These posts are "top-drawer", among the most professional quality productions on this topic out there, anywhere. This includes the velvety-voiced narration - she has a superb, high-end broadcast quality cadence. So beautiful to the ears. I cannot stress how important this is to present a polished, authoritative narrative. Don't ever let her go.
@@owensuppes1 I wouldn't because I'm not a scientist. Neither are John Robson nor the voice over lady. If CDN had something worthwhile they'd submit it for peer review or at the very least start a conversation with actual climate scientists rather than post it here in this dark little corner of denialism. Doing so isn't hard, there's dozens of them on Twitter more than happy to discuss scientific matters of AGW. I'm also dubious of this page because of a article they did on the Australian bushfires which contained a couple of blatant fabrications. I've tried to seek clarification on this but of course I've been ignored.
@@damob5969 I can offer a critique of the video above; relative to ECS. I would have appreciated a more in depth discussion of the various ECS estimates(as Lewis and Curry 2018 has done). And there is a robust debate between the few teams who have recently published on ECS. Worth following if you get the chance. I'm curious, so was your critique levelled more so at the coverage of the Aussie bush fires, or the ECS topic?
@@owensuppes1 My issue is with the assertion these posts are "top drawer". I've taken the time to fact check two of them and both proved disigenuous at best.
You forgot to mention Arrhenius 1906 paper where he again addressed the CO2 impact. His initial paper neglected to take into account the effect of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. In this second paper, he greatly reduced the impact of CO2 when water vapor is included in the analysis.
One of my favorite questions is asking Alarmists is which greenhouse gas causes the most radiative forcing and invariably they say CO2. Even Arrhenius knew that he'd made a basic error.
Water vapor (clouds) effect on atmospheric temp worldwide is unknown. This measurement is constantly changing, but must have a large effect on the atmosphere.
This is the same crap that we got from the tobacco, sugar, etc industry. Essentially they are trying to create doubt. Who benefits from this? Fossil Fuel industry. In fact, in the 1970s the Fossil Fuel industry concluded that they needed to address (not good for their business)...or create doubt. This is just what we have here .... designed for science illiterates. Of course, if we go to the original models of the Fossil Fuel industry they are quite good in terms of global temperature and CO2. "Climate models - even those published back in the 1970s - did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” Zeke Hausfather, University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Was watching an Rex Murphy interview Patrick Moore the other day. Patrick brought to light a seldom mentioned fact. While observing Canada’s average ambient temperature, Canada is the coldest country on the Planet. We need more CO2.
Problem with the entire business is that it is the ocean that determines the CO2 concentration in the air, and not emissions. CO2 is degassing from the ocean, but CO2 will be dropped back to the ocean with the rain, and there is a balance there. Doesn't matter how much CO2 we put in the air. The ocean will digests all surplus CO2 anyway. And if the trees ate all CO2 in the air, the ocean would automatically provide new. There is a lot of chemistry and buffers on the ocean that will maintain a balance. For more, read this piece by a prominent geochemist: _6.3.1.2__ Some Thoughts on Ocean Chemistry_ - www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean-Chemistry_NIPCC_CCR-II-B_2014.pdf
@@JohnnyMotel99 Don't need to "find out". Just ask any green house operator. Anyway, the real issue in my view is the future of our industrial world. Currently it is firmly based on fossil fuels. There is no tipping point or any other such hype term, but eventually we will have to transition to other energy bases, or radically reduce our energy needs. There have doubtless been some bad developments, such as the wholesale use of plastics, (not that I am against all plastics). That is the debate we need to develop, and leave the extremist anti capitalist hype behind.
@@PaulJoanKieth I agree, this should not be a political issue, I have voted Liberal 2 of the last 4 federal elections. Problem is that politics and group think have far outstretched the actual science. The point of this video is that the models that are used to support the Alarmist view are not supported by real world observations. The blanket analogy is apt as at some point adding more blankets doesn't trap any more heat. In the case of CO2 its warming potential is almost completely maxed out and it is theorized (yet unproven) additional forcings that are the source of concern. We have yet to see evidence of this.
Volker Siegel and another thing, Venus is must closer to the sun, so its warmer by place, and now you see, you told it yourself: the sun is the driver behind the warmth of a planet
Why the hell does You Tube feel like they need to balance this video with some thing from Wikipedia? I am a big boy and can pick what I watch on my own. I have now subscribed thanks to them.
You all are doing great work. You present detailed and important scientific information in digestible segments. You challenge ideas and positions without demonizing others. Exactly what the world needs from science!
@@PaulJoanKieth And what is your position on this? Oh, you are on the other side of the debate. Oh, that's right! You think science is not debatable. All good science is debatable, however. So where does that put your approach, seeing how you do not, or cannot debate this subject?
@Pantomime52 You mean saying stuff like the Arctic will be ice free, Polar bears all dead, Maldives under water, Manhattan flooded, Great Barrier Reef dead, children won't know what snow is, etc, etc, etc.... Noooooooooooo, the alarmist scientists haven't said anything that would confuse or, God forbid, frighten the electorate!!! The alarmist scientists have 'screwed the pooch' with their unfounded claims of catastrophe and then Climate Gate pulled back the curtain. Sorry, warming may or may not be real, but they've lost the existential imperative by spouting this rubbish. I cannot see the industrial world cutting overall carbon emissions and to deny the developing world fossil fuels is 'literally' to condemn them to a miserable life and an early death. If it's really 'an existential threat,' you should be promoting nuclear the way I do when I comment! So is it an existential threat, or an excuse to redistribute wealth etc???
This is the same crap that we got from the tobacco, sugar, etc industry. Essentially they are trying to create doubt. Who benefits from this? Fossil Fuel industry. In fact, in the 1970s the Fossil Fuel industry concluded that they needed to address (not good for their business)...or create doubt. This is just what we have here .... designed for science illiterates. Of course, if we go to the original models of the Fossil Fuel industry they are quite good in terms of global temperature and CO2. "Climate models - even those published back in the 1970s - did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” Zeke Hausfather, University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
I would feel better about having learned something from this video if RUclips hadn't put the Wikipedia entry excerpt on global warming below the description. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and policed, if at all, by consensus driven monitors.
