Sea level was higher than present during the Holocene climate optimum. The real question is are we past the peak of the current interglacial, or is the peak interglacial yet to occur? We have no idea, my opinion is we should enjoy the current interglacial. If you think warming is bad, cooling would be orders of magnitude worse.
I agree. Though we could point at various inconsistencies that arise from the climate discussion that should raise doubt in the theory of anthropomorphic climate change, and people would continue to believe that humanity is the cause of climate change.
ECS is itself non sequitur. Climate is a highly dynamic non linear system. In such a system, you can't "hold all other things the same" when changing one variable. That is inherent in any such system that can only be modeled with complex partial differential equations.
In addition people who think CO2 is THE control knob simply have not had the coursework. The media is trying to point out that they should have one universal view (aka single centralized authority). There are a number of processes that make up our weather & thus climate in any given geographic region. The ghg process is just one of them. Our day to day weather features the paths of the jetstreams & how they meander across the meridians moving air masses around about the topography.
Thanks Tom and Andy for that informative truth and it reminded me of something that happened in Australia today regarding a major court decision against Bayer (won't go into detail) which the judge gave in Bayer's favour but what struck me was that the judge said (in his findings) that the science is not in one direction. I am surprised that no one worldwide has not ever challenged in court (considering the trillions of dollars spent) the IPCC's flawed findings on the climate science. When are governments around the world ever going to take a step back and ask the question seriously against this madness.
Fantastic presentation….again (see also Tom Nelson podcasts #34 and #105). Thank you! I would like to add that according to internet sources tide gauges “may have been improved(!)” nowadays(!) to +/- 1 cm which is 1000(!) times more than the usually reported accuracy of 1 hundreds of a mm. In addition and maybe even more important ist that everybody seems to forget that there is NO average global temperature, let alone any assessable trend in average global temperature (in whatever direction). Anyone who took the time to dive into the world of (1) temperature measurements, the accuracy, precision and repeatability thereof from 1654 onwards (the first temperature measurement equipments were believed to have an accuracy of +/- 7°C(!), (2) the issues especially with calibration and actual measurements and read outs (by humans), (3) the complete lack of measured data over almost the whole planet but for some most restricted land areas and some ship routes (which should then “represent” 70% of the surface of the earth), (4) the issues of “bucket” measurements and “cooling water intakes”, (5) the issues with applied “corrections” (i.e. data fiddling) due to asserted but completely unknown(!) and undefined(!) “biasses” which ALWAYS resulted in an increase of “measured” temperatures with time, (5) the issues on land/hard soil based measurements, (6) the complete dishonest behaviour to "estimate" and use thousands and thousands of temperatures where no temperature measurements exist at all, (7) the issues with “Stephensons” screens that only produce “reliable” measurements IF and ONLY IF a minimum amount of wind can pass through the screen and IF and ONLY IF distances are respected in view of buildings or forests/trees, (8) the issues with “satellite temperature measurements”, that satellites do not measure temperatures but other parameters that mostly lack any true and repeated(!) calibration but used nevertheless to calculate (i.e. using some completely undefined computer programs!) temperatures at high altitude, (9) the issues related to the "grid", its definition, i.e. what grid a physical one or mathematical one, the grid that is used to calculate some, completely undefined(!) worldwide average temperature, like is there truly a grid and does each and every grid element contains a temperature measurement, alone, for today and for the last 30 years (you know to “proof” of any anomaly), (10) the issues with urban heat islands (exploded due to exploded world population) and the known(!) facts that by far most land temperature measurements are influenced due to their locations (buildings, cities, airports, industrial complexes etc.), (11) the increased issue of (the very black(!)) solar panels (known to increase surrounding temperatures by 5°C and more), (12) the tremendous increase of waste heat which is pumped into the atmosphere caused nowadays by 8 billion(!) people due to energy generation as well as energy usage (people forget that for instance lithium ion batteries may waste up to 10%(!) during charging and discharging), etc. will know that any provided value is basically nonsense, since taking all ranges of measurement biasses/inaccuracy and faults into account we might arrive at an “increase" of the average global temperature of say 1°C +/- 20°C or even "decrease" of -1°C +/- 30°C, or whatever you would like to indicate.
