutely jam packed with GHGs but for some reason it had no lapse rate (if the temperature all the way up the atmosphere was exactly the same as the surface below it on that planet, so you climb any mountain and it doesn't get any colder as you climb) then there could not be any "greenhouse effect". It is required that the temperature get lower with increasing height so that the higher GHG molecules are colder than below so thus they send less than the required 240.1 w / m**2 to space so then there is more coming in than going out so the ecosphere warms until it balances again. The 6.75 degrees / km atmospheric lapse rate is caused by an entirely separate simple phenomenon in which warm air rises but expands as it rises because less air pressure above and the expanding cools it like letting gas our of a tyre or a tube or a spray can (gets cold around the nozzle). Thus if the increasing GHGs warm the air above as just described then the process of warm air rising & expanding continuously holds that global average of 6.75 degrees / km atmospheric lapse rate so the surface warms by the same amount (sort of, see note below). That's the "greenhouse effect". ------------------------ Note: For simplicity, I omitted 40 w / m**2 that's sent directly surface--->space in frequencies called "atmospheric window" that aren't absorbed by any GHG so they just go straight through. The "greenhouse effect" applies to the 200 w / m**2 (so 83.3% of total) that's sent to space by the GHG molecules. Those numbers of mine aren't actually accurate to the +/-0.1 w / m**2, Trenberth says scientists have the last couple of decades at In=240.1 w / m**2 out=239.2 w / m**2 and the 0.85 w / m**2 difference is what's causing the warming (it'll keep increasing of course, it went up by +0.035 w / m**2 in 2018 due to +2.7 ppmv CO2). A few years back I heard a WG1 climate scientist toss out an aside of 3 seconds that the atmospheric lapse rate actually reduces slightly as it warms thus giving slightly less surface warming than warming in the atmosphere. He didn't say how much or why because his talk was about something else. He implied it was a small correction only.
This was confusing. For the first 3/4 you seemed to say how straightforward it was to determine forcing, particularly from CO2. In the last 1/4 you talked about how complicated it is. You did not talk about feedbacks which is where the models appear to overstate warming. It is said there will be an increase in water vapor but how do you model that? Clouds during the day are like shades keeping heat out and at night like a blanket keeping it in. Then the altitude of clouds is a strong factor in how much heat is reflected back to space and how much remains in the atmosphere.
The climate models haven't overstated warming. There's a large uncertainty range but as I recall the GMST increase is pretty much at the centre of projected range. GMST can't be expected to simply go perfectly along the smooth curve of the average of the climate models. That's just daft.
"It is said there will be an increase in water vapor but how do you model". Computer simulations are those video games you see. They use a time slice of 15 minutes (they intend to improve to 5 minutes when big computers get cheaper) so every 15 minutes each of the 5,000,000 shoe boxes simulating atmosphere & oceans gets updated with its new parameters based on all the equations that determine the change over 15 minutes for each parameter. Error is caused by the 15 minutes is too long for better detail and the shoe box size of 90 x 90 km is too big for better detail, but the computers just don't exist to run a 100-year simulation with a 30 second time slice and a 5 x 5 km shoe box in
If you don't know about Suspicious Observers, this has a more detailed explanation. Also you might want to start watching their daily space weather updates. ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html
Not sure why people keep sharing nonsense videos by Suspicious 0bserver. He is not a climate scientist, he is a blogger and RUclipsr that couldn't even get a degree in economics and believes in this electric universe bs. People should not be this stupid and gullible in 2020. The guy is just a con man, plain and simple.
The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
yeah, MEEs and Cosmic Rays are included in CMIP6. but work in Progress ? i think solar forcing has to become much more powerful. they also still miss other particle effects. CMEs etc. And by the way, the Ozone LAyer is also depleted by MEEs. They only look at gases and mostly human activity
@@panikaffe CMIP6 inaccuracy accounts for particle forcing. See changes coming to IPCC in 2025. No study that has used the updated CMIP6 models that accounts for true solar radiation has been able to replicate human impacts on a statistically significant level. Ouch to the biggest lie sold to humans.
Following the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, Earths Temprature dropped about 1.2 °C and did not return to normal until 5 years after. Earths population then was about 1/7 of today. Such an event today would likely cause a large reduction in human and other animal populations due to reductions in food production and distribution. Such an event is likely to happen again. Some scenarios such as a large eruption of the US Yellowstone Caldera would be Appocalyptic. We should be Thankful for every Day.
Would we have a greater effect on climate change if we stopped irrigating crops and filled in all the dams and canals we've built? Two years later and the climate models are still drastically wrong and we still cling to them..... perhaps a head headshrinker is needed to look into why we cling to things that obviously don't work?
Earth's atmosphere is so thin, that it cannot retain heat for very long. Atmospheric density is the key as to why CO2 has absolutely no to very little bearing on atmospheric temperature. Venus' atmosphere is about 95% CO2, but so is Mars'. Then why is Venus so hot yet Mars so cold? It's the atmospheric density that determines temperature, not composition. Venus' atmosphere is about 100 times more dense than Earth's, while Mars' is about 1/100 the density of Earth's. Proximity to the sun is a very minor factor when compared to atmospheric density. Mercury has a very thin atmosphere, thus allowing the night side of the planet to plunge in temperature. Venus is uniformly hot from pole to pole and both day and night sides of the planet. This is because her atmosphere is so tremendously dense. Whereas Mars can get warm in the daytime, temperatures plummet at night. So, if Earth's atmosphere became 95% CO2 at it's current density, global temperatures would remain pretty much where they are now. This is how atmospheric physics works.
interesting presentation, I did know all off what she said though but well presented and without bias in any direction which is what I would expect from a serious scientist.... kudos to you !!
Why would anyone watch that channel? The man is a fraud and a con man that makes a living from lying. He is not a scientist. He contributes nothing to the body of science. He constantly misrepresents what science says and demonstrates ignorance to basic physics. The only people watching that hack fraud are people with a RUclips education.
@@CaptWesStarwind not having a degree does not mean thatone can not become am expert on a topic. If the Wright brothers had been academics, they would have "known", like every scientist at the time,"knew" that a "manmade machine heavier than air" would never take to the skies.Instead, they just went ahead and did it. Here is a recent publication hat might interest you, as you are so bent on scientific evidence: Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks: “Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World” September 26, 2019 Cap Allon Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on: “Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”etc etc etc
@@gammaraygem I'm amazed anyone would be so naive as to write that. Thanks, I'll stick with the research being done by experts in their fields that are publishing their research in scientific journals instead.