The earth cannot act as it's own control. To determine the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide on an earth-like planet you would have to find 50 earth analog planets and double the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on these planets and use another 50 planets as controls and observe them for many decades. The moderation of the earth's surface temperature is a holistic function of the atmosphere and the oceans. It is obvious at this stage that most climate models are not predicting the temperature accurately. The role of cloud cover is poorly understood. If there is significant negative feedback from clouds, then the sensitivity to carbon dioxide may be near zero.
Of course the Earth's troposphere is in itself a "Control System"....the rain cycle...increased radiation into outer space...clouds...ocean currents all redistribute or change the thermal energy in "The System"....bringing it back to equilibrium; If not, we would have had Venus or Jupiter over the past 4.5 Billion years...yet NONE of either....
BS. This is the same crap that we got from the tobacco, sugar, etc industry. Essentially they are trying to create doubt. Who benefits from this? Fossil Fuel industry. In fact, in the 1970s the Fossil Fuel industry concluded that they needed to address (not good for their business)...or create doubt. This is just what we have here .... designed for science illiterates. Of course, if we go to the original models of the Fossil Fuel industry they are quite good in terms of global temperature and CO2. "Climate models - even those published back in the 1970s - did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” Zeke Hausfather, University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Mr Wellham: When I was at university in the 1970's it was well established that smoking was a risk factor for lung cancer. Non-smokers could serve as controls in studies which demonstrated that the risk of lung cancer was increased 40 fold in heavy smokers. It would be cost effective from the health care cost persceptive to totally ban smoking and pay compensation to the tobacco industry. The effects of obesity on health were somewhat underestimated in the 1970s. In the 1990s studies on experimental animals showed that partially starved animals had the longest life expectancy. In humans, obesity became strongly linked to a wide range of cancers, especially breast and colon cancer . Once again, non-obese subjects could act as controls. The link to type II diabetes mellitus had been known for many years. I trust that you would not want to receive medications from your physician if they had not been carefully evaluated in controlled prospective trials. Would you feel safe if your doctor stated that the medicine was tested in a computer simulation of the human body and it worked well with no adverse effects?
@Michael Markowsky Sorry, Michael. Hurricanes are at the lowest levels in decades. The same with droughts. However! To support your side, reports of increased hurricanes and droughts in the media are at an all-time high. The problem is, it doesn't match the records.
During the medieval warm period, it was good for Europe, but the USA, or a good chunk of it, suffered from a century long drought. That's one of the reasons climate change is not so good for everybody.
@Michael Markowsky yes! irecently read somewhere that the average temp in russia and canada was around 0c. the 2 largest countries are freezing cold ice.
In 1906 Arhenius changed his tune to 1.6C "“Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of -1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.”"
The results of comparisons between most of the model's predictions and most of the observable changes in climate show clearly that the climate is orders of magnitude less sensitive to variations in CO2 levels than alarmists would have us believe.
Dr John, soil atmosphere has approximately 16 to 20% CO2, or 5 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if we are looking to see what kind of environment survives in 5 times current atmospheric CO2 levels, then we can see this in soils. Earthworm Jim has wiggled happily for much of the past 400 million years in this kind of habitat. Just another thought to add to the conversation that CO2 is somehow bad for us. It isn't, (well it could be if thats all we had to breathe, but this is not the case for the past 2.2 billion years )
There are many factors that effect the temperature. Between 1900 and 2000 three million miles of asphalt roads were constructed in the USA (according to the American Asphalt Institute). How does that fit into their simulations?
@@megabeaver23 Latest report. Record coral recovery on the reef following bleaching events. A cyclone that went through some time ago did worst damage due to path it took.
If I understand the global warming propaganda correctly, for global warming to be as bad as they claim CO2 must be involved in a positive feedback loop. In my training as a research chemist around 40 years ago I was shown why positive feedback loops are extremely rare in nature and for good reason. I would find it fascinating as well as good information for others if this channel addressed the need for a positive feedback loop in order for the global alarmists claims to work, why positive feedback loops are so rare, and why negative feedback loops are the norm. Thank you for your consideration of this topic.
@@PaulJoanKieth What I was primarily referring to was the idea that increasing CO2 increased temperature which increased the amount of water vapor which increased temperature even more which then should cause more water vapor into the atmosphere, etc. If all of this was started with a wee bit of increased CO2 and this positive reinforcement continued, then when and where does it stop? And yet this positive reinforcement, as I understand the models, is the basis for the majority of the predicted temperature increases that are woefully incorrect.
@@PaulJoanKieth Sir, I am not ignoring your comment nor am I not understanding what you stated. What I was doing was to simply clarify the focus on what I thought was clearly a misguided attempt to legitimize a positive feedback loop that appears bogus as a basis for warming claims by those pushing catastrophic climate change.
@@PaulJoanKieth Simple? Your over complicating the mater by not talking about what truly controls the dynamics of the earths atmosphere...O3 Ozone, H20 Water Vapor, Cosmic Rays and the Sun. If CO2 is a major contributor, then how did the major warming period of the 1920's to the 1960's occur? While CO2 concentrations were far lower than today.
@@ClimateDN Please - the UK is in the terminal stages of climate fever - we need an antidote desperatley. The effect of carbon neutral by 2050 will be far more catastrophic than anything coronavirus can do!
Here is a question I've asked for more than 30 years, "If there is a lot more water vapor in the air there will be more clouds. What is the effect of clouds?" The climate scientist I asked said that we don't know so we ignored it in the models.
The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) stated that "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C and very unlikely greater than 6 °C". --Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this uncertainty is hardly comforting. I guess some people are just fine with the gamble. I am not.
p.s. our hero is a professor at Augustine College. I had to look it up: "Augustine College is an unaccredited, private, Christian liberal arts college in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada." Oh dear! Motivated reasoning much?
8:16 Weird that he somehow missed Bjordal, J., Storelvmo, T., Alterskjær, K. et al. Equilibrium climate sensitivity above 5 °C plausible due to state-dependent cloud feedback. Nature Geoscience 13, 718-721 (2020). doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1 I think it's clear that the answer is unlikely to be as high as in the recent models (viz. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091220) but, again, that's not necessarily very comforting. An ECS of 3 is likely very bad news -- and irreversible on any time scale that matters.