SEARCH FOR: "Semantic Scholar Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years". During Roman times, the Alps had virtually no glaciers, while in 1859/60 they reached their maximum size of the past 3500 years thanks to the Little Ice Age.
I'd be interested to see what the effect upon the model output would be if all of the human CO2 contribution was removed. Since the human CO2 proportion is vanishingly small, I'd expect there to be little effect on the model output.
It depends on what you mean by the human contribution. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is always cycling through. It is a flow, not a static quantity. Humans have recently been adding to the input of that flow but not to the output. That is bound to result in a current volume that is higher than previously. According to the Keeling graph, CO2 volume has increased from 313ppm in 1958 to 406ppm in 2018. If this is true, and no one sems to doubt it, the only source of that increase can be an increase to input without a corresponding increase in output (absorption). Note that even a very small increase to input will result in an overall level increase in the absence of a corresponding output, so our "vanishingly small" emission results in virtually ALL of the overall level increase in atmospheric CO2.
@@fredneecher1746who cares, co2 is still at a gnats fart level, historically! So human contribution is still vanishingly small, but with some obvious benefits to the planet, and humanity.
You cannot perform controlled prospective experiments on whole Earth analogue planets with extensive deep surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity of such planets to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. We therefore use computer models which reflect the biases and knowledge gaps of the programmers and which amplify errors over time. Irrespective of the actual sensitivity of Earth’s climate to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, both the current mean annual surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide level are suboptimal. An increase in mean surface temperature would have the beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields, reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum. Augmentation of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would directly stimulate plant growth with increased agricultural yields. Climate action is an extremely costly and wasteful folly. The UN has been hijacked by activists.
Question ❓ All thees Climate Models, has the Increased Electric Radiation been taken into account ❓ Has any Research been carried out about The Affect of Radio Radiation, (Mobile Phones and the like) on Heating the Atmosphere, all the Mobile, TV, and other Transmitting Antennas release MegaWats of Energy. This Must have an effect, after all CO2 is only a very small part of the equation.
There is a Climate Change Delusion and an Energy Transition Delusion which have resulted in trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being misappropriated on uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects in predominantly Western countries.
Vortices, that also cause storms, are the mechanism of Hadley cell movement. Vortices originate from (are an offshoot of) jet streams. They then have the ability to grow along the tropopause which has the wind-shear conditions that vortices need to grow. This includes growing all the way (hundreds of miles) to the the equator to cause rainstorms at the equator. Over their lifespan vortices exhaust into jet streams and are the reason jet streams maintain their momentum. (Michael Connolly has no idea about any of this. But at least it is good to hear that Connelly has realized the blatant stupidity of the dimwitted claim that Hadley cell movement is caused by convection and/or latent heat.) James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Thorough, thoughtful and terrific...Andy May at his best.
I always greatly appreciate Andy’s analyses , he is always succinct , insightful and diligent. Thank you Tom and Andy.
Thanks Tom we’re fighting for you here in soho London.
I used to be in London, but in Central Wales these days lol
@@harrying882 Thanks for your support!
Sea level was higher than present during the Holocene climate optimum. The real question is are we past the peak of the current interglacial, or is the peak interglacial yet to occur? We have no idea, my opinion is we should enjoy the current interglacial. If you think warming is bad, cooling would be orders of magnitude worse.
I agree. Though we could point at various inconsistencies that arise from the climate discussion that should raise doubt in the theory of anthropomorphic climate change, and people would continue to believe that humanity is the cause of climate change.
At last .. LAG TIMES!
Nice one Tom, another great one.
ECS is itself non sequitur. Climate is a highly dynamic non linear system. In such a system, you can't "hold all other things the same" when changing one variable. That is inherent in any such system that can only be modeled with complex partial differential equations.
