RGT rule - for each +10C temperature increase we find that chemical reaction rates double. In UK, I was taught that in high school chemistry. We called it the Arrhenius equation. Due to the RGT rule, warming improves plant growth, because plants and animals grow faster at warmer temperatures as biology depends on biochemistry, and rates of biochemical reactions are RGT dependent.
@@gehwissen3975 Warmer is better. Look at how majority of biodiverse regions are in the tropics. 50% of human population is in a circle that is centered in East Asia comprising mostly tropical countries. The coral triangle, a region of intense biodiversity, is in the tropics.
@@pulsar22 Where you bought that nonsense? The risk of extinction increases with the **rate of change** You will have a biosphere for almost every climate. If this climate is no longer stable - reason aside - biosphere has to adapt or die. "This is the fastest climate change in earth history" - according to IPCC. Large animals won't survive. Go on cherry picking with Exxon. 😁👍
It's interesting (though not surprising from an evolutionary biology standpoint) that the optimum temperature for photosynthesis is 30C. The tropical open ocean has an effective emergent thermostatic effect that, through the development of tropical thunderstorms, effectively limits the maximum sea surface temperature to... 30C (See the fascinating work of Willis Eschenbach). It's almost as though plants evolved to grow optimally in such an environment. Remembering that the current climate of Earth is somewhat unusual over geological time, we are in the depths of an extended Ice Age, it's much colder than it normally is, yet people worry about a degree or two of warming.
Actually Willis Eschenbach recently discovered a second mechanism to restrict air temperature above oceans to 30 degrees. He related air temperature to cloud forcing, the diagram has a negative pole at 30 degrees. You can find it at WUWT.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 This is related to how evaporation increasing logarithmically above 26C temperature. Willis Eschenbach has shown data on that.
Good presentation. I just have a problem with the hadcrut temperature graph. This is not just thermometer data, because that data is very incomplete. I believe this data is an estimated from the output of climate models! That's why it appears to be increasing. If you compare it with reliable satellite data this hadcrut shows a much higher increase.
As a matter of fact, the HadCRUT4 temperature differs less than you may think from the UAH data when you do calculations. I noticed and illustrated this in a post on my blog - you can find it with Google by looking for "dengler recent albedo change and climate sensitivity".
When you do calculations, the differences between HadCRUT4 and UAH are not so severe. At the end of the day you may get something like 0.1° C of difference, which is well within the range of error.
A well explained and relatively easy to follow talk. Very enjoyable. I will watch again, to try and add another level of comprehension. One question? Does the formula allow approximate estimation of percentages anthropogenic and natural CO2 in the air?
No, the formula does not allow to estimate the "percentages" of the "most recent origin". This is due to the fast turnaround of natural emissions and absorptions which mixes the gases very fast. 50% of the carbon absorbed by photosynthesis is returned within a day due to plant respiration. It is a bit like a bank account. You have large daily revenues and payments which cancel each other within a year, i.e. a seasonal cycle. What I can give you, is the understanding of the balance at the end of the year: old balance and difference between all revenues and payments. With monthly data we could break this down to months, etc. Some calculatons I have made on a monthly basis. Things get a bit tricky because of the large seasonal effect, but for some calculations you have to do this, e.g. when you want to know if long term temperature trend is controlled by sun hours or CO2 (you can find this analysis for Germany by looking for "dengler How large is the Greenhouse Effect in Germany? - A statistical Analysis")
I'm often very critical of modelers in climate science, but, I suspect I will appreciate Joachim's models. I'm very interested in his modeling of carbon in oceans. It's complex. For CO2 to leave the atmosphere it must - not only dissolve in oceans but stay there. So the chemical reaction : CO₂ + CO₃²⁻ + H₂0 ⇄ 2 HCO₃⁻ ... (eqn. 1) is important for keeping carbon in the oceans. There is a limited amount of carbonate dissolved in ocean as its solubility is quite low (as calcium and magnesium ions are also present; and both CaCO₃ and MgCO₃ have low solubility in water). But after it has been converted to bicarbonate there's a tendency for oceans to dissolve more (replacement) carbonate from the sea floor. All bicarbonate is very soluble in water; but many carbonates have low solubility. Although eqn 1 is pretty much instantaneous, the dissolution of MgCO₃ and CaCO₃ from the sea floor is limited by its diffusion from the sea floor into the greater ocean. This behaviour of carbonate in ocean implies outgassing of CO₂, following ocean warming : 2 HCO₃⁻ ⇄ CO₂ + CO₃²⁻ + H₂0 ... (eqn. 2) Ca²⁺ + CO₃²⁻ ⇄ CaCO₃(s) ↓ ... (eqn. 2b) should be fast as the carbonate precipitateds out (eqn. 2b) slowly falls to the ocean floor. In contrast for eqn. 1. more dissolved carbonate has to dissolve into ocean from the ocean floor CaCO₃(s) ⇄ Ca²⁺ + CO₃²⁻ ... ( eqn. 5 ) AND it must also then diffuse to where CO₂ is. CO₂ dissolves from the atmosphere at the top of the ocean, but carbonate dissolves from the bottom! This, above, explains why I think it's hard to model CO₂ solubility on oceans. To understand the above you should also know that we have: CO₂ + H₂0 ⇄ H₂CO₃ ... ( eqn. 3 ) H₂CO₃ ⇄ HCO₃⁻ + H⁺ ... ( eqn. 4 ) The equilibrium for both eqn. 3 and eqn. 4 is to the left (NOT the right). There's about 2000× more CO₂ than H₂CO₃ (carbonic acid). And also about 2000× more carbonic acid (H₂CO₃) than (hydrolysed acid); making carbonic acid a very weak acid. So when they worry us about ocean acidification - that is a joke. With more CO₂ dissolving in oceans, there won't be any much actual acid [ H⁺ ] instead there will be slightly more HCO₃⁻ (bicarbonate). But bicarbonate is oceans is always slightly alkaline [ 1M sodium bicarbonate has a pH = 8.2 ; but actual ocean concentration of bicarbonate is not so great as 1M ]
I read during my research of regenerative farming/ranching that if all the soil now dead as a result of corporate food production practices (Big Food Inc.) , (which utilizes fossil fuel based fertilizers and petroleum based pesticides and GMO seeds which have converted grains into natural pesticides, as well as fruits and vegetables...none of which existed 100 years ago), and restored that dead soil back to a healthy bioactive state, it would increase the Earths ability to sequester CO2 to such a degree that you could achieve net zero without doing anything else. Enough that you could sequester as much CO2 as we have released from the start of the industrial age till now. Note that I do not believe that achieving net zero is necessary or even desirable. In fact I believe we need to increase CO2 levels, not decrease them.