@@CaptWesStarwind ah...yes, the holy grail : Peer Review, ,the cornerstone of scientific research, the magic slogan that silences all critique... Here is what the BBC had to say about peer review(BBC gave the links-Nature, Lancet, British medical journal)) Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 Nature: 18 October 2018 Challenges in irreproducible research www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz Nature25 May 2016 Corrected: 28 July 2016 : "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research." www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970 Nature: "How scientists fool themselves - and how they can stop Humans are remarkably good at self-deception. But growing concern about reproducibility is driving many researchers to seek ways to fight their own worst instincts." www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517 On peer review: www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems quote: “The Lancet editor Richard Horton has called the process "unjust, unaccountable ... often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." Not to mention that identifying peer reviewers and getting their comments slows down the progress of science - papers can be held up for months or years - and costs society a lot of money. Scientists and professors, after all, need to take time away from their research to edit, unpaid, the work of others. Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, (Britisch Medical Journal) summed up: "We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside." Another former editor of the Lancet, Robbie Fox, used to joke that his journal "had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom." Not exactly reassuring comments from the editors of the world's leading medical journals.” In Medical science, at least one deals with reproducable (apparently not) facts. A patient gets better, or not.In Climate it is a matter of interpretation of sketchy data, .nobody knows what parameters are missing and none of it is verifyable because it takes decades to do so. And the IPCC models dont work, they are terrible at predicting, ( the predictions of 5 years ago, supposed to occur in 2050, are happening NOW). So they are missing something important. And, since i am interested to know what that is, because the IPCC is clearly incompetent, i look elsewhere. I checked out Suspicious Observers years ago, and didnt like it. But meanwhile it has improved a lot.I take all with a frain of salt, be it "peer reviewed" or other. If you´d seen the Wright brothers struggle a year before their succes, you might have said: that will never get anywhere. But they persisted. Nobody knows why the magnetic northpole is running at 55km a month across the arctic. 5 years ago that was 55km per year.The Earth magnetic field is weakening. A repeat of a carington event could throw us back into the stone age.--or at least pre-electricity. Oistrich politics, deviation from clear and present danger, that probly is too scary for anyone to talk about. Because we are completely unprepared for such an event. Meanwhile we moan about climate change . Putin and that fascist Bolsenaro burn down forests and laughing in the AGW alarmists face, because we are tricked into major fanancial sacrifices, for no reason, because whatever the cause, we can not stop it. Or are you gonna nuke Russia? I dont think so.Putin wants a arctic seapassage to China, Bolsy wants farmland for his soy and meat farms. So it would appear to be just opinions of some, parrotted by the many. I can only conclude, keeping in mind the above presented data, that whoever came up with that number of 96% of scientists believe in AGW, had a political agenda, pushed by mainstream media, (fear sells well) resulting in a cult-like movement, where the slogan "look at the "science" has become the main mantra, without any justification. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
@listen2meokidoki though i agree with you on the topic of cherry picking, i quoted a climate scientist who, for once is not in the pocket of big oil, (else the web would be full of slander on him by the Greta Doom Cult fans) and has 25 years of experience in the field. So, not my words ,but an experts word. You demand peer reviewed studies , i suppose? Then perhaps read my other post in this thread. I watched the first minute of your Alice clip, but sorry, it is unbearable and not my type of humor, no offense. So, your point, if there is any, is lost on me. Maybe you´ll find this 1986 clip as unbearable, 3 minutes. Whats new?ruclips.net/video/8qrriKcwvlY/видео.html
Adiabatic lapse rate - the gas mass and base temp from the surface temp. No need to cook up a 'green house'. Still waiting for the experiment that demonstrates doubling CO2 raises air temp 2.7F to 8.1F as required by mann made global warming theory. Glad she mentioned the variability in clouds - as I watched Dr Mann in a lecture honestly admit they don't understand clouds.
The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
@@sanctusexitium9956 lol Suspicious 0bserver is just a nitwit that couldn't get a degree in economics and makes a living lying to halfwits. Instead of listening to fools like that try listening to people that actually understand and contribute to science. The fact that he has more than two followers is a scathing indictment of some countries educational systems.
@@CaptWesStarwind, I am embarrassed for you. You could not be farther from reality if you made a concerted effort. Ben Davidson has several Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers under his belt. Only a fool would mouth off like yourself without doing a little research. It is no surprise, most people that believe CO2 causes climate change are scientifically illiterate the others are corrupt.
@@sanctusexitium9956 no, he does not. If he has anything it's published in an open source pay to publish journal right next to the Get Me Off Your F@$%ing Mailing List paper.
"Carbon Dioxide traps about 1/3 the amount of water vapour" That contradicts basic molecular physics Co2 only absorbs about 5-7% of the outgoing energy available to greenhouse gases.
Water vapor is primary; not co2. But the interesting thing with the climate & this is why it cannot be in the hands of the inmates at the asylum is the paradoxes. As mentioned here if we create a bunch of deserts, the albedo will increase but at the same time food supplies will decrease because the desert is not hospitable for food. In addition, while forests are a great absorbing sponge of light, they are also a sink for co2.
After watching "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change Joanna D Haigh" I was puzzled that there was no discussion of the instrumental basis and there were no radiative transfer equations, no graphs and there was no reference to spectroscopy and there was no puzzlement over the Arctic melting so recent and extraordinary.
The only instrumental basis of that particular topic I've come across are the FTIR spectra from the instrument on satellite that you come across (I've only ever found 3 of them in the public domain). These clearly show the notches of CO2, CH4, O3, N2O and the general reduction of the broad-band H2O. I don't think I ever found measurement of downwelling LWR by instrument but I'm surprised that they don't exist so maybe they do somewhere. As you know, using an IR thermometer like I use at work is no use because, like heat-seeking guided missile, it is designed specifically to ignore that frequencies emitted by H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O otherwise you'd be measuring the temperature of the air between you and the surface you're pointing it at, which is useless for an IR thermometer.
"no puzzlement over the Arctic melting so recent and extraordinary". This WG1 climate scientist talk is about the specific science discussed because talker is a scientist and not an activist/journalist/politician/poet/show-host/author.
The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
Yes Joanna, here in Oz, we had one meteorologist state the major volcanic activity at the beginning of 2022 was the major cause for the unusual weather this year, along with La Nina.
La Nina definitely played havoc in 2022. West US coast tremendous snow & rain. No one predicted that. They just expected the drought out there to continue. So La Nina upset the apple cart.
In 2012 Principia Scientific International (PSI) peer-reviewed and published my paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" based on work by Prof Claes Johnson and relating to the resonating process whereby radiation from the atmosphere is pseudo scattered by the warmer surface and not thermalised. If it were then there would be a decrease in entropy and so we can deduce that the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.
I subsequently proved Joseph Postma's paper on PSI about the "Model Atmosphere" to be riddled with errors in its attempt to claim that all we needed was solar radiation to the surface in order to explain observed temperatures. It's easy to understand why that is not the case because the Moon's surface receives about twice as much solar radiation and does not simultaneously lose energy also by evaporation, conduction and convection as does Earth's surface. The average temperature of the Moon's surface is below zero Celsius.
In 2013 after considerable research and thought I explained what does happen on all planets and moons with atmospheres in my paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures."
It will probably take another decade before the truth in that paper is widely known.