The trouble here is that because the policies people are proposing in response to climate change are crushingly expensive, you're obliged to gamble either way. Are you just fine getting rid of reliable, affordable energy, with the horrendous costs in human flourishing and even human life that would result, over something that turned out not to be happening? I am not. P.S. In IPCC-speak "medium confidence" actually means a coin toss - it's 50-50. (They used to call it "inconclusive" but found that it made people less likely to take the gamble I'm asking you about.)
You don't know what we missed because of what you missed. Have you watched this video: climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/how-bad-is-co2/? Or do you find it easier to critique views you don't first take the trouble to familiarize yourself with?
I absolutely agree with your content, Dr Robson. Just a very small point - the video clip starts with the Earth rotating west - I hope this won't undermine your credibility.
Can you please stop fooling people by cherrypicking and misrepresenting science? You showed a "best estimate" value of 2.5°C per doubling of CO2 from the AR1. Well, but the range used for the projections in there is *from 1.5° to 4.5°C*, and there is no given level of confidence at all for that range. In the 2007 Report they say: "likely to be in the range of *2 to 4.5°C* with a best estimate of about 3°C" In the 2013 report they say: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the *range 1.5°C to 4.5°C* (high confidence) So, where exactly have they been more unprecise recently? If the climate sensitivity was not more than 1.5°C per doubling of CO2, how do you explain 1.2°C warming since 280ppm? What is your response to the Hausfather et al. 2020 (Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections) paper?
The evidence is out there for all to see. All glaciers around the world are in retreat, arctic ice is thinning more rapidly than all models have predicted, Antarctic ice is in rapid decline and sea level is rising. Whilst individual extreme weather events are hard to link directly to climate change, their increase in frequency is. Here in the U.K. We have had 'once in 100 year' floods five times in the last four years, and in late 2019 vast areas of New South Wales in Australia were lost to fires, followed in January 2020 by freak flood events. So, yes, let's focus on the evidence!
@@jamesdurpington8619 Too true unfortunately - but the debate must be held - organised by scientists who are not corrupted by politics. Who the hell would we choose to do it and on which tv channel. Forget the BBC - so biased it only fits on the left side of the screen!
@@Federer935 That's the tough part. Any time money becomes a factor, it's closely followed by corruption. Science, religion, politics, all of it. Tainted by the lust for money, and unfortunately I don't think scientists are immune to that desire. Many scientists that even question climate change "science" right now have their careers ruined, and at the end of the day, we all need to be able to pay rent/mortgages.
Alex Epstein’s book “The Moral Case for the Use of Fossil Fuels” is an eye-opener. His thesis is the use of fossil fuels and the energy derived from them in the last 70 years has allowed humanity to thrive. Worldwide we are richer, eat better, live longer, are more comfortable than ever before, and the climate effects of the use of fossil fuels is empirically negligible. The book is well written, easy to understand, and his information is well documented. Read it, you’ll be glad you did.
So you cannot exclude a very high climate sensitivity but you still recommend not to worry? So I recommend you to fly with the 737 max8. Best estimate is that it won't crash. No reason to worry. Besides that even a two degree sensitivity means huge effects based on what we are doing. And these things are already happening all over the world.
I remember when the IPCC had radio thermometers all over the world. Those in Arctic regions were placed farther apart than thermometers in tropical areas. When objections were made, they were ignored.
Follow the money. $$$$. Governments and companies getting rich through universal carbon taxes and trade offs. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
@@Ree1981 Thanks Ree , I had my suspicions but I never like to jump to conclusions without studying the evidence first. Assertions were made in the video that I hadn't come across before which is why I wanted links to their source material. I'm inclined to think that it doesn't exist.
You omitted to explain a crucial detail in what is otherwise a very good presentation. ECS doubles so from what 350ppm to 700ppm or from a different base? At current growth rates when would 700ppm be achieved and do other factors such as the greater uptake of carbon from the greening effect slow the rate of growth?
I think the only good thing that has come up recently with all this is the idea of pollution. The need to be concerned is that we're cutting down forests and polluting bodies of water like they're going out of style. CO2 might be the thing that helps build our forests back up.
I agree. Large scale deforestation has little to recommend it. It does seems that in the short term higher levels of co2 (relative to pre-industrial levels) are indeed beneficial to growth. However the effect may be short-lived as plants adapt and acclimatize. In addition extra growth may be limited by the levels of other nutrients in the soil. Restraint is still called for.
@@jamesdurpington8619 Trees have been cut for hundreds of years and are being cut today. How can that be? Could it possibly be because of wood products companies' replanting programs? They are so greedy that they want to keep on cutting into the future instead of stopping now and adding to the already high poverty in America.. In the meantime, you have a choice to keep on living in society, or living in the wilderness where there is no production of anything. Yes, You could move into the jungles of Costa Rica if you really wanted to. Stay off of the beaten paths so that you are not bothered. www.costarica.org/attractions/jungle/
A simple analysis of the motives of political and commercial players tells one everything needed about what's going on. The idiots are the impassioned masses that buy into the hysteria and panic. They are truly just useful idiots.