While you may be right technically, I suggest to be careful before judging modern agriculture. CO2 is just one of many criteria. 1:17:47 Sri Lanka has paid a high price abandoning fertilizer and pesticides. Feeding 9 billion people is not a subject to play with. Going back to „bio farming“ means half the crop and therefore in the consequence twice the land use and obviously higher prices. I don‘t say this should not be considered if people can afford it, but is has to be based on voluntary decisions.
Sure,but we'd run out of food that way. Without fertilizers,GM crops and herbi/pesticides productivity drops by 75%. In order to achieve "sustainable farming" about half of productive land needs to be "resting" at any given time which is another blow to productivity. Fun fact : dutch tomatoes have zero pesticides/herbicides in them, use zero soil and half the water of "naturally grown" ones and biological tests by German top research facility showed no difference in mineral/vitamin content between the two.
Haven't you read the research done in the US badlands that shows. 1 cubic food of crude oil will replace all of the minerals and nutrients required in 1 000 Acers. You must know that the Canadian National Resear farm in Ottawa has been developing GMO crops since 1800! Without them, Canada doesn't have enough termo units in ur growing season to grow food crops!
@@terenceiutzi4003 What you just said is nonsense and meaningless. In fact, what the fricking hell are you trying to say? Other than I am incapable of thinking?
@johnunderwood9575 so you are totally uninformed. Have you ever visited the Netherlands? Where a friend of mine's parents live, as far as you can see, not even a blade of grass will grow the land has been destroyed by the use of livestock manure! My nephew bought 1,000 acer in North Decoda for next to nothing because the land had been destroyed by livestock farming. He can now grow crops with a good yield! Yep 1 cubic foot of crude oil!
I suspect both temperature and photosynthesis track each other and growth from optimum temperature improves uptake as well as photosynthesis. A more precise model may require calculation of plant growth from both temperature and from photosynthesis (I.e. split out the uptake due to how much vegetation gets how much photons for how long, and calculate how much cO2 uptake occurred per local surface area.
I found a study a while back a paper named "On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere".. it used some analytics to measure recent co2/temperature dynamics. Would be curious to get Joachim's take on that study.
let me answer it this way - a friend of mine had in his WhatsApp profile the statement: For every complex problem there is a very simple answer -- and this is always wrong. My own work shows clearly, that there is causality from temperature to concentration growth, this does not exclude the possibility of the greenhouse effect, i.e. CO2 increase causing a (slight) temperature increase of, say 0.5°C per doubling of CO2 (according to MODTRAN). The fundamental error of both Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al (the authors of the paper you mention) as well as his critics (e.g. in ScepticalScience) is that they all relate temperature and concentration directly, either T=function(C) or C=function(T). Both are wrong in general from a physics point of view. My equation is Concentration growth =anthrop. Emissions - 0.044*Concentration + 2.9*Temperature + const. Concentration and Temperature are both state variables, but concentration growth is a flow variable, i.e. state change as it should be. All terms on the right hand side are flows. This respects the fact that you cannot debate away the effects of anthropogenic emissions, as Koutsoyiannis tries to do by stating that anthropogenic emissions are only 4% of all emissions. This is an extremely dangerous argument, playing into the hands of the enemies of life. When you claim that it is natural emissions are causing the rise of concentration, more than half of which are biological, then you have no argument against slaughtering cows to prevent rise of emissions. Contrary to this I claim that the biological world is a strict carbon sink, because each "biological" carbon atom has to be taken from the atmosphere previously. Therefore both the land plants as well as the oceans have been net sinks since more than 100 years. Yearly anthropogenic emissions (incl. land use change) have been larger than the concentration growth since 1900. On the other hand, if you assume that my equation above is correct, it is clear that this will produce the kind of statistical causality that Koutsoyiannis observed, because the effect from Temperature on Concentration is much stronger than the other way round. We will have to live with these facts: 1. Both anthropogenic emissions as well es temperature cause concentration growth 2. It may be that CO2 concentration causes a slight increase in temperature growth, although statistical tests seem to suggest, that solar insolation (weighted "sun hours") have a far larger influence on temperature change ( see the post on my blog "How large is the Greenhouse Effect in Germany? - A statistical Analysis.") 3. Due to the fact that 1. is much stronger than 2. a statistical analysis like the one by Koutsoyiannis will find a causality from temperature on concentration.
Koutsoyiannis has several interesting and novel recent papers on paleo- and recent Temp-GHG (CO2&H2O) relationships. I think he found 6 to 14 month lags between Temp variation then CO2 responses. The lag length depended on CO2 monitoring site location and whether an annualised (remove seasonal effects) or monthly average time series was used for ln[CO2] and Temp. The lag differences for different monitoring sites perhaps represented different mixing times for differing CO2 sources and monitoring locations. A recent NASA CO2 mixing model highlights this same delayed mixing time for anthropogenic emissions (greater in Nthn Hemisphere). But in the case of anthropogenic emissions, for annualised time series, there would be no major association between temperature variation and CO2 response ... in the annualised time series, anthropogenic emission responses to cold (heating etc) and hot (air conditioners etc) would be removed.
Great talk. Puzzled by his answer that 200 is a minimum, while maintaining that various life forms form calcium carbonate which locks carbon from returning to the carbon cycle. He seems to cite history as his evidence (the Vostok data) rather than citing a mechanism that enforces a lower limit of 200ppm. Or did I just miss the main point of his talk? lol (I'm not a physicist, and didn't follow every point.) Thanks to both Tom und vielen dank zu Joachim!