Reply to GEORGELET4 below. "It is said there will be an increase in water vapor but how do you model". Computer simulations are those video games you see. They use a time slice of 15 minutes (they intend to improve to 5 minutes when big computers get cheaper) so every 15 minutes each of the 5,000,000 shoe boxes simulating atmosphere & oceans gets updated with its new parameters based on all the equations that determine the change over 15 minutes for each parameter. Error is caused by the 15 minutes is too long for better detail and the shoe box size of 90 x 90 km is too big for better detail, but the computers just don't exist to run a 100-year simulation with a 30 second time slice and a 5 x 5 km shoe box in
Nothing told about this volcano in Iceland spewing out megawatts of energy and the effects of that ….. probably polluting more than all the flying aircraft together . Next the magnetic effect of the sun on the earth …. and the solar flares … ! So more info required …. on this issue… or is that info classified,
Under clear skies with little wind, the sun went down and I noticed the temperature dropped by several degrees(probably 2-3 degrees within 30-40 minutes following sunset). About an hour later with no wind, high level clouds formed overhead. Not long after, I noticed the temperature rise by several degrees, perhaps about 2 degrees. My point is that CO2 did not trap enough heat radiated from the Earth to overcome radiational cooling once the sun went down under clear skies, which caused the temperature to drop. However, the formation of high level clouds significantly overwhelmed radiational cooling by trapping noticeable heat from the Earth resulting in a rise in temperature. It is reasonable to believe from this test that CO2 is not even close to being a strong greenhouse gas that can trap heat to affect our weather............it provided no noticeable warming and allowed cooling to predominate in the absence of clouds. All temperatures were read off of my car's outside thermometer with the car parked at the same location for about 1 and 1/2 hours.
trying to understanding particulates in the atmosphere? Perhaps ask the people that chem trail and weather manufacture? Let me know and I'll give you a few names
Have you seen Suspicious0bservers.org website yet? Explains solar radiation cycles, solar radiation forcing, Earth and Solar magnetic fields, cosmic radiation, and effects on climate, polar shifts, laboratory experiments, cites scientific research, all of this and more, to explain what is hapening to our sun and our Earth's climate, among other things..I might suggest you check it out..
If the temperature of the surface and the temperature of the atmosphere are forced into an imbalance (because of water man-made chemicals/overabundance of CFLs & GHGs and water) it creates changes in the climate. "These are cause by radiative forces (the sun which creates radiant heat). The average radiation coming in and going out is about 240W per square meter on earth. So if there is an imbalance, say of 4w per meter, that small addition/subtraction, predictably, will change the temperature by 2 degrees." On the surface some things that radiate heat and light are ice and deserts. Some things that trap heat are bare earth, oceans, clouds(H20) and GHGs/CFLs.
She has the idea, she's just not up on er space weather and solar cycles. If you don't already know of Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html .
@@jdnthecanadian424, that was a rhetorical question you moron. The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
What will happen to the global temperatur if we stop producing Co2? How long time will it take before it has any effect? Manmade Co2 is only 0,0012% of the earth’s atmosphere.
Unless there is enough volcanic activity to release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, neglecting solar variations, the temperature will decrease as carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes such as chemical weathering of rocks and limestone accretion. All of this CO2 scare is just political nonsense. If you look at the geologic record, there has never been a mass extinction event attributable to CO2 at or less than 7,000 ppm. If we burned all the fossil fuels on the planet this instant, we could not come anywhere close to 3,000 ppm as we are only at about 400 ppm right now. We are currently in one of the lowest atmospheric CO2 levels on the geologic record.
It doesn’t matter what the exact percentage of the atmosphere is CO2, but what the effect is. If 0.0012% of the atmosphere were chlorine, we’d be dead. The important bit is that CO2 has increased from 280 to 415 ppm since the Industrial revolution. Before then, the carbon cycle was at equilibrium and contained by natural feedback loops. However we’ve quickly added a lot more carbon to the system: faster than natural feedback loops can make up for. Atmospheric concentrations tend to change over millions of years, not hundreds. CO2 hasn’t been this high for 20 million years, when Earth was 6C hotter. It could take thousands, even millions of years to return to preindustrial levels of CO2 if we neither add nor remove CO2 at this point. Or something completely different could happen. This is as sudden a change as a giant meteor or a super volcano eruption.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 note two things: the sun gets warmer over time so the earth requires less CO2 to maintain a good temperature. Secondly the CO2 is being added incredibly quickly: over just a couple hundred years (even decades) instead of thousands or even millions. Combine with other human activity contributing to global mass extinctions, and we’re not exactly home free. We’re flying blind into a thunderstorm.
@@52flyingbicycles "It doesn’t matter what the exact percentage of the atmosphere is CO2, but what the effect is. If 0.0012% of the atmosphere were chlorine, we’d be dead." You are comparing apples to oranges with this non sequitur. Chlorine is extremely toxic to the vast majority of life forms. Carbon is the basis for all life forms on this planet. People that demonize carbon are in a death cult that wants to destroy food chains via depriving the earth of the building block of all life. "The important bit is that CO2 has increased from 280 to 415 ppm since the Industrial revolution." That is great news. Plants and algae need that CO2 to breathe. At 185 ppm, plants die from suffocation. We were literally less than 100 ppm from having a global worldwide mass extinction event. Instead, we now have the greatest crop yields of all time. The earth is much greener than it was prior to the industrial revolution. That is a fact. "However we’ve quickly added a lot more carbon to the system: faster than natural feedback loops can make up for." That's a good thing. We are presently far below the median atmospheric content for planet earth. If you look at the periods where life was most abundant, you will see that the atmospheric carbon content is much higher than today's present levels. " Atmospheric concentrations tend to change over millions of years, not hundreds. CO2 hasn’t been this high for 20 million years, when Earth was 6C hotter." That is incorrect. Atmospheric carbon tends to get released from the ground into the atmosphere by sudden mass volcanic eruptions. Thus, the history of planet earth has had numerous abrupt spikes in atmospheric CO2 content. Atmospheric concentrations tend to change over millions of years, not hundreds. CO2 hasn’t been this high for 20 million years, when Earth was 6C hotter" That's funny, a quick internet search shows 3-5 million years ago during the Pliocene. Are you just making stuff up?
@9:35 Clouds are part of the surface-atmosphere system whose properties are determined by natual thermodynamic processes. These are irrelevant to your communication objectives.
What do you mean yet? Modeling depends soley on data input. You keep putting in garbage you get garbage out. It's use to support a monumental LIE is what we haven't got woke to yet. At least enough to put an end to this stupid think
@@Miatacrosser What Peter said is essentially true. Because some aspects aren't fully understood, science is without effective ways to input the factors. It is the interpretation of partial data that is problematic, rather than the data that is input, per se. When bad data is input, that us problematic, also. The climate change disclaimer underneath the video is hilarious.
this statement means what these people are trying to solve ? easey money ! please take a iron ball put it in oven heat it up ? it gains in mesured mass . it gets bigger when hot for sure more heat from sun rait/or cloud convection ..it gets warmer ! it gets slightly larger in mass ! during minimum it get less heat thus (shrinks) so to speak ? it sceezes tighter on the crust thus more volcano activity ! thus more ash ! combined with slower ocean current flow to northeast ! thus colder much colder climate ... as for exrteem heat ? thats the low pressure trapped by much larger cold air mass at north and south poles ! cold as hell on both ends at much greater levels .. cold air mass is the winner it is domminant over hot air . the jet stream is aratic due to this effect ...the proof is in your nails edge you guys dont see it whole effect .... its going to get more evident 2020 ! ask the northwest new english part of atlantic north sea 2/17-18/2020 record snow fall and more to come ... more volcanic and earthquake activity record #s on that also ... the sun goes quiet the earth gets louder the reinance gadges prove it . they are erratic as well .cold ! beleve it or not is apparently on the way ...last time it passed over 50 years . this time it may not be a mini
So...one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere will heat 2,499 other to the point where we're all gonna die!!! Unless the US pays trillions in carbon taxes to fund energy for poor developing nations. Sounds legit.