Pantomime52 I am an old man, but I can still remember my 7th grade world history text books that introduced me to the terms Climatic Optimum, Little Climatic Optimum, and little ice age. These were naturally occurring periods in which the earth was much much warmer that it is now (or is predicted to return to by alarmists) or much colder. Mankind existed and even thrived during the warm periods. Modern civilizations began during the Climatic Optimum when the equatorial regions were much hotter and consequently much wetter than is the case today. The overall desertification of the mid-east is the result of global cooling not heating. Currently the planet is recovering from the Little Ice Age. Average temperatures have not yet recovered to levels that preceded it. Temperature fluctuations are normal, but if you start your analysis at the lowest recorded temperatures in the recent past you will automatically notice a upward trend. You can then attribute any reason for the temperature rise you want. Note I am not disputing whether or not the climate is changing now. I have merely observed that within recorded history the average temperature of the earth has varied widely and mankind and the entire biosphere has thrived when the temperatures were higher. I do not believe man made CO2 emissions are driving the temperatures higher, but if they are the answer is to reduce "worldwide" CO2 emissions not issue carbon credits and demand offsetting debits. The nations issued the credits can't use them and the nations faced with reductions can't afford the effect on their economies that reductions would entail. Suddenly, we have trading organizations arise that will handle the exchange of credits for debts for a small processing fee. Worldwide it is approaching multiple billions of dollars a year. If man made emissions of CO2 was determined to be the sole source of the earth's warming, then the goal must be global CO2 reductions. Not a system in where carbon credits are exchanged which makes someone rich, but offers no total reduction in CO2. Rearranging the deck chairs and offering steerage class passengers a meal in the first class dining room before the ship sinks is not a recipe for success. If the ship is sinking plug the holes. Bail! Ignoring, reality and trying to make money off it is stupid to say the least. The "Al Gore" green crowd that believed if they bought a 50 pound lump of coal and buried it in the backyard it was okay for them to fly because they had sequestered an amount of carbon equal to their passenger share of an intercontinental flight and were thus carbon neutral. Really? Why did they mine it in the first place. It was already "sequestered"! Digging it up and reburying it has absolutely no affect. It merely allowed environmentalists to feel good about themselves while the guy that dug the coal and the guy that sold the coal both made money
Pantomime52 Nice to be able to debate an issue without resorting to emotional arguments. Actually, the world has been warmer than it is today or is predicted in reach in the near future. You can find this out for yourself by Googling "Climatic Optimum.". Most of the variation can be accounted for by orbital mechanics and the earth's axial tilt. Currently, the climatic alarmist want to discard past research by asserting that the warming trend periods were not uniform and the southern regions were cooler than the northern hemisphere. Anybody that has ever visited the sea shore will have observed that there is an onshore breeze in the morning. This is because the land warms up faster than the water. Heat rises and you get an influx of cooler air from the ocean. Since most of the land masses on the planet are north of the equator you would expect that any warming would be accentuated there rather than in the south which is mostly water. I suspect that this simple fact would tend to make the alarmists claims spurious or at least suspect. Ice cores from by the Arctic and Antarctica both show warming trends about the same time. To me this indicates that the warning was a global phenomenon whether the magnitude of the warming varied by planetary location. It is amusing that alarmists twist the "land warms up before water" physics by pointing out that currently the northern hemisphere is warming up faster than the southern hemisphere, but then attributing this observation to the distribution of the planetary population and consequent greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a couple of things I have observed and speculated about. In the 1970's the Climate Scientists were predicting a new ice age. Coincidentally, the Environmental Protection Agency was formed. The first issue they focused on was Acid Rain caused by Sulfur Dioxide. Interestingly enough if you graph reductions in SO2 emissions and the Ski Jump spike in reported temperatures you will see that they are reciprocal. In the 1990's, scientists showed that SO2 was a catalyst for cloud formation. Since since clouds reflect sunlight, a reduction in cloud cover would logically follow. So, did we cause the current weather anomalies? (Note- Scientific research is being conducted to determine if seeding the stratosphere with SO2 to create clouds would avert global warming. Another, observation is that sunlight is bent by interactions with gravitational and electromagnetic fields. While this phenomenon is most strongly observed around Black Holes, the underlying physics would argue that what holds true on the macro scale must also be true on the micro scale as well. I earlier pointed out that most of the recent (I.E. last 10,000 years or so) global warming events can be proven to be mostly due to changes in the earth's orbit or axial tilt. I wonder if scientists have also factored in the affect of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields of the other planets? The reason I ask the question is that during the recent past (sorry I can't leave this post to look up the actual date) we were being told that a once in 900 year planetary alignment was going to cause massive earthquakes on earth due to the concentration of planetary gravitational forces pulling in a direction counter to the Sun's. Obviously, we didn't all die due to earthquakes, But, did the planetary alignment cause a focusing effect on Sunlight in the arc occupied by the planets? I don't know and doubt anybody has investigated the event. Currently satellite monitoring of the amount of sunlight being received by the earth is being performed in near earth orbits. To determine whether or not any "bending of light" causing a change in the solar constant is occurring would require satellites both preceding and following the earth by 120 degrees. Closer spacing would allow better observation of any planetary effects. Not saying the speculation about planetary affects above is true or not. However, it is a possible area of investigation. Some scientists have reported a concurrent melting of ice caps on Mars and an increase the luminosity of the atmospheres of the moons of Jupiter as being evidence of warming occurring on those planets as well. I must point out that other scientists dispute these observations and say even if true there are alternative explanations. But I must also point out a potential bias because these same scientists are those how argue that climate change is a man made event and must be eliminating the effect of mankind on the planet. A side note. Pollution is defined as any effect of mankind on the environment. Similar effects caused by animals or natural processes are considered "natural.". So, if there are a million buffalo eating grass and farting methane it is natural. But, if you replace the buffalo with a million cows who eat grass and fart methane, suddenly the cow's methane is a greenhouse gas and must be controlled, even if the quantity of methane release by the cows is the same as the buffalos. Excuses are made for aboriginal people by environmentalists who state that the forests were better managed by natives who routinely started the woods on fire (as an aid to hunting) because it prevented the catastrophic fires we have seen recently. I would argue that starting the forest on fire and shooting everything that runs out of the smoke a good game management practice. Furthermore, is there a difference between CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and that released by a forest fire? Isn't it the same molecule, with the same affect on the atmosphere? Maybe we should be thinning the forest to prevent catastrophic fires and burning the resulting product as fuel instead. It is a renewable resource and releases no more CO2 than was absorbed by the tree in its lifetime. So, net effect on CO2 concentrations would be minimal and as long as a new tree grows either as a product of natural process or planted immediately by mankind CO2 removal from the atmosphere would offset that burned. After all, is there any difference between CO2 released during a forest fire and wood burned in a furnace if it is the same tree? I will stop for now. As before I am not saying we shouldn't be goods stewards of the planets resources. I am merely pointing out logical inconsistencies in the laws proposed, demanded, or already passed by (please forgive me for using the term) environmental wackos who seem to think their enjoyment of the world would be enhanced if only they and a few close friends were left to live in a pristine wilderness.