In my understanding this is how science works: you begin with observing reality at multiple time scales, which may be puzzling indeed. Then you try to discover patterns and relate them to what you already know to be (rocksolid) laws of nature. That‘s what I did. There are still many open questions - I indicated some of them in the talk. I am cautious with quick explanations, but I indicated one, why I think we will not run out of CO2 soon: The large ocean reservoir, which is 50 times larger than the atmosphere (in terms of carbon mass), together with the equilibrium equation, which suggests a lower limit of 280 ppm (it may be 285 meanwhile due to anthropogenic emissions) at preindustrial temperatures and zero emissions, both of which are unlikely in the foreseeable future. So I assume that the current generation will continue to worry about too much carbon rather than the other way round.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 "in terms of carbon mass" ... ah, I missed that. A warmer ocean (eventually) would expel CO2 and replenish the atmosphere. But, if this interglacial ends and cold returns, wouldn't the combination of cold oceans and limestone forming of crustaceans potentially starve plant life? Or would ocean plants be sufficient to preserve life on earth (or might they even thrive in a CO2 rich but cold ocean)? I'm just rambling... thanks for your response, Professor!
Your graph around 705 sec shows a significant increase in temperature from 1940 to present. Are you using the unadjusted clean measurements or the data set modified by NOAA?
Henry’s law is not the only thing that governs the amount of CO2 absorbed into the oceans. Le Chatelier’s law is also in play. The ocean has a high ionic strength (lots of ions) including iron, calcium, sodium, magnesium etc. Carbonate salts are typically insoluble especially at high ionic strengths. This drives the absorption toward CO2 dissolution into the ocean. Le Chatelier’s principle also applies at high pressures deep in the ocean also favoring CO2 absorption. Oceanic chemistry can not be excluded from computational models and adds to the complexity of the global system. Since Henry’s law states that gases are more soluble in water at cold temperatures than it follows that as the oceans warm CO2 out-gases into the atmosphere. The Vlostoc ice cores show that atmospheric CO2 follows temperature and does not precede them. Another complexity.
I like Joachim’s approach. As a confirmation of his equation for balancing rates of emissions, absorbtion and atmospheric concentration, does he get the same constants if he calculated them in the reverse order? I.e. what if he calculated the linear constants driven by Temperature change first and removed that effect from the curve. And then calculated the linear constants driven by atmospheric concentration from what is left in the curve?
Thanks for responding. I like your modeling and rationale driving it. I see it would just be extra work just to get the same answer, but it would be a convincing confirmation to many people who dont understand linear modeling as well as you do. By the way, perhaps Mount Pinnetubo volcanic ash acted as fertilizer affecting overall vegetation growth on a global scale? Or affecting ph levels? Could trace amounts of volcanic ash deposits slightly change the albedo of a million square km to make a detectable difference in global temperature?
@@douginorlando6260 Pinatubo ashes as fertilizer is a good idea to explain part of the increase of vegetation growth, that deserves further investigation. Besides this its light scattering effect increased photosynthesis. In this context we are talking about changes in CO2 concentration, which is not influenced by albedo change. I don't know how much Pinatubo affected Albedo, apparently not so much, otherwise there would have been noticable cooling. As in 1815 after the Tambora eruption, when worldwide temperature dropped by 0,8°C and caused much hunger in Europe. Regarding the temperature dependence, I hestitate to give this a high priority, because up to now the evidence is only based on short term variations of concentration growth, while there are still some data inconsistencies to be sorted out. There is still a long way to go before reaching a fully consistent picture of the carbon cycle.
I do not understand that a doctor in physic can rely on a global temperature to make detail calculations relative to physical laws which can only be valid on a very local scale and in a very limited laps of time. For me, when you start to speak about global temperature you should first define what you mean by global temperature, how this temperature is calculated and where the temperature is measured, at what elevation, for which period of time and what kind of accuracy you could expect from its use. In addition to that you split the temperature in different parts to make calculations. At the end you get very precise and small temperature variations. For me this is rule of thumb calculations even if your reasoning look like to make sense. Of course, if you want to make accurate calculations, this seems impossible although today we have tools to make computations by finite elements which may be used to make simulations taking local data all around the globe at different elevations and dynamically within a turbulent atmosphere animated with huge fluxes of air . But this video is interesting as it allows to seize the philosophy of a part of the problem and shows that the earth is self controlling the temperature around itself. Thank you for this video.
Using global averages is legitimate under the condition that the underlying theory is linear or can be linearized within the given scope. In my previous publication I have extensively argued that indeed the relationship between sink effect and CO2 concentration is sufficiently linear. In this publication the underlying theory is Henry‘s law, which is sufficiently linear in temperature, given the relatively small variations. You seem to thoroughly misunderstand the given „global temperatures“ like SST (which I used). These are not absolute values - I agree with you that averaging the temperature of the top of Mount Everest and the Dead Sea makes little sense. The published data are anomalies, i.e. variations relative to a reference time in the past. Due to the linearity of lapse rate it is legitimate to make global averages of these anomalies. Suppose my model is correct, it is also linear in temperature. Therefore the whole concept is fully consistent. Considering it fit‘s so well to the data (present and past!), this should give you good for reconsideration.
@@neuoylann1909 To be honest, this is actually a question for the British Met Office, who created the data set. If you google "HadSST.4.0.1.0", you find a page from the Met Office, where there is link to a paper describing the data set in great detail. This should give you the best possible answer. As I cannot do the measurements myself, I have to rely on these data sets. Obviously I use also other data sets for comparison, but my experience is that the differences are usually smaller than assumed.
Question: Does 'burning' limestone to create concrete release any co2 from the limestone? Or is all the 'released' co2 from the fuel used to burn the limestone?
@@wheel-man5319the released co2 is reabsorbed during the hardening process. Takes hundreds of years and the material becomes more and more brittle, but it's a net zero conversion. Except the needed energy during the burning of course.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426'a lot to say' Yes - I think so.... I will find a lot of half true similar BS. Nobody has an alternative explanation for the temp rise.
In short, the observed CO2 concentration is more a consequence of the temperature increase than a cause. This conclusion is straightforward and supported by numerous facts, despite contradicting prevailing “religion”. It is obvious that every time the author formulates his conclusion; he is preemptively remorseful not to be destroyed by the CO2 Taliban. His conclusion is uncomfortable, especially given its implications for climate policy, which significantly shapes politics overall.