"to the point where we're all gonna die!!!". No, you are a worthless babbling fuckwit. "So...one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere will heat 2,499". Well, each molecule in the troposphere collides with another molecule average 2,700,000,000 times / second and the one with most kinetic + vibrational energy transfers some energy to other molecule.
True, but you must also mention that the density of Mars' atmosphere is much lower than of earth's atmosphere. Nevertheless, counting the number of CO2 particles per cubic m there, which is about half of that on earth I believe, one might expect a higher temperature on Mars, based on the assumption that the number of CO2 particles per m3 is the main contributing factor to the surface temperature.
What other elements are on Mars that are similar to earths? Does Mars have a warm core and vulcanos's ? What I am saying is that you cannot compare as the influences which are often combined are not the same.
There was no discussion of the electromagnetic effect from solar radiation. This would not only effect the total energy reaching the Earth but how it would effect different partials in the atmosphere at different levels. In addition this will have great effect on the disruption of climate say nothing to the effect on the Earths magnetosphere. The Solar effects on the climate seem to not be accounted for at all, I wonder why?
+Rick Nelson "There was no discussion of the electromagnetic effect from solar radiation". The reason for that is because there is no electromagnetic effect on Earth from solar radiation. You're welcome.
There are no greenhouse gases. There are no gases that produce either the stopping of the wind cooling or convection. There are no gases that are selective frequency mirrors to IR. There are gases that absorb IR but they reradiate it without affecting the temperature.
Absorption is misnomer, it lasts a billionth of a second, followed by emission of longer wavelength, lower energy photon, therefore COOLING the Earth. I'd gladly debate this climaclownologist
Antarctic ice has increased back to record levels, and the northern and southern hemispheres are having survive winters. Matching the trend in the Sun's low sunspot numbers. All of the climate alarmist's computer models have failed drastically.
She's speaking only of the ultraviolet part of the sun's broad spectrum, which is a minor portion compared to the whole. And there are many unknown variables. Reflection alone is totally inadequate.
Thanks for explaining how much science still does not yet understand about the earth's climate. What happens if the radiative forcing of CO2 (or any other gas) is negligible? The Sun, Volcanoes and Clouds, aren't these climate change denier talking points?!
"Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" > FauxScienceSlayer(.)com NO gas molecule can capture, store, redirect or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light
@@ps200306 Kiehl-Trenberth energy balance claims 180° change of direction by reflecting off three atom gas molecules, impossible > go take THERMODYNAMICS
@@JosephOlson-ld2td, don't be ridiculous. Those diagrams show the overall radiative effect, not what is physically going on. It is a random scattering effect, not reflection. And, in fact, the vast majority of excited CO2 molecules will not reemit at all but undergo collisional de-excitatation. That because the half life of the excited state is much longer than the mean time between collisions (about 100 picoseconds at sea level).
You have babble but greatly superior babble to the "Mat Coburn" just above because if we run your babble through the Miss Teen South Carolina Word Unscrambler competition and add music we get the final 6 minutes of Mahler's 8th Symphony but if we run "Mat Coburn"'s babble through the Miss Teen South Carolina Word Unscrambler competition we get a series of rude farting sounds. Accept the physical science kudos in the reverential spirit in which it was given.
I am so thankful to have found this video. I am working in an environment association and I have spent the last weeks trying to understand the IPCC papers, but despite reading lot of definitions of Radiative Forcing it wasn't jet clear in my mind. Now it is, finally! Thank you so much!
Good man. Lady. Woman. LGBTQSV. Whatever, Sorry. Well done.
I just posted the 1st version with obvious typos and mistake 4,900 m instead of 5,000 m. Here's the corrected version 2.
Technical but simple explanation of the "greenhouse effect" in answer to a question below (2nd post after proof reading with an obvious altitude numbers mistake corrected):
-----------------------------
Well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) exert control on Earth's Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) by setting the range of altitudes in the troposphere from which the well-mixed greenhouse gases and also water vapour send transverse electromagnetic radiation (LWR) to space (Earth sending LWR to space is what prevents it from simply continuously warming due to Sun's radiation until it vaporizes and beyond). Currently, the average altitude is 4,900 m where the average global temperature is ~254.8K and thus it sends ~239.2 w / m**2 to space, approximately matching the average 240.1 w / m**2 that Earth's troposphere & surface absorb from Sun. It should be obvious to everybody that if more well-mixed GHGs are added then the increased concentration through the troposphere will raise this present 4,900 m to a higher altitude because it needs to be up a bit higher where they are thinner so enough can make it through to space without getting absorbed on the way there. Just as an example only suppose various GHGs added raise it to an average altitude of 5,000 m. Now in order to still send the necessary 239.7 w / m**2 to space air at 5,000 m must warm to where air at 4,900 m was before, so it does. The atmospheric lapse rate varies in the range 5-10 degrees / km depending on moisture content with a global average of 6.75 degrees / km so the 100 m altitude increase raises air temperature by 6.75*0.1=0.675 degrees and this will be the global warming caused by that GHG increase (required to balance it out and get the energy back into balance in=out) because the atmospheric lapse rate will always set itself at that global average of 6.75 degrees / km so it must all warm by 0.675 degrees all the way down to the surface (where we are so now we notice). To be clear, the non-zero atmospheric lapse rate is absolutely required for a "greenhouse effect" to operate. If the atmosphere of some planet was absolutely jam packed with GHGs but for some reason it had no lapse rate (if the temperature all the way up the atmosphere was exactly the same as the surface below it on that planet, so you climb any mountain and it doesn't get any colder as you climb) then there could not be any "greenhouse effect". It is required that the temperature get lower with increasing height so that the higher GHG molecules are colder than below so thus they send less than the required 240.1 w / m**2 to space so then there is more coming in than going out so the ecosphere warms until it balances again. The 6.75 degrees / km atmospheric lapse rate is caused by an entirely separate simple phenomenon in which warm air rises but expands as it rises because less air pressure above and the expanding cools it like letting gas our of a tyre or a tube or a spray can (gets cold around the nozzle). Thus if the increasing GHGs warm the air above as just described then the process of warm air rising & expanding continuously holds that global average of 6.75 degrees / km atmospheric lapse rate so the surface warms by the same amount (sort of, see note below). That's the "greenhouse effect".
------------------------
Note: For simplicity, I omitted 40 w / m**2 that's sent directly surface--->space in frequencies called "atmospheric window" that aren't absorbed by any GHG so they just go straight through. The "greenhouse effect" applies to the 200 w / m**2 (so 83.3% of total) that's sent to space by the GHG molecules. Those numbers of mine aren't actually accurate to the +/-0.1 w / m**2, Trenberth says scientists have the last couple of decades at In=240.1 w / m**2 out=239.2 w / m**2 and the 0.85 w / m**2 difference is what's causing the warming (it'll keep increasing of course, it went up by +0.035 w / m**2 in 2018 due to +2.7 ppmv CO2). A few years back I heard a WG1 climate scientist toss out an aside of 3 seconds that the atmospheric lapse rate actually reduces slightly as it warms thus giving slightly less surface warming than warming in the atmosphere. He didn't say how much or why because his talk was about something else. He implied it was a small correction only.