If it was possible to tax water vapour, the alarmists would be screaming about Dihydrogen Monoxide Pollution, since that's by far the most significant greenhouse gas. CO2's effects are far less and they're logarithmic. Doubling the CO2 concentration from its current level would have very little additional effect on the temperature. But that's all too complicated for the St Greta's® of the world.
The video incorrectly states that the largest effect (I'm assuming as regards temperature) from CO2 would be over the tropics. The reverse is actually true. While a mid-tropospheric "hot spot" hasn't formed as predicted by models, the greatest temperature effects from rising CO2 are predicted to be in the polar regions.
Aren't you missing the point? The Tropics shows the most consistent temperature as despite the planet's obliquity and eccentricity, the equatorial regions remain warm regardless of the season or the position of the planet during the orbit. Surely the poles are subject to the greatest variation of temperature during the seasons as their angle to the sun can either create permanent daylight or permanent nighttime. In that case, during the arctic winter, no matter how much extra CO2 is in those latitudes, there will be virtually no radiative forcing as there will be minimal energy hitting the Troposphere. On the other hand, as the equatorial regions are barely changing at all, any appreciable change in forcing would be spotted. On top of which the Troposphere is much higher (16 Km) at the equator rather than at the poles (10 Km). So naturally the atmosphere above the dew point, where it is solely CO2, Methane, Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide causing the forcing is where we need to see any changes. Except of course all the balloons and satellite measurements are telling us there isn't any change at higher altitude (where there should be due to CO2) but there is at lower altitude, due to increased water vapor. The obvious conclusion is that CO2 is not causing much (if any) warming, but water is.
Who is this guy? Why does he think he’s smarter than climate scientists? Asking questions is fine in the context of primary research, but a consensus has been reached and time is short. This guy has an implied political agenda he is not divulging. He is trying to undermine decarbonization by creating skepticism in clever sounding video clips.
Here's who I am: climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/a-historian-looks-at-climate-change/ As for our "implied political" you have a noun you're not divulging. Whereas we're very up-front about what we think and invite you to try to dispute it using facts and logic not innuendo. And about that "consensus": climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/the-97-consensus-slogan/
@@crissis3263 If we have previously discussed something we will point people to that previous discussion. There's nothing odd about it. Have you never heard an author recommend their own book on a subject?
Dr. Robson: "If both [ECS and C02], we face a crisis." Not necessarily. To tie the two together we need more than scientists wondering what will occur if C02 doubles. There must be finite correlating evidence, and then the causal evidence must be weighed against other possible causes, such as the sun, et al. Otherwise, a very good video.
Could you please do at least one video like this one without asking for patronage, enabling me to send it to my alarmist friends without giving them the ability to question your monetary motives
I've spent the last 6 mths on the saturation topic & when I draw it out now I see what they mean about saturation. It's similar to humidity & how it makes us feel during a heatwave. Do it at home experiments to mimic the effect would be like pouring sugar or salt by the tablespoon into say a glass of water with say a nail in the bottom & watch how the turbidity affects it.
Thank you. Some things are missing though. How can we double the C02? Are there no other factors that may have caused the recent warming? And how big is human's part on rising C02 levels? Taking these open questions into consideration it is unclear if there is any danger at all.
Nice analysis John Robson. I invite you to also question the notion of 'equilibrium'. I don't think this is a robust concept in physics, chemistry, or climateology.
The models consistently over estimate the ECS. The models are insufficient at this point. New science suggests little or insignificant impact of CO2 doubling except increased greening.
The formation of arctic sea ice was slow in 2020. Artic ice generally starts in the area of east Siberia, and was likely delayed by an unseasonably hot late summer. Researchers in the area have now discovered permafrost in the seabed was melting and producing large amounts of methane. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas as compared to carbon dioxide. This isn't a climate model, but a real world finding
8:22 the chart with the ECS estimates being on the low range of the original. Its easier to get funding and grants when there is a :perceived impending climate doom.
It seems you're willing to gamble on our ecosystem, for which you'll never witness the outcome. But your grandchildren will! But, those are tomorrow's problems, right?
The problem is that the alternative is to gamble our economy on what may well turn out to be a phantom menace, causing a disaster by 2030 that your grandchildren will certainly witness and you may well also. There are major potential risks either way. But there's no avoiding the hard work of figuring out which ones are real. (Besides, according to most alarmists we are already witnessing the outcome, a proposition that I grant is hard to sustain factually. But surely that calls their judgment on other issues into question too.)
@@ClimateDN _"the alternative is to gamble our economy"_ Our economy is a gamble in it self. _"There are major potential risks either way."_ True, but that doesn't mean we can do nothing. Our economy will recover, Our ecosystem fit for humans might not.
What about plants? They take up CO2 to grow and therefore must have a huge impact on the amount. If we reduce CO2 plants will suffer. Plus the oceans have CO2 in the water and will emit CO2 as they warm.
Floyd FloydNC There is no AGW. Our contribution is so small that the effects are lost in the sampling scatter... We can not measure it, in other words.
S R.B Yes I know that AGW in nonsense. I always ask that question when people start talking about CC. CO2 levels are only @ 0.04% in our atmosphere and man made CO2 is only a fraction of that. I just wanted to see what the AGW climate alarmistes crowd were going to come up with like explanation. No answer for the moment here and neither from the IPCC fearmongers. They say that 414 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is a bad level, but they can’t say what is a good one. This is not science.
Thanks John - but - I think it needs to be mentioned in each video - That the Question is also - "Is man's contribution to the CO2 level enough to tip the scales towards catastrophe?" Because that is where all the hubbub is - and errant policies - and attempts at controlling world wide energy use - carbon credits and the money made off them - financial ruin to Western societies and suffering to the common people and third world especially. - etc., etc. What do you think, sound reasonable to keep reminding everyone of that question?
You're saying the 1.5 c° is the temperature increase that would come from doubling the current Co2 levels? I'm pretty sure that's not how this number is meant to be represented...
So if we have no warming in the tropics with a 70% increase in CO2 how much temperature increase will we get from a 100% increase? I think I'll light the BBQ and eat some meat.