I am not at all remorseful about anything I say, but I am experiencing „taliban“ on both sides of the discussion. The fact that temperature plays a part in CO2 growth does not mean (as quite a few claim) that anthropogenic emissions are irrelevant nor does it exclude the greenhouse effect completely. And, as I said in the other video some weeks ago, before you judge someone, you need to walk a mile in his shoes. We not only need to convince those who were always sceptics, but also the silent majority who have quietly accepted the mainstream narrative.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 I must apologize for being too hasty in my judgment - I have just watched an earlier presentation - which more directly relates to the generally accepted narrative of climate catastrophe - and very clearly shows the views of the author. In my defense, I can only say that it is hard to stand to be pushed with false statements (by "mainstream" scientists) regarding climate change - which is a fact! but by getting bogged down in false theories we are wasting our strength and resources and not making progress where we could perhaps (at least to some extent) influence the phenomena we are witnessing. I am a biologist but I do not deal with topics directly related to climate physics, however, thanks to the recently available AI support I was able to quite quickly perform some calculations which confirm that basing global warming on the increase in CO2 is actually nonsense. It would probably be more promising to look at the water cycle and the amount of energy associated with it. Even the amounts that I can measure myself with simple instruments indicate amounts of energy at least an order of magnitude greater than those that can be blamed on CO2... And the changes in the water cycle in the atmosphere that humans have an influence on are very large, and locally often dramatic...
@@videosjoachimdengler7426'mainstream narrative" - You are defaming all research institutes here? Or are you referring to opinions in the public or media...?
It should be noted that a plan based on bioactive soil restoration was presented at the Paris accords. They admitted the science was sound, and that it was the only proposal ever submitted that could actually work. They then proceeded to act as though the proposal never happened. I leave it to you to verify what I just said, and after doing so, ask yourself.......why?
The science of physics needs exact measurements and precise data for climat modeling because the many different climatS are chaotic systems ... if this is not satisfied than matematicians know, GI-GO happens.
@@CarlosOddone-z6k Climate models are useless. We simply do not have adequate data to input into a climate modeling program, to be able to trust the outputted result. What is being done is, designing models that output data that supports a desired narrative.
@@CarlosOddone-z6k Forgive me if I seem argumentative, but I have read, and re-read you're reply, and frankly, I am unable to grasp what it is you are trying to say.
Soil improvement is vital for our ecosystem and therefore our health,I'm sorry but what does your comment have to do with debunking of the publicly accepted role co2 plays in our planet's climate system ? This is not the channel about biodiversity,agricultural practices,GM foods,rights of indigenous people,Roundup&Glyphosate effects and any other interesting subjects. This channel is the collection of conter-arguments about the accepted role of co2 in climate and feasibility of "green revolution".
They don't want to fix the problem. If they fix the problem, the pretext for authoritarian control would be gone. What they want is power, the climate is just the excuse of the day, if the climate were not changing (highly unlikely as it always changes), there would be some other "intractable" issue for which the only possible solution that is considered is increased taxes and a loss of freedom.
Climate research needs to collect more of the right kind of data. E.g. map How much Sun radiation actually gets to the surface, Mount Pinetubo probably affected how much solar radiation was reflected back into space, absorbed in the atmosphere, reached the surface. Seems to me this can cause changes in temperature and plant uptake of cO2 via photosynthesis. From the curve, It looks like the Mount Pinnatubo eruption took 30 years to fully go away. Also global cloud cover makes a huge difference in reflected radiant solar energy plus humidity affecting greenhouse effect. Any accurate model must include these parameters
The thermal dynamics of Human Civilization require the generation and utilization of heat. Where does all that heat go in the environment? The dissipation of heat > cold requires conductivity. Conduction involves surface areas. Although the tessellated sea surface is greater by Area when compared to the land Areas, it may be smaller when analyzed utilizing the increase in available fractal surface areas created by geological and biological processes. This process is duplicated by the thermal dynamics of aquatic organisms at every scale. Plankton expel ‘cold’ low frequency oxygen…a large shoal of swirling pelagic fish requires high energy transitions, thus cooling the water column as they pass though it. Where does the heat go ? In the case of Plankton the heat engine generates the energy required to construct and maintain the bio activity while regulating the chemical processes. Cold blooded fish must harvest additional heat energy from the aquatic environment. Pelagics like Tuna are muscular and require significant heat energy inputs. If the problem is warming oceans, then a reasonable mitigation is to increase bio-reactivity. The measurable rate of fractal transformations across bandwidth is a signal:noise problem. Currently, the heat signals of Global Warming are standing out from background noise of cyclical Global Cooling. Some of the measured Heat Energy is leaking outward into Space as the Global Heat Engine accelerates. Homo Sapiens will either adjust to the challenges and learn from them while transitioning to a newer version or simply go extinct like countless other species. Nothing is guaranteed in this Game of Life It’s a Great Time to be a Human Being 🥸
RGT rule - for each +10C temperature increase we find that chemical reaction rates double. In UK, I was taught that in high school chemistry. We called it the Arrhenius equation.
Due to the RGT rule, warming improves plant growth, because plants and animals grow faster at warmer temperatures as biology depends on biochemistry, and rates of biochemical reactions are RGT dependent.
You learned a lot at school....
"The warmer the better" - is just nonsense. We both know.
@@gehwissen3975 Warmer is better. Look at how majority of biodiverse regions are in the tropics. 50% of human population is in a circle that is centered in East Asia comprising mostly tropical countries. The coral triangle, a region of intense biodiversity, is in the tropics.
@@pulsar22
Where you bought that nonsense?
The risk of extinction increases with the **rate of change**
You will have a biosphere for almost every climate. If this climate is no longer stable - reason aside - biosphere has to adapt or die.
"This is the fastest climate change in earth history" - according to IPCC.
Large animals won't survive.