This was confusing. For the first 3/4 you seemed to say how straightforward it was to determine forcing, particularly from CO2. In the last 1/4 you talked about how complicated it is.
You did not talk about feedbacks which is where the models appear to overstate warming. It is said there will be an increase in water vapor but how do you model that? Clouds during the day are like shades keeping heat out and at night like a blanket keeping it in. Then the altitude of clouds is a strong factor in how much heat is reflected back to space and how much remains in the atmosphere.
The climate models haven't overstated warming. There's a large uncertainty range but as I recall the GMST increase is pretty much at the centre of projected range. GMST can't be expected to simply go perfectly along the smooth curve of the average of the climate models. That's just daft.
"It is said there will be an increase in water vapor but how do you model". Computer simulations are those video games you see. They use a time slice of 15 minutes (they intend to improve to 5 minutes when big computers get cheaper) so every 15 minutes each of the 5,000,000 shoe boxes simulating atmosphere & oceans gets updated with its new parameters based on all the equations that determine the change over 15 minutes for each parameter. Error is caused by the 15 minutes is too long for better detail and the shoe box size of 90 x 90 km is too big for better detail, but the computers just don't exist to run a 100-year simulation with a 30 second time slice and a 5 x 5 km shoe box in
"Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas" > FauxScienceSlayer(.)com
Water vapor absorbs in 50,000 spectral bands, CO2 in three
If you don't know about Suspicious Observers, this has a more detailed explanation. Also you might want to start watching their daily space weather updates. ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html
Not sure why people keep sharing nonsense videos by Suspicious 0bserver. He is not a climate scientist, he is a blogger and RUclipsr that couldn't even get a degree in economics and believes in this electric universe bs. People should not be this stupid and gullible in 2020. The guy is just a con man, plain and simple.
Thank you for mentioning water vapour.
The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
What about particle forcing ?
yeah, MEEs and Cosmic Rays are included in CMIP6. but work in Progress ? i think solar forcing has to become much more powerful. they also still miss other particle effects. CMEs etc. And by the way, the Ozone LAyer is also depleted by MEEs. They only look at gases and mostly human activity
@@panikaffe CMIP6 inaccuracy accounts for particle forcing. See changes coming to IPCC in 2025. No study that has used the updated CMIP6 models that accounts for true solar radiation has been able to replicate human impacts on a statistically significant level. Ouch to the biggest lie sold to humans.
Following the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, Earths Temprature dropped about 1.2 °C and did not return to normal until 5 years after. Earths population then was about 1/7 of today.
Such an event today would likely cause a large reduction in human and other animal populations due to reductions in food production and distribution. Such an event is likely to happen again. Some scenarios such as a large eruption of the US Yellowstone Caldera would be Appocalyptic.
We should be Thankful for every Day.
Would we have a greater effect on climate change if we stopped irrigating crops and filled in all the dams and canals we've built? Two years later and the climate models are still drastically wrong and we still cling to them..... perhaps a head headshrinker is needed to look into why we cling to things that obviously don't work?
@Dave Welsh Thank you, it's about time science was used instead of emotional claptrap.
Earth's atmosphere is so thin, that it cannot retain heat for very long. Atmospheric density is the key as to why CO2 has absolutely no to very little bearing on atmospheric temperature.
Venus' atmosphere is about 95% CO2, but so is Mars'. Then why is Venus so hot yet Mars so cold? It's the atmospheric density that determines temperature, not composition. Venus' atmosphere is about 100 times more dense than Earth's, while Mars' is about 1/100 the density of Earth's. Proximity to the sun is a very minor factor when compared to atmospheric density. Mercury has a very thin atmosphere, thus allowing the night side of the planet to plunge in temperature. Venus is uniformly hot from pole to pole and both day and night sides of the planet. This is because her atmosphere is so tremendously dense. Whereas Mars can get warm in the daytime, temperatures plummet at night.
So, if Earth's atmosphere became 95% CO2 at it's current density, global temperatures would remain pretty much where they are now. This is how atmospheric physics works.
You have total unadulterated drivel
interesting presentation, I did know all off what she said though but well presented and without bias in any direction which is what I would expect from a serious scientist.... kudos to you !!
thank you for such an exemplary mini lecture. so informative
Sorry Joanna, I suggest you watch 'SuspiciousObservers 'Climate Forcing Our Future is Cold.' It includes the 90% you seem to have left out.
Why would anyone watch that channel? The man is a fraud and a con man that makes a living from lying. He is not a scientist. He contributes nothing to the body of science. He constantly misrepresents what science says and demonstrates ignorance to basic physics. The only people watching that hack fraud are people with a RUclips education.
@@CaptWesStarwind not having a degree does not mean thatone can not become am expert on a topic. If the Wright brothers had been academics, they would have "known", like every scientist at the time,"knew" that a "manmade machine heavier than air" would never take to the skies.Instead, they just went ahead and did it.
Here is a recent publication hat might interest you, as you are so bent on scientific evidence:
Another Climate Scientist with Impeccable Credentials Breaks Ranks:
“Our models are Mickey-Mouse Mockeries of the Real World”
September 26, 2019 Cap Allon
Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.
In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:
“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”etc etc etc
@@gammaraygem I'm amazed anyone would be so naive as to write that. Thanks, I'll stick with the research being done by experts in their fields that are publishing their research in scientific journals instead.
@@CaptWesStarwind ah...yes, the holy grail : Peer Review, ,the cornerstone of scientific research, the magic slogan that silences all critique...
Here is what the BBC had to say about peer review(BBC gave the links-Nature, Lancet, British medical journal))
Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
Nature: 18 October 2018 Challenges in irreproducible research www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz
Nature25 May 2016 Corrected: 28 July 2016 : "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research." www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
Nature: "How scientists fool themselves - and how they can stop Humans are remarkably good at self-deception. But growing concern about reproducibility is driving many researchers to seek ways to fight their own worst instincts." www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-fool-themselves-and-how-they-can-stop-1.18517
On peer review: www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
quote: “The Lancet editor Richard Horton has called the process "unjust, unaccountable ... often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Not to mention that identifying peer reviewers and getting their comments slows down the progress of science - papers can be held up for months or years - and costs society a lot of money.
Scientists and professors, after all, need to take time away from their research to edit, unpaid, the work of others. Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, (Britisch Medical Journal) summed up:
"We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside."
Another former editor of the Lancet, Robbie Fox, used to joke that his journal "had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom."
Not exactly reassuring comments from the editors of the world's leading medical journals.”
In Medical science, at least one deals with reproducable (apparently not) facts. A patient gets better, or not.In Climate it is a matter of interpretation of sketchy data, .nobody knows what parameters are missing and none of it is verifyable because it takes decades to do so. And the IPCC models dont work, they are terrible at predicting, ( the predictions of 5 years ago, supposed to occur in 2050, are happening NOW).
So they are missing something important.
And, since i am interested to know what that is, because the IPCC is clearly incompetent, i look elsewhere. I checked out Suspicious Observers years ago, and didnt like it. But meanwhile it has improved a lot.I take all with a frain of salt, be it "peer reviewed" or other. If you´d seen the Wright brothers struggle a year before their succes, you might have said: that will never get anywhere. But they persisted.