Most of any effect will be where the sun shines most on the equator. Thus ECS can be higher without any rise in sea levels. The warming effect caused by CO2 is logarithmic. That means that for each rise in degree warming you would need to double, triple and by many magnitudes the amount of CO2 in order to get a 2 or 3 degree rise above 1 degree. Then there are valid arguments that the CO2 spectrum is already saturated due to the fact that it shares the same spectrum as water vapor and thus, you will get no more warming. What's more, the combined emissivity of CO2 and Water Vapor is less than the sum of each.
@gghhkm The only way you get more than 1°F warming from CO2 is water vapor feedback and nobody really believes that. The runaway greenhouse effect doesn't occur because the 15 micrometer band which is the main source of absorption "saturates" and the addition of more CO2 does not increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere. The effect on temperature is the logarithmic curve and we must be on the flat part because there is no indication of temperature increase over the past 30 years. At least not according to our data.
ECS is an estimate of how much global temperature will rise if atmospheric CO2 doubles. So the estimate now is that if it were to rise from, say, 300 to 600 ppm, once all the complex feedback mechanisms had settled down which would take decades or longer, the average temperature around the world would be 1.5 degrees higher. And atmospheric CO2 would then have to double again, that is reach 1200 ppm not 900 ppm, to see another 1.5 degree increase.
The standartly used 3-sigma 99.7% confidence interval for the ECS is. from 1.5 'C to 8'C (extremely likely in the IPCC speech). This is an 500% uncertainity. Unreluability is evident even without comparison with data-based ECS estimates.
Many people don't know that the IPPC "most likely" scenario of 3C rise assumes the entire third world develops substantially, largely through coming up the energy production/use curve. This equates to burning coal at about five times the rate the world does today. It assumed few advances in improvements in efficiency in generation and transmission, none in storage, and none in emission control and management. In other words, it contradicts all human history, especially that of the past 200 years where innovation and invention has occurred rapidly. Maybe worse, most plans go after those nations already reasonably managing their emissions, while giving a pass to the worst offenders, and perhaps denying the third world its shot at joining the rest of us in terms of quality of life.
The cO2 feedback modelling is predicated on the theory that the gas’s ability to capture heat and radiate it back in all directions warming other gasses and water vapour etc and supposedly trapping heat closer to the surface. I have a problem with this theory and it is simply that heat rises. You only need to look at a lava lamp to see thermodynamics in action. It is entirely possible that cO2 is acting to cool the planet by capturing heat and transporting it to the upper atmosphere where it can escape out to space.
Pantomime52 . You misunderstand science and or seem to be wilfully ignorant. If you understand science as you attempt to imply by tossing insults and dispersions you wouldn’t just be an alarmist troll spouting crap you’d actually say something actually based in science to refute what I said but if you had any kind of clue you would have looked into the validity of my point before commenting but like all alarmists your opinions are scientific facts and everyone is wrong. The only problem with pushing rope is if the alarmists scientists said it was the mechanism of climate change you’d believe it without even attempting it your self.
@@PaulJoanKieth More insults self aggrandizing and as yet no science just a few buzz words and a total lack of understanding. The possibility that cO2 is cooling the earth is a scarier one than the obvious wrong premise that it is heating the earth, the records of ice ages put a nail in the coffin of cO2 heating the earth but unfortunately not the opposite, and Ice ages are far worse than a little bit of extra heat.
The take away people must seek even if the issue still is up in the air. People: if you have a heat wave-learn to acclimate, buy an AC, buy dri-fit clothing, hydrate. Do not think that a politician can wave their hand & the heat wave is going to go away. You have to ask yourself: why does anyone think that mankind can totally undo a natural process & invent things to meet your ideal. This is all about power. What they want to do is for you to give up your AC, your car, & anything else.
Can someone explain please why the higher the number 4.5 would make noticeable results take longer to arrive? Seems like it would be the other way around. Just trying to figure it out. Thanks
@@ClimateDN There is no reason to argue the merits of propaganda like this. It is obvious why this video was made and it has nothing to do with scientific discovery.
@@chrisleaver929 Nor could you argue its merits if you tried, evidently. It is obvious why this comment was made and it has nothing to do with civilized debate.
I once had a teacher who warned us that the enviros would try to conflate CO2 with CO1 and then use that to scare people with, relying on them not knowing the difference. And he was right. Oh boy was he right...All the hysterics I talk to about this clearly think they are the same thing. Anyway, I almost think you're giving too much credence to the gobbledegook being spewed by the enviros in these videos. Anyone with a relatively basic understanding of chemistry knows that CO2 is a heavy gas and that it therefore sinks quite quickly. This leads to CO2 accumulating in lowest place it can find. Depressions, caves, basements and the surfaces of lakes and the ocean. There is not some secret reservoir of CO2 floating around in the atmosphere. So if you can breathe in your cellar we're probably fine, plus any CO2 down there will NOT, I repeat NOT cause any global warming whatsoever since it does not interact with sunlight. And once in these low places that are not your basement it binds easily with the water, as it does with minerals. So not only does the carbon in CO2 get scrubbed by plants, but even the minuscule amounts that don't get chemically absorbed in soil, rock and water. Finally, even when the earth's atmosphere on rare occasion manages to store large amounts of CO2 briefly, which only happens when there is a volcanic eruption, this accumulation COOLS the climate. Anyone who knows the first thing about volcanoes knows that. And that doesn't last either, and the atmo normalizes in a few weeks to months. None of this is even slightly affected by human activity and we should stop pretending that it might be just to spare the feelings of a few dangerous morons. They are morons and must be told that they are morons. This is all a big bet on the collective ignorance of the human species. Do you or do you not have the capability to look up basic scientific facts that flatly contradict the religious dogmas of the climate cult? That is the question being asked of all of us, and if you ask me the answer is just depressing and sad. Because clearly a lot of people do not have this capability.
Gee! As the CO2 increases towards doubling, the plants will eat it up faster and they will grow better, the biosphere regulates the amount of CO2 by consuming it and by diluting it with the oxygen that it produces. Deforestation should increase CO2 and desert reclamation should decrease CO2. Warmed by solar radiation, the temperature is maintained by the atmospheric pressure, the planet Mars atmosphere for example is mostly CO2 but Mars is very cold because the pressure is very low. The moon has zero pressure and so is very cold, even in full sun. Scientists that want to explain this are suppressed by political strategists.