Go on cherry picking with Exxon. 😁👍
It's interesting (though not surprising from an evolutionary biology standpoint) that the optimum temperature for photosynthesis is 30C. The tropical open ocean has an effective emergent thermostatic effect that, through the development of tropical thunderstorms, effectively limits the maximum sea surface temperature to... 30C (See the fascinating work of Willis Eschenbach). It's almost as though plants evolved to grow optimally in such an environment. Remembering that the current climate of Earth is somewhat unusual over geological time, we are in the depths of an extended Ice Age, it's much colder than it normally is, yet people worry about a degree or two of warming.
Actually Willis Eschenbach recently discovered a second mechanism to restrict air temperature above oceans to 30 degrees. He related air temperature to cloud forcing, the diagram has a negative pole at 30 degrees. You can find it at WUWT.
You want to be recognized as a scientist. 😂
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 This is related to how evaporation increasing logarithmically above 26C temperature. Willis Eschenbach has shown data on that.
Joachim makes for an interesting and fun listen. Thank you gentlemen.
Very interesting, Many thanks!
Good presentation. I just have a problem with the hadcrut temperature graph. This is not just thermometer data, because that data is very incomplete. I believe this data is an estimated from the output of climate models! That's why it appears to be increasing. If you compare it with reliable satellite data this hadcrut shows a much higher increase.
As a matter of fact, the HadCRUT4 temperature differs less than you may think from the UAH data when you do calculations. I noticed and illustrated this in a post on my blog - you can find it with Google by looking for "dengler recent albedo change and climate sensitivity".
When you do calculations, the differences between HadCRUT4 and UAH are not so severe. At the end of the day you may get something like 0.1° C of difference, which is well within the range of error.
A well explained and relatively easy to follow talk. Very enjoyable.
I will watch again, to try and add another level of comprehension.
One question? Does the formula allow approximate estimation of percentages anthropogenic and natural CO2 in the air?
No, the formula does not allow to estimate the "percentages" of the "most recent origin". This is due to the fast turnaround of natural emissions and absorptions which mixes the gases very fast. 50% of the carbon absorbed by photosynthesis is returned within a day due to plant respiration.
It is a bit like a bank account. You have large daily revenues and payments which cancel each other within a year, i.e. a seasonal cycle. What I can give you, is the understanding of the balance at the end of the year: old balance and difference between all revenues and payments. With monthly data we could break this down to months, etc. Some calculatons I have made on a monthly basis. Things get a bit tricky because of the large seasonal effect, but for some calculations you have to do this, e.g. when you want to know if long term temperature trend is controlled by sun hours or CO2 (you can find this analysis for Germany by looking for "dengler How large is the Greenhouse Effect in Germany? - A statistical Analysis")
There is of course also photosynthesis in the oceans close to the surface, corals etc.
Of course there is, I meantioned the marine biota.
I'm often very critical of modelers in climate science, but, I suspect I will appreciate Joachim's models. I'm very interested in his modeling of carbon in oceans. It's complex.
For CO2 to leave the atmosphere it must - not only dissolve in oceans but stay there. So the chemical reaction :
CO₂ + CO₃²⁻ + H₂0 ⇄ 2 HCO₃⁻ ... (eqn. 1)
is important for keeping carbon in the oceans. There is a limited amount of carbonate dissolved in ocean as its solubility is quite low (as calcium and magnesium ions are also present; and both CaCO₃ and MgCO₃ have low solubility in water). But after it has been converted to bicarbonate there's a tendency for oceans to dissolve more (replacement) carbonate from the sea floor. All bicarbonate is very soluble in water; but many carbonates have low solubility. Although eqn 1 is pretty much instantaneous, the dissolution of MgCO₃ and CaCO₃ from the sea floor is limited by its diffusion from the sea floor into the greater ocean. This behaviour of carbonate in ocean implies outgassing of CO₂, following ocean warming :
2 HCO₃⁻ ⇄ CO₂ + CO₃²⁻ + H₂0 ... (eqn. 2)
Ca²⁺ + CO₃²⁻ ⇄ CaCO₃(s) ↓ ... (eqn. 2b)
should be fast as the carbonate precipitateds out (eqn. 2b) slowly falls to the ocean floor.
In contrast for eqn. 1. more dissolved carbonate has to dissolve into ocean from the ocean floor
CaCO₃(s) ⇄ Ca²⁺ + CO₃²⁻ ... ( eqn. 5 )
AND it must also then diffuse to where CO₂ is. CO₂ dissolves from the atmosphere at the top of the ocean, but carbonate dissolves from the bottom!
This, above, explains why I think it's hard to model CO₂ solubility on oceans.
To understand the above you should also know that we have:
CO₂ + H₂0 ⇄ H₂CO₃ ... ( eqn. 3 )
H₂CO₃ ⇄ HCO₃⁻ + H⁺ ... ( eqn. 4 )
The equilibrium for both eqn. 3 and eqn. 4 is to the left (NOT the right). There's about 2000× more CO₂ than H₂CO₃ (carbonic acid). And also about 2000× more carbonic acid (H₂CO₃) than (hydrolysed acid); making carbonic acid a very weak acid. So when they worry us about ocean acidification - that is a joke. With more CO₂ dissolving in oceans, there won't be any much actual acid [ H⁺ ] instead there will be slightly more HCO₃⁻ (bicarbonate). But bicarbonate is oceans is always slightly alkaline [ 1M sodium bicarbonate has a pH = 8.2 ; but actual ocean concentration of bicarbonate is not so great as 1M ]
Yes. Also bicarboate has a buffering effect. This is how the blood stays at a pH of 7.4.
I read during my research of regenerative farming/ranching that if all the soil now dead as a result of corporate food production practices (Big Food Inc.) , (which utilizes fossil fuel based fertilizers and petroleum based pesticides and GMO seeds which have converted grains into natural pesticides, as well as fruits and vegetables...none of which existed 100 years ago), and restored that dead soil back to a healthy bioactive state, it would increase the Earths ability to sequester CO2 to such a degree that you could achieve net zero without doing anything else. Enough that you could sequester as much CO2 as we have released from the start of the industrial age till now. Note that I do not believe that achieving net zero is necessary or even desirable. In fact I believe we need to increase CO2 levels, not decrease them.