Nobody knows why the magnetic northpole is running at 55km a month across the arctic. 5 years ago that was 55km per year.The Earth magnetic field is weakening. A repeat of a carington event could throw us back into the stone age.--or at least pre-electricity. Oistrich politics, deviation from clear and present danger, that probly is too scary for anyone to talk about. Because we are completely unprepared for such an event.
Meanwhile we moan about climate change .
Putin and that fascist Bolsenaro burn down forests and laughing in the AGW alarmists face, because we are tricked into major fanancial sacrifices, for no reason, because whatever the cause, we can not stop it. Or are you gonna nuke Russia? I dont think so.Putin wants a arctic seapassage to China, Bolsy wants farmland for his soy and meat farms.
So it would appear to be just opinions of some, parrotted by the many.
I can only conclude, keeping in mind the above presented data, that whoever came up with that number of 96% of scientists believe in AGW, had a political agenda, pushed by mainstream media, (fear sells well) resulting in a cult-like movement, where the slogan "look at the "science" has become the main mantra, without any justification.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
@listen2meokidoki though i agree with you on the topic of cherry picking, i quoted a climate scientist who, for once is not in the pocket of big oil, (else the web would be full of slander on him by the Greta Doom Cult fans) and has 25 years of experience in the field. So, not my words ,but an experts word.
You demand peer reviewed studies , i suppose? Then perhaps read my other post in this thread.
I watched the first minute of your Alice clip, but sorry, it is unbearable and not my type of humor, no offense. So, your point, if there is any, is lost on me.
Maybe you´ll find this 1986 clip as unbearable, 3 minutes. Whats new?ruclips.net/video/8qrriKcwvlY/видео.html
Adiabatic lapse rate - the gas mass and base temp from the surface temp. No need to cook up a 'green house'.
Still waiting for the experiment that demonstrates doubling CO2 raises air temp 2.7F to 8.1F as required by mann made global warming theory.
Glad she mentioned the variability in clouds - as I watched Dr Mann in a lecture honestly admit they don't understand clouds.
Fine and useful conceptual explanation, thanks!
The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
@@sanctusexitium9956 lol Suspicious 0bserver is just a nitwit that couldn't get a degree in economics and makes a living lying to halfwits. Instead of listening to fools like that try listening to people that actually understand and contribute to science. The fact that he has more than two followers is a scathing indictment of some countries educational systems.
@@CaptWesStarwind, I am embarrassed for you. You could not be farther from reality if you made a concerted effort. Ben Davidson has several Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers under his belt. Only a fool would mouth off like yourself without doing a little research. It is no surprise, most people that believe CO2 causes climate change are scientifically illiterate the others are corrupt.
@@sanctusexitium9956 no, he does not. If he has anything it's published in an open source pay to publish journal right next to the Get Me Off Your F@$%ing Mailing List paper.
"Carbon Dioxide traps about 1/3 the amount of water vapour"
That contradicts basic molecular physics
Co2 only absorbs about 5-7% of the outgoing energy available to greenhouse gases.
Nice discussion. Makes me wonder how every single climate model is so wrong historically if we really understand how climate works...
climate models are based on a closed experiment, the reality is that the lid is open.
Climate models are doing well. www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
Water vapor is primary; not co2. But the interesting thing with the climate & this is why it cannot be in the hands of the inmates at the asylum is the paradoxes. As mentioned here if we create a bunch of deserts, the albedo will increase but at the same time food supplies will decrease because the desert is not hospitable for food. In addition, while forests are a great absorbing sponge of light, they are also a sink for co2.
C02 is not responsible for warming/ weakening magnetic field is responsible for ozone depletion..
Wow that's some impressive crap you got there. You thought of packaging it for sale ?
After watching "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change Joanna D Haigh" I was puzzled that there was no discussion of the instrumental basis and there were no radiative transfer equations, no graphs and there was no reference to spectroscopy and there was no puzzlement over the Arctic melting so recent and extraordinary.
The only instrumental basis of that particular topic I've come across are the FTIR spectra from the instrument on satellite that you come across (I've only ever found 3 of them in the public domain). These clearly show the notches of CO2, CH4, O3, N2O and the general reduction of the broad-band H2O. I don't think I ever found measurement of downwelling LWR by instrument but I'm surprised that they don't exist so maybe they do somewhere. As you know, using an IR thermometer like I use at work is no use because, like heat-seeking guided missile, it is designed specifically to ignore that frequencies emitted by H2O, CO2, CH4, O3, N2O otherwise you'd be measuring the temperature of the air between you and the surface you're pointing it at, which is useless for an IR thermometer.
"no puzzlement over the Arctic melting so recent and extraordinary". This WG1 climate scientist talk is about the specific science discussed because talker is a scientist and not an activist/journalist/politician/poet/show-host/author.
The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
i see RUclips does not like this video. The exclaimer above, an excerpt from wikipedia.
Yes Joanna, here in Oz, we had one meteorologist state the major volcanic activity at the beginning of 2022 was the major cause for the unusual weather this year, along with La Nina.
La Nina definitely played havoc in 2022. West US coast tremendous snow & rain. No one predicted that. They just expected the drought out there to continue. So La Nina upset the apple cart.
Not going to get anywhere being in denial or pushing a political agenda. Keep doing science
It is worthwhile to listen to David Cotton. Comprehensive Refutation of Radiative Forcing Climate Change Greenhouse Global Warming by CO2
No because it's drivel, and you're a shill and a Troll.
@@grindupBaker Talk about being a Troll. Wake up asshat, comment was two years old you imbecile
@@grindupBaker kiss my posterior
In 2012 Principia Scientific International (PSI) peer-reviewed and published my paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" based on work by Prof Claes Johnson and relating to the resonating process whereby radiation from the atmosphere is pseudo scattered by the warmer surface and not thermalised. If it were then there would be a decrease in entropy and so we can deduce that the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false.
I subsequently proved Joseph Postma's paper on PSI about the "Model Atmosphere" to be riddled with errors in its attempt to claim that all we needed was solar radiation to the surface in order to explain observed temperatures. It's easy to understand why that is not the case because the Moon's surface receives about twice as much solar radiation and does not simultaneously lose energy also by evaporation, conduction and convection as does Earth's surface. The average temperature of the Moon's surface is below zero Celsius.
In 2013 after considerable research and thought I explained what does happen on all planets and moons with atmospheres in my paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures."
It will probably take another decade before the truth in that paper is widely known.
Visit whyitsnotco2.com and watch my videos.
You have total unadulterated drivel
Reply to
GEORGELET4
below. "It is said there will be an increase in water vapor but how do you model". Computer simulations are those video games you see. They use a time slice of 15 minutes (they intend to improve to 5 minutes when big computers get cheaper) so every 15 minutes each of the 5,000,000 shoe boxes simulating atmosphere & oceans gets updated with its new parameters based on all the equations that determine the change over 15 minutes for each parameter. Error is caused by the 15 minutes is too long for better detail and the shoe box size of 90 x 90 km is too big for better detail, but the computers just don't exist to run a 100-year simulation with a 30 second time slice and a 5 x 5 km shoe box in
And who defines those equations I wonder.
Nothing told about this volcano in Iceland spewing out megawatts of energy and the effects of that ….. probably polluting more than all the flying aircraft together . Next the magnetic effect of the sun on the earth …. and the solar flares … !
