What I mean is that this guy does not speak well. He should take a course in communicating properly. For example, he should speak in sentences. He should stop trying to be funny. He should exclude any political references. etc.
part of that is he is speaking to an audience (i.e. students) that have a previous set of common understandings so you should expect those yada yada type of statements. Don't get me wrong. I'm not liking it but he's not talking to ME per se.
This video, filled with graphs and charts as it is, is mostly unreadable due to it's blurry letters and numbers. So much of it's explanatory power is compromised.
Is this a read of just how hard it may be to recover ice caps? Because the arctic just entered a new state, it would seem. And any carbon sequestration we do now, will really just be about maintaining what we have. Pointing as he did, to the magnitude of forcing required to flip it back to a former state. Just how fucked are we? Does anyone have an idea of just how much CO2 we have draw out of the atmosphere?
What he is stating is that there are many things that start coming into play once you 'push' one thing out of whack (i.e. CO2). We are entering a new climate 'state'. As for how things are going to turn out, I bet the oil companies know better than anyone. They got theirs.
This should be titled "understanding tipping points through the paleoclimate/milankovitch lens" Should also include the 'warning' that this is a student lecture and is most likely directed toward 1st/2nd year grad students. This is an excellent example of science and deductive reasoning. I only found fault with their descriptive of the AMOC. I understand the relationship that the AMOC influences between greenland and antarctic BUT the impacts on the AMOC are not only influenced by freshwater but that is a different topic.
His data clearly shows temperature changes proceed changes in CO2..........so one can infer temperature change drives CO2 changes. Basically, he leaves one to believe that climate is very complex and we do not understand this complexity enough to conclude anything about human activity. He concludes saying "may" or 'might" leaving it open to debate.
You're not paying attention. Orbital forcing=small changes in radiative forcing distribution=small Northern Hemisphere warming=ice begins to retreat=decline of albedo= warming=CO2 released from oceans into atmosphere=warming=further decline of albedo=more warming=more CO2 released into atmosphere=more warming=and so on=positive feedback....It's well established science. The 'liberal' media usually doesn't focus on why ice ages come and go. Instead, they focus on the 20th-21st century warming which is a result of the increased radiative forcing due to GHG's and which is not kickstarted by the orbital forcing.
GHGs are mostly water vapor, clouds in the atmosphere. CO2 only makes up only .04 %. In fact all other gases including CO2, methane, ozone, etc only make up less than 1% of the atmosphere. However, CO2 is a benefit, because without it we would all die.
Nobody is saying CO2 isn't beneficial. That's not part of the issue. Read this if you think CO2 and other GHG's aren't very important en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Water vapor concentration dwarfs CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Although water vapor concentrations vary, they can be over 100 times that of CO2. And their absorption wavelengths generally overlap. All this means that H2O is the dominant driver of climate change. CO2 plays a very small and negligible effect. If anything, an increase in CO2 concentration would help create a greener planet.
+Ken Javor Water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables. The water vapor - Co2 feedback is the key here, all of the science validates this. And you are incorrect about a "greener planet" with more co2, the fact is that only some species benefit from higher amounts of co2 and only to a small degree. Furthermore plants are limited by a lot of other things like nitrogen availability, temperature and rainfall levels all of which are affected severely by climate change. If anything, excessive Co2 levels will only lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, ocean deoxigenation massive forest fires and significant worldwide desertification. So plants in general will do horribly in a rapidly warming climate.
lol that;s the BEST case scenario: you get a flat in decent weather and you have a flat kit and pump handy to fix it, and you do everything correctly such as not pinching the inner tube at the end of the process, or putting the patch on incorrectly so that it peels off when fully inflated again. I've ridden a bike for 55 years and can tell you with great confidence that its NOT always that quick and easy, lol.
Dang I thought it was a goth movie............ lol................. But...........Arctic Blue Ocean Event only a few years away at most........ Pacific and Atlantic warm waters pouring unobstructed into the Arctic...... Why does that matter? No sea Ice allows the Eastern Siberian Shallow Sea Shelf to warm rapidly (all above 100m) ....... That contains up to 5000gt of Methane Hydrate...... 10% of that is = 50 trillion tons of Co2......... or 25 x all human emissions ever......... Add 10% of Siberian and Canadian tundra defrosting (1.8 trillion tons). 10% = to 18 trillion tons of CO2, 9 x all human emissions ever............ You can see we have a serious problem.......... If 10% of that methane is released that is earth shot to hothouse within a decade......... It happened before during the Permian Mass Extinction Event 252 million years ago......... The earth warmed by 6'c in 13 years......... Make your peace and live a full life, while you can........ (Circa 15 yrs) Things are going to get stormy for those under 50. If you have had 50 years then at least you have lived a life........
Can you change? Co2 does not have the effect you assume, obviously. Sad how you hinder yourself from doing science. Your axiomatic errors are a widespread problem.
Dude you don't make sense I mean you do make sense but you need to simplify things because your lectures really pointless you need it related to what's going on now
Excellent - foundations of paleo-climatology. Thank you .
Well explained. Thank you
Great, well explained and engaging. Thank you :)
Now that was pretty decent
I need to find this lecture in English.
OK?