While you may be right technically, I suggest to be careful before judging modern agriculture. CO2 is just one of many criteria. 1:17:47
Sri Lanka has paid a high price abandoning fertilizer and pesticides. Feeding 9 billion people is not a subject to play with. Going back to „bio farming“ means half the crop and therefore in the consequence twice the land use and obviously higher prices.
I don‘t say this should not be considered if people can afford it, but is has to be based on voluntary decisions.
Sure,but we'd run out of food that way. Without fertilizers,GM crops and herbi/pesticides productivity drops by 75%. In order to achieve "sustainable farming" about half of productive land needs to be "resting" at any given time which is another blow to productivity.
Fun fact : dutch tomatoes have zero pesticides/herbicides in them, use zero soil and half the water of "naturally grown" ones and biological tests by German top research facility showed no difference in mineral/vitamin content between the two.
Haven't you read the research done in the US badlands that shows. 1 cubic food of crude oil will replace all of the minerals and nutrients required in 1 000 Acers. You must know that the Canadian National Resear farm in Ottawa has been developing GMO crops since 1800! Without them, Canada doesn't have enough termo units in ur growing season to grow food crops!
@@terenceiutzi4003 What you just said is nonsense and meaningless. In fact, what the fricking hell are you trying to say? Other than I am incapable of thinking?
@johnunderwood9575 so you are totally uninformed. Have you ever visited the Netherlands? Where a friend of mine's parents live, as far as you can see, not even a blade of grass will grow the land has been destroyed by the use of livestock manure! My nephew bought 1,000 acer in North Decoda for next to nothing because the land had been destroyed by livestock farming. He can now grow crops with a good yield! Yep 1 cubic foot of crude oil!
I suspect both temperature and photosynthesis track each other and growth from optimum temperature improves uptake as well as photosynthesis. A more precise model may require calculation of plant growth from both temperature and from photosynthesis (I.e. split out the uptake due to how much vegetation gets how much photons for how long, and calculate how much cO2 uptake occurred per local surface area.
I found a study a while back a paper named "On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere".. it used some analytics to measure recent co2/temperature dynamics. Would be curious to get Joachim's take on that study.
let me answer it this way - a friend of mine had in his WhatsApp profile the statement: For every complex problem there is a very simple answer -- and this is always wrong.
My own work shows clearly, that there is causality from temperature to concentration growth, this does not exclude the possibility of the greenhouse effect, i.e. CO2 increase causing a (slight) temperature increase of, say 0.5°C per doubling of CO2 (according to MODTRAN).
The fundamental error of both Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al (the authors of the paper you mention) as well as his critics (e.g. in ScepticalScience) is that they all relate temperature and concentration directly, either T=function(C) or C=function(T). Both are wrong in general from a physics point of view.
My equation is
Concentration growth =anthrop. Emissions - 0.044*Concentration + 2.9*Temperature + const.
Concentration and Temperature are both state variables, but concentration growth is a flow variable, i.e. state change as it should be. All terms on the right hand side are flows.
This respects the fact that you cannot debate away the effects of anthropogenic emissions, as Koutsoyiannis tries to do by stating that anthropogenic emissions are only 4% of all emissions. This is an extremely dangerous argument, playing into the hands of the enemies of life. When you claim that it is natural emissions are causing the rise of concentration, more than half of which are biological, then you have no argument against slaughtering cows to prevent rise of emissions. Contrary to this I claim that the biological world is a strict carbon sink, because each "biological" carbon atom has to be taken from the atmosphere previously. Therefore both the land plants as well as the oceans have been net sinks since more than 100 years. Yearly anthropogenic emissions (incl. land use change) have been larger than the concentration growth since 1900.
On the other hand, if you assume that my equation above is correct, it is clear that this will produce the kind of statistical causality that Koutsoyiannis observed, because the effect from Temperature on Concentration is much stronger than the other way round.
We will have to live with these facts:
1. Both anthropogenic emissions as well es temperature cause concentration growth
2. It may be that CO2 concentration causes a slight increase in temperature growth, although statistical tests seem to suggest, that solar insolation (weighted "sun hours") have a far larger influence on temperature change ( see the post on my blog "How large is the Greenhouse Effect in Germany? - A statistical Analysis.")
3. Due to the fact that 1. is much stronger than 2. a statistical analysis like the one by Koutsoyiannis will find a causality from temperature on concentration.
Koutsoyiannis has several interesting and novel recent papers on paleo- and recent Temp-GHG (CO2&H2O) relationships.
I think he found 6 to 14 month lags between Temp variation then CO2 responses. The lag length depended on CO2 monitoring site location and whether an annualised (remove seasonal effects) or monthly average time series was used for ln[CO2] and Temp.
The lag differences for different monitoring sites perhaps represented different mixing times for differing CO2 sources and monitoring locations.
A recent NASA CO2 mixing model highlights this same delayed mixing time for anthropogenic emissions (greater in Nthn Hemisphere).
But in the case of anthropogenic emissions, for annualised time series, there would be no major association between temperature variation and CO2 response ... in the annualised time series, anthropogenic emission responses to cold (heating etc) and hot (air conditioners etc) would be removed.
Great talk. Puzzled by his answer that 200 is a minimum, while maintaining that various life forms form calcium carbonate which locks carbon from returning to the carbon cycle. He seems to cite history as his evidence (the Vostok data) rather than citing a mechanism that enforces a lower limit of 200ppm. Or did I just miss the main point of his talk? lol (I'm not a physicist, and didn't follow every point.) Thanks to both Tom und vielen dank zu Joachim!
In my understanding this is how science works: you begin with observing reality at multiple time scales, which may be puzzling indeed. Then you try to discover patterns and relate them to what you already know to be (rocksolid) laws of nature. That‘s what I did.