So more info required …. on this issue… or is that info classified,
Wow that's some impressive crap you got there. 0.001% = 100% eh ? Some impressive crap arithmetic. You thought of packaging it for sale ?
Who is she talking to?
People without ears.
Under clear skies with little wind, the sun went down and I noticed the temperature dropped by several degrees(probably 2-3 degrees within 30-40 minutes following sunset). About an hour later with no wind, high level clouds formed overhead. Not long after, I noticed the temperature rise by several degrees, perhaps about 2 degrees.
My point is that CO2 did not trap enough heat radiated from the Earth to
overcome radiational cooling once the sun went down under clear skies, which caused the temperature to drop. However, the formation of high level clouds significantly
overwhelmed radiational cooling by trapping noticeable heat from the
Earth resulting in a rise in temperature.
It is reasonable to believe from this test that CO2 is not even close to
being a strong greenhouse gas that can trap heat to affect our
weather............it provided no noticeable warming and allowed cooling
to predominate in the absence of clouds. All temperatures were read off of my car's
outside thermometer with the car parked at the same location for about 1 and 1/2 hours.
Right!
trying to understanding particulates in the atmosphere? Perhaps ask the people that chem trail and weather manufacture? Let me know and I'll give you a few names
Have you seen Suspicious0bservers.org website yet? Explains solar radiation cycles, solar radiation forcing, Earth and Solar magnetic fields, cosmic radiation, and effects on climate, polar shifts, laboratory experiments, cites scientific research, all of this and more, to explain what is hapening to our sun and our Earth's climate, among other things..I might suggest you check it out..
Yeah, that guy is nothing but a hack fraud making a living off of very gullible people.
"radiative forcing of climate change" and "forces an imbalance" -- excuse me?
If the temperature of the surface and the temperature of the atmosphere are forced into an imbalance (because of water man-made chemicals/overabundance of CFLs & GHGs and water) it creates changes in the climate.
"These are cause by radiative forces (the sun which creates radiant heat). The average radiation coming in and going out is about 240W per square meter on earth. So if there is an imbalance, say of 4w per meter, that small addition/subtraction, predictably, will change the temperature by 2 degrees."
On the surface some things that radiate heat and light are ice and deserts. Some things that trap heat are bare earth, oceans, clouds(H20) and GHGs/CFLs.
She has the idea, she's just not up on er space weather and solar cycles. If you don't already know of Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html .
@@jdnthecanadian424, that was a rhetorical question you moron. The paradigm has shifted and you're going to be out there shouting "How Dare You" with a dunce cap on. You need to Red Pill it out of the Matrix stat. CO2 is a geocentric view of Climate Change that has excluded Solar/Climate Forcing. That has changed, the IPCC has recently addressed this. Here's a Red Pill for you, this will lead you out of the AGW rabbit hole, but wait, think before you take it. Almost nothing you believe now is true, be prepared; People will scorn and admonish you once you are deprogrammed. The first video is the most recent awakening of the IPCC itself to the monster they created, and by their own admission. The IPCC has mandated Solar/Climate Forcing data for the 2020 climate models. The second video is a complex and detailed talk on Solar/Climate Forcing that will shine light on your queries, ruclips.net/video/-muNC-Miorg/видео.html Suspicious Observers it's a great resource for real time, to the HOUR space weather and more. spaceweathernews.com/ . This is a recent video that is more thorough about Solar/Climate Forcing ruclips.net/video/rEWoPzaDmOA/видео.html . You are smarter than this. Good luck and see you on the other side. Merry Christmas.
@@sanctusexitium9956 is the earth also flat?
@@CaptWesStarwind Are you seriously that stupid? You have no clue do you?
What will happen to the global temperatur if we stop producing Co2?
How long time will it take before it has any effect?
Manmade Co2 is only 0,0012% of the earth’s atmosphere.
Unless there is enough volcanic activity to release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, neglecting solar variations, the temperature will decrease as carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by natural processes such as chemical weathering of rocks and limestone accretion. All of this CO2 scare is just political nonsense. If you look at the geologic record, there has never been a mass extinction event attributable to CO2 at or less than 7,000 ppm. If we burned all the fossil fuels on the planet this instant, we could not come anywhere close to 3,000 ppm as we are only at about 400 ppm right now. We are currently in one of the lowest atmospheric CO2 levels on the geologic record.
It doesn’t matter what the exact percentage of the atmosphere is CO2, but what the effect is. If 0.0012% of the atmosphere were chlorine, we’d be dead.
The important bit is that CO2 has increased from 280 to 415 ppm since the Industrial revolution. Before then, the carbon cycle was at equilibrium and contained by natural feedback loops. However we’ve quickly added a lot more carbon to the system: faster than natural feedback loops can make up for. Atmospheric concentrations tend to change over millions of years, not hundreds. CO2 hasn’t been this high for 20 million years, when Earth was 6C hotter.
It could take thousands, even millions of years to return to preindustrial levels of CO2 if we neither add nor remove CO2 at this point. Or something completely different could happen. This is as sudden a change as a giant meteor or a super volcano eruption.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 note two things: the sun gets warmer over time so the earth requires less CO2 to maintain a good temperature. Secondly the CO2 is being added incredibly quickly: over just a couple hundred years (even decades) instead of thousands or even millions. Combine with other human activity contributing to global mass extinctions, and we’re not exactly home free. We’re flying blind into a thunderstorm.
@@52flyingbicycles "It doesn’t matter what the exact percentage of the atmosphere is CO2, but what the effect is. If 0.0012% of the atmosphere were chlorine, we’d be dead." You are comparing apples to oranges with this non sequitur. Chlorine is extremely toxic to the vast majority of life forms. Carbon is the basis for all life forms on this planet. People that demonize carbon are in a death cult that wants to destroy food chains via depriving the earth of the building block of all life.
"The important bit is that CO2 has increased from 280 to 415 ppm since the Industrial revolution." That is great news. Plants and algae need that CO2 to breathe. At 185 ppm, plants die from suffocation. We were literally less than 100 ppm from having a global worldwide mass extinction event. Instead, we now have the greatest crop yields of all time. The earth is much greener than it was prior to the industrial revolution. That is a fact.
"However we’ve quickly added a lot more carbon to the system: faster than natural feedback loops can make up for." That's a good thing. We are presently far below the median atmospheric content for planet earth. If you look at the periods where life was most abundant, you will see that the atmospheric carbon content is much higher than today's present levels.
" Atmospheric concentrations tend to change over millions of years, not hundreds. CO2 hasn’t been this high for 20 million years, when Earth was 6C hotter." That is incorrect. Atmospheric carbon tends to get released from the ground into the atmosphere by sudden mass volcanic eruptions. Thus, the history of planet earth has had numerous abrupt spikes in atmospheric CO2 content.
Atmospheric concentrations tend to change over millions of years, not hundreds. CO2 hasn’t been this high for 20 million years, when Earth was 6C hotter" That's funny, a quick internet search shows 3-5 million years ago during the Pliocene. Are you just making stuff up?
1816 was the Year Without A Summer because of the earthquake in what became Indonesia in 1815.
Lots To Learn Tambora...
@9:35 Clouds are part of the surface-atmosphere system whose properties are determined by natual thermodynamic processes. These are irrelevant to your communication objectives.