I love your well presented videos :) Just so you know, your audience isn't only in Canada and you might consider yourselves international rather than just speaking to Canadians.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
These posts are "top-drawer", among the most professional quality productions on this topic out there, anywhere.
This includes the velvety-voiced narration - she has a superb, high-end broadcast quality cadence. So beautiful to the ears. I cannot stress how important this is to present a polished, authoritative narrative. Don't ever let her go.
Polished production is extremely important when you're trying to pass off pseudo science as real science.
@@damob5969 specifically, how would you better explain the question of ECS?
@@owensuppes1 I wouldn't because I'm not a scientist. Neither are John Robson nor the voice over lady. If CDN had something worthwhile they'd submit it for peer review or at the very least start a conversation with actual climate scientists rather than post it here in this dark little corner of denialism. Doing so isn't hard, there's dozens of them on Twitter more than happy to discuss scientific matters of AGW. I'm also dubious of this page because of a article they did on the Australian bushfires which contained a couple of blatant fabrications. I've tried to seek clarification on this but of course I've been ignored.
@@damob5969 I can offer a critique of the video above; relative to ECS. I would have appreciated a more in depth discussion of the various ECS estimates(as Lewis and Curry 2018 has done). And there is a robust debate between the few teams who have recently published on ECS. Worth following if you get the chance.
I'm curious, so was your critique levelled more so at the coverage of the Aussie bush fires, or the ECS topic?
@@owensuppes1 My issue is with the assertion these posts are "top drawer". I've taken the time to fact check two of them and both proved disigenuous at best.
You forgot to mention Arrhenius 1906 paper where he again addressed the CO2 impact. His initial paper neglected to take into account the effect of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. In this second paper, he greatly reduced the impact of CO2 when water vapor is included in the analysis.
He also neglected to take into account the effect O3 Ozone.
One of my favorite questions is asking Alarmists is which greenhouse gas causes the most radiative forcing and invariably they say CO2.
Even Arrhenius knew that he'd made a basic error.
Water vapor (clouds) effect on atmospheric temp worldwide is unknown. This measurement is constantly changing, but must have a large effect on the atmosphere.
Dr. Robson is a breath of fresh air in the stagnant realm of blind sheeple purporting to hold absolute truth.
This is the same crap that we got from the tobacco, sugar, etc industry. Essentially they are trying to create doubt. Who benefits from this? Fossil Fuel industry. In fact, in the 1970s the Fossil Fuel industry concluded that they needed to address (not good for their business)...or create doubt. This is just what we have here .... designed for science illiterates. Of course, if we go to the original models of the Fossil Fuel industry they are quite good in terms of global temperature and CO2. "Climate models - even those published back in the 1970s - did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” Zeke Hausfather, University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
So true
All he had to do was fabricate some "facts" and cherry pick a few studies to impress you. Really, anyone can do it.
Was watching an Rex Murphy interview Patrick Moore the other day. Patrick brought to light a seldom mentioned fact. While observing Canada’s average ambient temperature, Canada is the coldest country on the Planet. We need more CO2.
Why is there never any discussion of the benefits of Co2
Because no one will be okay with taxes for something that's beneficial.
Pot growers sure discuss it a lot.
B Smith because alarmists are idiots.
Pantomime52 mine?
Problem with the entire business is that it is the ocean that determines the CO2 concentration in the air, and not emissions. CO2 is degassing from the ocean, but CO2 will be dropped back to the ocean with the rain, and there is a balance there. Doesn't matter how much CO2 we put in the air. The ocean will digests all surplus CO2 anyway. And if the trees ate all CO2 in the air, the ocean would automatically provide new. There is a lot of chemistry and buffers on the ocean that will maintain a balance. For more, read this piece by a prominent geochemist: _6.3.1.2__ Some Thoughts on Ocean Chemistry_ - www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean-Chemistry_NIPCC_CCR-II-B_2014.pdf
The fact is we need far more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now....Carbon = life...
What do you suggest? Burn oil products by the trillion barrel, just to find out?
@@JohnnyMotel99 If we need to we can release more CO2 from calcium carbonate.
@@JohnnyMotel99 Don't need to "find out". Just ask any green house operator.
Anyway, the real issue in my view is the future of our industrial world. Currently it is firmly based on fossil fuels. There is no tipping point or any other such hype term, but eventually we will have to transition to other energy bases, or radically reduce our energy needs.
There have doubtless been some bad developments, such as the wholesale use of plastics, (not that I am against all plastics). That is the debate we need to develop, and leave the extremist anti capitalist hype behind.
Please find someone with some money that can start suing MSM for spreading fake news.
...and the government minions who push this agenda .
Unfortunately a lot of them have labeled themselves as opinion shows, removing the liability from law suits.
@@PaulJoanKieth After having read your response the only logical conclusion is you did not listen to the video.
@@PaulJoanKieth I agree, this should not be a political issue, I have voted Liberal 2 of the last 4 federal elections. Problem is that politics and group think have far outstretched the actual science. The point of this video is that the models that are used to support the Alarmist view are not supported by real world observations. The blanket analogy is apt as at some point adding more blankets doesn't trap any more heat. In the case of CO2 its warming potential is almost completely maxed out and it is theorized (yet unproven) additional forcings that are the source of concern. We have yet to see evidence of this.
George Davidson - A class action in each country would be nice.
Awesome reporting!
without co2 above 150 ppm, we all die of starvation, we are now on 400 ppm, thank got for that
and not only got but also the inventor of the combustion engine 🤣
Let's move to Venus! It's 96.5% CO2 there. And 467 degree C.
volker: yeah, and no food because no water
Volker Siegel and another thing, Venus is must closer to the sun, so its warmer by place, and now you see, you told it yourself: the sun is the driver behind the warmth of a planet
Volker Siegel to have plants, you need light , water and co2, and the more co2, the lesser water....
Why the hell does You Tube feel like they need to balance this video with some thing from Wikipedia? I am a big boy and can pick what I watch on my own. I have now subscribed thanks to them.
Because you don't have adblocker.
You all are doing great work. You present detailed and important scientific information in digestible segments. You challenge ideas and positions without demonizing others. Exactly what the world needs from science!