There are still many open questions - I indicated some of them in the talk. I am cautious with quick explanations, but I indicated one, why I think we will not run out of CO2 soon: The large ocean reservoir, which is 50 times larger than the atmosphere (in terms of carbon mass), together with the equilibrium equation, which suggests a lower limit of 280 ppm (it may be 285 meanwhile due to anthropogenic emissions) at preindustrial temperatures and zero emissions, both of which are unlikely in the foreseeable future. So I assume that the current generation will continue to worry about too much carbon rather than the other way round.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 "in terms of carbon mass" ... ah, I missed that. A warmer ocean (eventually) would expel CO2 and replenish the atmosphere. But, if this interglacial ends and cold returns, wouldn't the combination of cold oceans and limestone forming of crustaceans potentially starve plant life? Or would ocean plants be sufficient to preserve life on earth (or might they even thrive in a CO2 rich but cold ocean)? I'm just rambling... thanks for your response, Professor!
Your graph around 705 sec shows a significant increase in temperature from 1940 to present. Are you using the unadjusted clean measurements or the data set modified by NOAA?
I am using the HadSST4 data set. The exact link is on the last slide (RUclips does not allow links in the comments).
Henry’s law is not the only thing that governs the amount of CO2 absorbed into the oceans. Le Chatelier’s law is also in play. The ocean has a high ionic strength (lots of ions) including iron, calcium, sodium, magnesium etc. Carbonate salts are typically insoluble especially at high ionic strengths. This drives the absorption toward CO2 dissolution into the ocean. Le Chatelier’s principle also applies at high pressures deep in the ocean also favoring CO2 absorption. Oceanic chemistry can not be excluded from computational models and adds to the complexity of the global system.
Since Henry’s law states that gases are more soluble in water at cold temperatures than it follows that as the oceans warm CO2 out-gases into the atmosphere. The Vlostoc ice cores show that atmospheric CO2 follows temperature and does not precede them. Another complexity.
I like Joachim’s approach. As a confirmation of his equation for balancing rates of emissions, absorbtion and atmospheric concentration, does he get the same constants if he calculated them in the reverse order? I.e. what if he calculated the linear constants driven by Temperature change first and removed that effect from the curve. And then calculated the linear constants driven by atmospheric concentration from what is left in the curve?
With a linear model the sequence of calculation does not matter.
Thanks for responding. I like your modeling and rationale driving it. I see it would just be extra work just to get the same answer, but it would be a convincing confirmation to many people who dont understand linear modeling as well as you do.
By the way, perhaps Mount Pinnetubo volcanic ash acted as fertilizer affecting overall vegetation growth on a global scale? Or affecting ph levels? Could trace amounts of volcanic ash deposits slightly change the albedo of a million square km to make a detectable difference in global temperature?
@@douginorlando6260 Pinatubo ashes as fertilizer is a good idea to explain part of the increase of vegetation growth, that deserves further investigation. Besides this its light scattering effect increased photosynthesis.
In this context we are talking about changes in CO2 concentration, which is not influenced by albedo change. I don't know how much Pinatubo affected Albedo, apparently not so much, otherwise there would have been noticable cooling. As in 1815 after the Tambora eruption, when worldwide temperature dropped by 0,8°C and caused much hunger in Europe.
Regarding the temperature dependence, I hestitate to give this a high priority, because up to now the evidence is only based on short term variations of concentration growth, while there are still some data inconsistencies to be sorted out. There is still a long way to go before reaching a fully consistent picture of the carbon cycle.
I do not understand that a doctor in physic can rely on a global temperature to make detail calculations relative to physical laws which can only be valid on a very local scale and in a very limited laps of time. For me, when you start to speak about global temperature you should first define what you mean by global temperature, how this temperature is calculated and where the temperature is measured, at what elevation, for which period of time and what kind of accuracy you could expect from its use. In addition to that you split the temperature in different parts to make calculations. At the end you get very precise and small temperature variations. For me this is rule of thumb calculations even if your reasoning look like to make sense. Of course, if you want to make accurate calculations, this seems impossible although today we have tools to make computations by finite elements which may be used to make simulations taking local data all around the globe at different elevations and dynamically within a turbulent atmosphere animated with huge fluxes of air . But this video is interesting as it allows to seize the philosophy of a part of the problem and shows that the earth is self controlling the temperature around itself. Thank you for this video.
Using global averages is legitimate under the condition that the underlying theory is linear or can be linearized within the given scope. In my previous publication I have extensively argued that indeed the relationship between sink effect and CO2 concentration is sufficiently linear. In this publication the underlying theory is Henry‘s law, which is sufficiently linear in temperature, given the relatively small variations.
You seem to thoroughly misunderstand the given „global temperatures“ like SST (which I used). These are not absolute values - I agree with you that averaging the temperature of the top of Mount Everest and the Dead Sea makes little sense. The published data are anomalies, i.e. variations relative to a reference time in the past. Due to the linearity of lapse rate it is legitimate to make global averages of these anomalies.
Suppose my model is correct, it is also linear in temperature. Therefore the whole concept is fully consistent. Considering it fit‘s so well to the data (present and past!), this should give you good for reconsideration.
„food“ instead of „good“ in the last sentence of my comment.
By the way, sea surface temperatures are measured at appr. 0 m elevation 😉
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 Well, I believe you, but do you have any idea of where the average temperature is measured ?
@@neuoylann1909 To be honest, this is actually a question for the British Met Office, who created the data set. If you google "HadSST.4.0.1.0", you find a page from the Met Office, where there is link to a paper describing the data set in great detail. This should give you the best possible answer. As I cannot do the measurements myself, I have to rely on these data sets.
Obviously I use also other data sets for comparison, but my experience is that the differences are usually smaller than assumed.
I suggest you clear up the confusion between Pinatubo and El Nino. Otherwise an interesting analysis.
You are right - between Minute 39:30 and 41:13 it should be Pinatubo (instead of El Niño) - the slide is marked correctly.
Yes but understandable as English is not his home language. I am sure most of us who watched this video were able to deal with the verbal mistake.
what has been the best argument in opposition to this idea? thanks
Question: Does 'burning' limestone to create concrete release any co2 from the limestone? Or is all the 'released' co2 from the fuel used to burn the limestone?
Yes, CO2 is released, even if you heat the limestone with electric energy. To get 1 metric ton of cement, 400 kg CO2 are released from the limestone.
@@klaushoegerl1187 That was what I thought I recalled.
@@wheel-man5319the released co2 is reabsorbed during the hardening process.
Takes hundreds of years and the material becomes more and more brittle, but it's a net zero conversion.