In addition people who think CO2 is THE control knob simply have not had the coursework. The media is trying to point out that they should have one universal view (aka single centralized authority). There are a number of processes that make up our weather & thus climate in any given geographic region. The ghg process is just one of them. Our day to day weather features the paths of the jetstreams & how they meander across the meridians moving air masses around about the topography.
Thanks Tom and Andy for that informative truth and it reminded me of something that happened in Australia today regarding a major court decision against Bayer (won't go into detail) which the judge gave in Bayer's favour but what struck me was that the judge said (in his findings) that the science is not in one direction. I am surprised that no one worldwide has not ever challenged in court (considering the trillions of dollars spent) the IPCC's flawed findings on the climate science. When are governments around the world ever going to take a step back and ask the question seriously against this madness.
Fantastic presentation….again (see also Tom Nelson podcasts #34 and #105). Thank you!
I would like to add that according to internet sources tide gauges “may have been improved(!)” nowadays(!) to +/- 1 cm which is 1000(!) times more than the usually reported accuracy of 1 hundreds of a mm. In addition and maybe even more important ist that everybody seems to forget that there is NO average global temperature, let alone any assessable trend in average global temperature (in whatever direction). Anyone who took the time to dive into the world of (1) temperature measurements, the accuracy, precision and repeatability thereof from 1654 onwards (the first temperature measurement equipments were believed to have an accuracy of +/- 7°C(!), (2) the issues especially with calibration and actual measurements and read outs (by humans), (3) the complete lack of measured data over almost the whole planet but for some most restricted land areas and some ship routes (which should then “represent” 70% of the surface of the earth), (4) the issues of “bucket” measurements and “cooling water intakes”, (5) the issues with applied “corrections” (i.e. data fiddling) due to asserted but completely unknown(!) and undefined(!) “biasses” which ALWAYS resulted in an increase of “measured” temperatures with time, (5) the issues on land/hard soil based measurements, (6) the complete dishonest behaviour to "estimate" and use thousands and thousands of temperatures where no temperature measurements exist at all, (7) the issues with “Stephensons” screens that only produce “reliable” measurements IF and ONLY IF a minimum amount of wind can pass through the screen and IF and ONLY IF distances are respected in view of buildings or forests/trees, (8) the issues with “satellite temperature measurements”, that satellites do not measure temperatures but other parameters that mostly lack any true and repeated(!) calibration but used nevertheless to calculate (i.e. using some completely undefined computer programs!) temperatures at high altitude, (9) the issues related to the "grid", its definition, i.e. what grid a physical one or mathematical one, the grid that is used to calculate some, completely undefined(!) worldwide average temperature, like is there truly a grid and does each and every grid element contains a temperature measurement, alone, for today and for the last 30 years (you know to “proof” of any anomaly), (10) the issues with urban heat islands (exploded due to exploded world population) and the known(!) facts that by far most land temperature measurements are influenced due to their locations (buildings, cities, airports, industrial complexes etc.), (11) the increased issue of (the very black(!)) solar panels (known to increase surrounding temperatures by 5°C and more), (12) the tremendous increase of waste heat which is pumped into the atmosphere caused nowadays by 8 billion(!) people due to energy generation as well as energy usage (people forget that for instance lithium ion batteries may waste up to 10%(!) during charging and discharging), etc. will know that any provided value is basically nonsense, since taking all ranges of measurement biasses/inaccuracy and faults into account we might arrive at an “increase" of the average global temperature of say 1°C +/- 20°C or even "decrease" of -1°C +/- 30°C, or whatever you would like to indicate.
Enjoyed the talk. He speaks very clearly.
SEARCH FOR: "Semantic Scholar Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years". During Roman times, the Alps had virtually no glaciers, while in 1859/60 they reached their maximum size of the past 3500 years thanks to the Little Ice Age.
I'd be interested to see what the effect upon the model output would be if all of the human CO2 contribution was removed.