Wow that's some impressive crap you got there. You thought of packaging it for sale ?
our magnetic shield is reducing rapidly as we speak especially last 20yrs. This allows more 'cosmic-rays' which produces so much more cloud. :)
She took 15 minutes to tell us that climate modelling isn't accurate yet.
What do you mean yet? Modeling depends soley on data input. You keep putting in garbage you get garbage out. It's use to support a monumental LIE is what we haven't got woke to yet. At least enough to put an end to this stupid think
She also told why. Much better than expecting us to take her word for it.
@@Miatacrosser
What Peter said is essentially true. Because some aspects aren't fully understood, science is without effective ways to input the factors. It is the interpretation of partial data that is problematic, rather than the data that is input, per se.
When bad data is input, that us problematic, also.
The climate change disclaimer underneath the video is hilarious.
this statement means what these people are trying to solve ? easey money ! please take a iron ball put it in oven heat it up ? it gains in mesured mass . it gets bigger when hot for sure more heat from sun rait/or cloud convection ..it gets warmer ! it gets slightly larger in mass ! during minimum it get less heat thus (shrinks) so to speak ? it sceezes tighter on the crust thus more volcano activity ! thus more ash ! combined with slower ocean current flow to northeast ! thus colder much colder climate ... as for exrteem heat ? thats the low pressure trapped by much larger cold air mass at north and south poles ! cold as hell on both ends at much greater levels .. cold air mass is the winner it is domminant over hot air . the jet stream is aratic due to this effect ...the proof is in your nails edge you guys dont see it whole effect .... its going to get more evident 2020 ! ask the northwest new english part of atlantic north sea 2/17-18/2020 record snow fall and more to come ... more volcanic and earthquake activity record #s on that also ... the sun goes quiet the earth gets louder the reinance gadges prove it . they are erratic as well .cold ! beleve it or not is apparently on the way ...last time it passed over 50 years . this time it may not be a mini
So...one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere will heat 2,499 other to the point where we're all gonna die!!! Unless the US pays trillions in carbon taxes to fund energy for poor developing nations. Sounds legit.
"to the point where we're all gonna die!!!". No, you are a worthless babbling fuckwit. "So...one molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere will heat 2,499". Well, each molecule in the troposphere collides with another molecule average 2,700,000,000 times / second and the one with most kinetic + vibrational energy transfers some energy to other molecule.
You are right.. We are not all gone die... That's the only thing true in your comment.
The atmosphere on Mars is 95% carbon dioxide and the average temperature is -60F.
True, but you must also mention that the density of Mars' atmosphere is much lower than of earth's atmosphere. Nevertheless, counting the number of CO2 particles per cubic m there, which is about half of that on earth I believe, one might expect a higher temperature on Mars, based on the assumption that the number of CO2 particles per m3 is the main contributing factor to the surface temperature.
What other elements are on Mars that are similar to earths? Does Mars have a warm core and vulcanos's ? What I am saying is that you cannot compare as the influences which are often combined are not the same.
Are you really that stupid?
Turned off at "... If there's no climate change...". What a silly way to think. There has always been and still always been climate change....
Silly childish semantics. Well done in a Silly childish sort of way.
There was no discussion of the electromagnetic effect from solar radiation. This would not only effect the total energy reaching the Earth but how it would effect different partials in the atmosphere at different levels. In addition this will have great effect on the disruption of climate say nothing to the effect on the Earths magnetosphere. The Solar effects on the climate seem to not be accounted for at all, I wonder why?
+Rick Nelson
"There was no discussion of the electromagnetic effect from solar radiation". The reason for that is because there is no electromagnetic effect on Earth from solar radiation. You're welcome.
radiative forcing ? It is called "climate Forcing" all your q's joanna are answered here suspiciousobservers.org
You have total unadulterated drivel
@@grindupBaker ? bit more info pls or im just guessing. giggle
There are no greenhouse gases. There are no gases that produce either the stopping of the wind cooling or convection. There are no gases that are selective frequency mirrors to IR. There are gases that absorb IR but they reradiate it without affecting the temperature.
Absorption is misnomer, it lasts a billionth of a second, followed by emission of longer wavelength, lower energy photon, therefore COOLING the Earth. I'd gladly debate this climaclownologist
@@JosephOlson-ld2td, Ha, I know, (right?), not to mention she is brutal on the eyes. My 8 year old toilet scrub brush is better looking.
@@sanctusexitium9956 > tubby & F*ugly aside > Chicken Little science
"Spencer Sorcery on Magic Gas"
FauxScienceSlayer(.)com
Antarctic ice has increased back to record levels, and the northern and southern hemispheres are having survive winters. Matching the trend in the Sun's low sunspot numbers.
All of the climate alarmist's computer models have failed drastically.
Rubbish.
I think the fact that you are subscribed to Thunderbolts Project and 1000Folly says quite enough about your understanding of science.
She's speaking only of the ultraviolet part of the sun's broad spectrum, which is a minor portion compared to the whole. And there are many unknown variables. Reflection alone is totally inadequate.
It's not only UV rays that are reflected back, and the Earth's albedo (reflectance) is a VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR in CLIMATE WARMING.
Thanks for explaining how much science still does not yet understand about the earth's climate. What happens if the radiative forcing of CO2 (or any other gas) is negligible?
The Sun, Volcanoes and Clouds, aren't these climate change denier talking points?!
Right, you wouldn't want to actually practice science by attempting to falsify the theory. What's that called again? Oh, yeah, the scientific method.
So, 400 ppm CO2 absorbs 33% of heat radiation 😂😂😂😂
Solar particle /cosmic ray/ global electric circuit not accounted for..models , even CMIP 6 belong in the trash
Wow that's some impressive crap you got there. You thought of packaging it for sale ?
"Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" > FauxScienceSlayer(.)com
NO gas molecule can capture, store, redirect or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light
So why is the sky blue?
@@ps200306 > Rayleigh Scattering > "Only an Airhead Can Save US from Air" > principia-scientific(.)org
@@JosephOlson-ld2td , you said "NO gas molecule can ... redirect ... photons". That's what Rayleigh scattering is.
@@ps200306 Kiehl-Trenberth energy balance claims 180° change of direction by reflecting off three atom gas molecules, impossible > go take THERMODYNAMICS
@@JosephOlson-ld2td, don't be ridiculous. Those diagrams show the overall radiative effect, not what is physically going on. It is a random scattering effect, not reflection. And, in fact, the vast majority of excited CO2 molecules will not reemit at all but undergo collisional de-excitatation. That because the half life of the excited state is much longer than the mean time between collisions (about 100 picoseconds at sea level).
🇺🇸 Of climaxes in kinetic inclined to be or inclines incline and stimulus below 🗽 weT and areas²
🌼🇬🇧 🇨🇦 🇦🇺
Amen³ 🦌 🌳 🪃
You have babble but greatly superior babble to the "Mat Coburn" just above because if we run your babble through the Miss Teen South Carolina Word Unscrambler competition and add music we get the final 6 minutes of Mahler's 8th Symphony but if we run "Mat Coburn"'s babble through the Miss Teen South Carolina Word Unscrambler competition we get a series of rude farting sounds. Accept the physical science kudos in the reverential spirit in which it was given.