Except the needed energy during the burning of course.
Why does temperature rise?
You may find other authors/speakers in Tom‘s collection who have a lot to say about this question. But it is not within the scope of this talk.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426'a lot to say'
Yes - I think so....
I will find a lot of half true similar BS.
Nobody has an alternative explanation for the temp rise.
In short, the observed CO2 concentration is more a consequence of the temperature increase than a cause. This conclusion is straightforward and supported by numerous facts, despite contradicting prevailing “religion”. It is obvious that every time the author formulates his conclusion; he is preemptively remorseful not to be destroyed by the CO2 Taliban. His conclusion is uncomfortable, especially given its implications for climate policy, which significantly shapes politics overall.
I am not at all remorseful about anything I say, but I am experiencing „taliban“ on both sides of the discussion. The fact that temperature plays a part in CO2 growth does not mean (as quite a few claim) that anthropogenic emissions are irrelevant nor does it exclude the greenhouse effect completely.
And, as I said in the other video some weeks ago, before you judge someone, you need to walk a mile in his shoes.
We not only need to convince those who were always sceptics, but also the silent majority who have quietly accepted the mainstream narrative.
@@videosjoachimdengler7426 I must apologize for being too hasty in my judgment - I have just watched an earlier presentation - which more directly relates to the generally accepted narrative of climate catastrophe - and very clearly shows the views of the author.
In my defense, I can only say that it is hard to stand to be pushed with false statements (by "mainstream" scientists) regarding climate change - which is a fact! but by getting bogged down in false theories we are wasting our strength and resources and not making progress where we could perhaps (at least to some extent) influence the phenomena we are witnessing.
I am a biologist but I do not deal with topics directly related to climate physics, however, thanks to the recently available AI support I was able to quite quickly perform some calculations which confirm that basing global warming on the increase in CO2 is actually nonsense. It would probably be more promising to look at the water cycle and the amount of energy associated with it. Even the amounts that I can measure myself with simple instruments indicate amounts of energy at least an order of magnitude greater than those that can be blamed on CO2... And the changes in the water cycle in the atmosphere that humans have an influence on are very large, and locally often dramatic...
@@videosjoachimdengler7426'mainstream narrative" -
You are defaming all research institutes here?
Or are you referring to opinions in the public or media...?
Whales use to swim in the Egyptian desert, was that because of human activity or did the ocean rise before human evolution.
0.0182 is the same number I came up with.
I greatly enjoyed your video
It should be noted that a plan based on bioactive soil restoration was presented at the Paris accords. They admitted the science was sound, and that it was the only proposal ever submitted that could actually work. They then proceeded to act as though the proposal never happened. I leave it to you to verify what I just said, and after doing so, ask yourself.......why?
The science of physics needs exact measurements and precise data for climat modeling because the many
different climatS are chaotic systems ... if this is not satisfied than matematicians know, GI-GO happens.
@@CarlosOddone-z6k Climate models are useless. We simply do not have adequate data to input into a climate modeling program, to be able to trust the outputted result. What is being done is, designing models that output data that supports a desired narrative.
@@CarlosOddone-z6k Forgive me if I seem argumentative, but I have read, and re-read you're reply, and frankly, I am unable to grasp what it is you are trying to say.
Soil improvement is vital for our ecosystem and therefore our health,I'm sorry but what does your comment have to do with debunking of the publicly accepted role co2 plays in our planet's climate system ?
This is not the channel about biodiversity,agricultural practices,GM foods,rights of indigenous people,Roundup&Glyphosate effects and any other interesting subjects. This channel is the collection of conter-arguments about the accepted role of co2 in climate and feasibility of "green revolution".
They don't want to fix the problem. If they fix the problem, the pretext for authoritarian control would be gone. What they want is power, the climate is just the excuse of the day, if the climate were not changing (highly unlikely as it always changes), there would be some other "intractable" issue for which the only possible solution that is considered is increased taxes and a loss of freedom.
Climate research needs to collect more of the right kind of data. E.g. map How much Sun radiation actually gets to the surface, Mount Pinetubo probably affected how much solar radiation was reflected back into space, absorbed in the atmosphere, reached the surface. Seems to me this can cause changes in temperature and plant uptake of cO2 via photosynthesis. From the curve, It looks like the Mount Pinnatubo eruption took 30 years to fully go away. Also global cloud cover makes a huge difference in reflected radiant solar energy plus humidity affecting greenhouse effect. Any accurate model must include these parameters
"Proper Scientific Approach" gee .. There's a concept, instead of propaganda based on government financing of "science" with Predetermined results.
The thermal dynamics of Human Civilization require the generation and utilization of heat. Where does all that heat go in the environment? The dissipation of heat > cold requires conductivity. Conduction involves surface areas. Although the tessellated sea surface is greater by Area when compared to the land Areas, it may be smaller when analyzed utilizing the increase in available fractal surface areas created by geological and biological processes.
This process is duplicated by the thermal dynamics of aquatic organisms at every scale. Plankton expel ‘cold’ low frequency oxygen…a large shoal of swirling pelagic fish requires high energy transitions, thus cooling the water column as they pass though it. Where does the heat go ? In the case of Plankton the heat engine generates the energy required to construct and maintain the bio activity while regulating the chemical processes. Cold blooded fish must harvest additional heat energy from the aquatic environment. Pelagics like Tuna are muscular and require significant heat energy inputs. If the problem is warming oceans, then a reasonable mitigation is to increase bio-reactivity.
The measurable rate of fractal transformations across bandwidth is a signal:noise problem. Currently, the heat signals of Global Warming are standing out from background noise of cyclical Global Cooling. Some of the measured Heat Energy is leaking outward into Space as the Global Heat Engine accelerates. Homo Sapiens will either adjust to the challenges and learn from them while transitioning to a newer version or simply go extinct like countless other species. Nothing is guaranteed in this Game of Life
It’s a Great Time to be a Human Being 🥸
37:00 What el nino explosion, WTF is he talking about a volcano?
Look at the erratum notice, olease
My girlfriend is putting on some pounds so she's either pregnant or it's going to be a cold winter-100% accuracy thus far