Since the human CO2 proportion is vanishingly small, I'd expect there to be little effect on the model output.
That wouldn't be good for the multi trillion dollar "green" climate "crisis" scam tho.
It depends on what you mean by the human contribution. The CO2 content in the atmosphere is always cycling through. It is a flow, not a static quantity. Humans have recently been adding to the input of that flow but not to the output. That is bound to result in a current volume that is higher than previously. According to the Keeling graph, CO2 volume has increased from 313ppm in 1958 to 406ppm in 2018. If this is true, and no one sems to doubt it, the only source of that increase can be an increase to input without a corresponding increase in output (absorption). Note that even a very small increase to input will result in an overall level increase in the absence of a corresponding output, so our "vanishingly small" emission results in virtually ALL of the overall level increase in atmospheric CO2.
i believe it takes decades for the co2 to dissipate or be reabsorbed.
@@fredneecher1746who cares, co2 is still at a gnats fart level, historically!
So human contribution is still vanishingly small, but with some obvious benefits to the planet, and humanity.
Thank you.
Thanks guys!
I can reinforce that the temperate latitudes are where you would see most change. The tropics are always hot or hot & humid.
Well said!!! 😬👍🇬🇧
Great lesson!
Thanks so .much !
here in Scotland last year has been wet, very wet and not so warm. Could this be a hangover from the tonga volcano perhaps?
Look up the 240 yr warming cycle due to end 2024. Some say we could even be in little ice age by 2050.
You cannot perform controlled prospective experiments on whole Earth analogue planets with extensive deep surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity of such planets to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
We therefore use computer models which reflect the biases and knowledge gaps of the programmers and which amplify errors over time.
Irrespective of the actual sensitivity of Earth’s climate to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, both the current mean annual surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide level are suboptimal.
An increase in mean surface temperature would have the beneficial effects of increased agricultural yields, reduced winter heating costs, fewer deaths from hypothermia and postponement of the next glacial maximum.
Augmentation of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would directly stimulate plant growth with increased agricultural yields.
Climate action is an extremely costly and wasteful folly. The UN has been hijacked by activists.
What a great interview. Listening to it for 3rd time
Excellent
Question ❓
All thees Climate Models, has the Increased Electric Radiation been taken into account ❓
Has any Research been carried out about The Affect of Radio Radiation, (Mobile Phones and the like) on Heating the Atmosphere, all the Mobile, TV, and other Transmitting Antennas release MegaWats of Energy.
This Must have an effect, after all CO2 is only a very small part of the equation.
The IPCC confirm with their wide range of temperature predictions for a doubling of CO2 that their science isn't settled at all.
There is no climate crisis. But some people think there is and some people think there isn't
There is a Climate Change Delusion and an Energy Transition Delusion which have resulted in trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money being misappropriated on uneconomical and unreliable renewable energy projects in predominantly Western countries.
The last serious cooling put a mile of ice on the northern hemisphere. The last serious warming created natural abundance.
15:50 sunspot number HAS NOT reduced.. there is NO Minima .
Furthermore the current magnetic field loss is INCREASING energy from space.
Vortices, that also cause storms, are the mechanism of Hadley cell movement. Vortices originate from (are an offshoot of) jet streams. They then have the ability to grow along the tropopause which has the wind-shear conditions that vortices need to grow. This includes growing all the way (hundreds of miles) to the the equator to cause rainstorms at the equator. Over their lifespan vortices exhaust into jet streams and are the reason jet streams maintain their momentum. (Michael Connolly has no idea about any of this. But at least it is good to hear that Connelly has realized the blatant stupidity of the dimwitted claim that Hadley cell movement is caused by convection and/or latent heat.)
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
'diverse' is a meaningless word the kooks love.
They should insist on Whitworth nuts in metric bolts in all their personal safety equipment. Diversity is THEIR strength after all!
'Diverse' has a perfectly respectable dictionary meaning. It means, 'having types that differ from one another'. It can be used correctly.