What I mean is that this guy does not speak well. He should take a course in communicating properly. For example, he should speak in sentences. He should stop trying to be funny. He should exclude any political references. etc.
part of that is he is speaking to an audience (i.e. students) that have a previous set of common understandings so you should expect those yada yada type of statements. Don't get me wrong. I'm not liking it but he's not talking to ME per se.
I am a student of climate Science and I have degrees in Metallurgy and Chemistry. I understand the Science. He is a bad presenter.
@@Bareego ok?
This video, filled with graphs and charts as it is, is mostly unreadable due to it's blurry letters and numbers. So much of it's explanatory power is compromised.
Is this a read of just how hard it may be to recover ice caps? Because the arctic just entered a new state, it would seem. And any carbon sequestration we do now, will really just be about maintaining what we have. Pointing as he did, to the magnitude of forcing required to flip it back to a former state.
Just how fucked are we? Does anyone have an idea of just how much CO2 we have draw out of the atmosphere?
What he is stating is that there are many things that start coming into play once you 'push' one thing out of whack (i.e. CO2). We are entering a new climate 'state'. As for how things are going to turn out, I bet the oil companies know better than anyone. They got theirs.
hopefully there are people working to create/separate O3 and then place it the right part of our stratosphere 🤔
This should be titled "understanding tipping points through the paleoclimate/milankovitch lens" Should also include the 'warning' that this is a student lecture and is most likely directed toward 1st/2nd year grad students.
This is an excellent example of science and deductive reasoning. I only found fault with their descriptive of the AMOC. I understand the relationship that the AMOC influences between greenland and antarctic BUT the impacts on the AMOC are not only influenced by freshwater but that is a different topic.
His data clearly shows temperature changes proceed changes in CO2..........so one can infer temperature change drives CO2 changes. Basically, he leaves one to believe that climate is very complex and we do not understand this complexity enough to conclude anything about human activity. He concludes saying "may" or 'might" leaving it open to debate.
You're not paying attention. Orbital forcing=small changes in radiative forcing distribution=small Northern Hemisphere warming=ice begins to retreat=decline of albedo= warming=CO2 released from oceans into atmosphere=warming=further decline of albedo=more warming=more CO2 released into atmosphere=more warming=and so on=positive feedback....It's well established science. The 'liberal' media usually doesn't focus on why ice ages come and go. Instead, they focus on the 20th-21st century warming which is a result of the increased radiative forcing due to GHG's and which is not kickstarted by the orbital forcing.
GHGs are mostly water vapor, clouds in the atmosphere. CO2 only makes up only .04 %. In fact all other gases including CO2, methane, ozone, etc only make up less than 1% of the atmosphere.
However, CO2 is a benefit, because without it we would all die.
Nobody is saying CO2 isn't beneficial. That's not part of the issue. Read this if you think CO2 and other GHG's aren't very important en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Water vapor concentration dwarfs CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Although water vapor concentrations vary, they can be over 100 times that of CO2. And their absorption wavelengths generally overlap. All this means that H2O is the dominant driver of climate change. CO2 plays a very small and negligible effect. If anything, an increase in CO2 concentration would help create a greener planet.
+Ken Javor Water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature...If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.
The water vapor - Co2 feedback is the key here, all of the science validates this. And you are incorrect about a "greener planet" with more co2, the fact is that only some species benefit from higher amounts of co2 and only to a small degree. Furthermore plants are limited by a lot of other things like nitrogen availability, temperature and rainfall levels all of which are affected severely by climate change. If anything, excessive Co2 levels will only lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, ocean deoxigenation massive forest fires and significant worldwide desertification. So plants in general will do horribly in a rapidly warming climate.
"late due to puncture cycling in" ? That is no excuse. It takes at most 10 mins to fix a flat bike tire.
lol that;s the BEST case scenario: you get a flat in decent weather and you have a flat kit and pump handy to fix it, and you do everything correctly such as not pinching the inner tube at the end of the process, or putting the patch on incorrectly so that it peels off when fully inflated again. I've ridden a bike for 55 years and can tell you with great confidence that its NOT always that quick and easy, lol.
The one that made this recording, should have his balls kicked!! Terrible!!
At the end of the lecture... "Good bye." Hmmmmmm.
It's a British thing.
Dang I thought it was a goth movie............ lol................. But...........Arctic Blue Ocean Event only a few years away at most........ Pacific and Atlantic warm waters pouring unobstructed into the Arctic...... Why does that matter? No sea Ice allows the Eastern Siberian Shallow Sea Shelf to warm rapidly (all above 100m) ....... That contains up to 5000gt of Methane Hydrate...... 10% of that is = 50 trillion tons of Co2......... or 25 x all human emissions ever......... Add 10% of Siberian and Canadian tundra defrosting (1.8 trillion tons). 10% = to 18 trillion tons of CO2, 9 x all human emissions ever............ You can see we have a serious problem.......... If 10% of that methane is released that is earth shot to hothouse within a decade......... It happened before during the Permian Mass Extinction Event 252 million years ago......... The earth warmed by 6'c in 13 years......... Make your peace and live a full life, while you can........ (Circa 15 yrs) Things are going to get stormy for those under 50. If you have had 50 years then at least you have lived a life........
Can you change? Co2 does not have the effect you assume, obviously. Sad how you hinder yourself from doing science. Your axiomatic errors are a widespread problem.
Dude you don't make sense I mean you do make sense but you need to simplify things because your lectures really pointless you need it related to what's going on now