@@PaulJoanKieth And what is your position on this? Oh, you are on the other side of the debate. Oh, that's right! You think science is not debatable. All good science is debatable, however. So where does that put your approach, seeing how you do not, or cannot debate this subject?
@@PaulJoanKieth Not only facts but debunking your type of nonsense. 😁
@@PaulJoanKieth Legitimate data shows you are fake news.
@Pantomime52 You mean saying stuff like the Arctic will be ice free, Polar bears all dead, Maldives under water, Manhattan flooded, Great Barrier Reef dead, children won't know what snow is, etc, etc, etc.... Noooooooooooo, the alarmist scientists haven't said anything that would confuse or, God forbid, frighten the electorate!!! The alarmist scientists have 'screwed the pooch' with their unfounded claims of catastrophe and then Climate Gate pulled back the curtain. Sorry, warming may or may not be real, but they've lost the existential imperative by spouting this rubbish. I cannot see the industrial world cutting overall carbon emissions and to deny the developing world fossil fuels is 'literally' to condemn them to a miserable life and an early death. If it's really 'an existential threat,' you should be promoting nuclear the way I do when I comment! So is it an existential threat, or an excuse to redistribute wealth etc???
This is the same crap that we got from the tobacco, sugar, etc industry. Essentially they are trying to create doubt. Who benefits from this? Fossil Fuel industry. In fact, in the 1970s the Fossil Fuel industry concluded that they needed to address (not good for their business)...or create doubt. This is just what we have here .... designed for science illiterates. Of course, if we go to the original models of the Fossil Fuel industry they are quite good in terms of global temperature and CO2. "Climate models - even those published back in the 1970s - did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” Zeke Hausfather, University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Climate change isn't about generating heat it is about generating money.
Roy Spencer has graphs showing the models have been 90% wrong.
Post them dr Patrick MOORE one of the founder's of GREEN PEACE QUIT look him up
Tony Heller too.
Pantomime52 Okay, climate alarmist. Sorry the earth won’t be uninhabitable in 12 years.
867 5309 perhaps the alarmists should all commit suicide and save themselves a terrible death in the near future?
1966cambo Hope springs eternal!
I would feel better about having learned something from this video if RUclips hadn't put the Wikipedia entry excerpt on global warming below the description. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced and policed, if at all, by consensus driven monitors.
The earth cannot act as it's own control. To determine the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide on an earth-like planet you would have to find 50 earth analog planets and double the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on these planets and use another 50 planets as controls and observe them for many decades. The moderation of the earth's surface temperature is a holistic function of the atmosphere and the oceans. It is obvious at this stage that most climate models are not predicting the temperature accurately. The role of cloud cover is poorly understood. If there is significant negative feedback from clouds, then the sensitivity to carbon dioxide may be near zero.
Of course the Earth's troposphere is in itself a "Control System"....the rain cycle...increased radiation into outer space...clouds...ocean currents all redistribute or change the thermal energy in "The System"....bringing it back to equilibrium; If not, we would have had Venus or Jupiter over the past 4.5 Billion years...yet NONE of either....
ruclips.net/video/w4hbKF5-qUE/видео.html Natural cycles of CC.
BS. This is the same crap that we got from the tobacco, sugar, etc industry. Essentially they are trying to create doubt. Who benefits from this? Fossil Fuel industry. In fact, in the 1970s the Fossil Fuel industry concluded that they needed to address (not good for their business)...or create doubt. This is just what we have here .... designed for science illiterates. Of course, if we go to the original models of the Fossil Fuel industry they are quite good in terms of global temperature and CO2. "Climate models - even those published back in the 1970s - did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” Zeke Hausfather, University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Mr Wellham: When I was at university in the 1970's it was well established that smoking was a risk factor for lung cancer. Non-smokers could serve as controls in studies which demonstrated that the risk of lung cancer was increased 40 fold in heavy smokers.
It would be cost effective from the health care cost persceptive to totally ban smoking and pay compensation to the tobacco industry.
The effects of obesity on health were somewhat underestimated in the 1970s. In the 1990s studies on experimental animals showed that partially starved animals had the longest life expectancy.
In humans, obesity became strongly linked to a wide range of cancers, especially breast and colon cancer . Once again, non-obese subjects could act as controls. The link to type II diabetes mellitus had been known for many years.
I trust that you would not want to receive medications from your physician if they had not been carefully evaluated in controlled prospective trials. Would you feel safe if your doctor stated that the medicine was tested in a computer simulation of the human body and it worked well with no adverse effects?
@@MrGandhi210 🤣🤣🤣
NOAA: Manipulates temperature data from stations to match carbon dioxide concentrations.
Also NOAA: Wow, look, temperature goes up with CO2!
Very informative. Thanks
I farm near Calgary. We had the most tremendous crops ever last year. Co2 good.
@Michael Markowsky Sorry, Michael. Hurricanes are at the lowest levels in decades. The same with droughts. However! To support your side, reports of increased hurricanes and droughts in the media are at an all-time high. The problem is, it doesn't match the records.
You're following political science.
During the medieval warm period, it was good for Europe, but the USA, or a good chunk of it, suffered from a century long drought. That's one of the reasons climate change is not so good for everybody.
@Michael Markowsky yes! irecently read somewhere that the average temp in russia and canada was around 0c. the 2 largest countries are freezing cold ice.
Excess CO2 is good for plants but extreme heat waves and droughts are not.
In 1906 Arhenius changed his tune to 1.6C "“Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of -1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.”"
I think that anyone who just takes the time to look around them can see for themselves that the increase in CO2 has not changed their lives one iota.
The results of comparisons between most of the model's predictions and most of the observable changes in climate show clearly that the climate is orders of magnitude less sensitive to variations in CO2 levels than alarmists would have us believe.
Dr John, soil atmosphere has approximately 16 to 20% CO2, or 5 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if we are looking to see what kind of environment survives in 5 times current atmospheric CO2 levels, then we can see this in soils. Earthworm Jim has wiggled happily for much of the past 400 million years in this kind of habitat. Just another thought to add to the conversation that CO2 is somehow bad for us. It isn't, (well it could be if thats all we had to breathe, but this is not the case for the past 2.2 billion years )
Mel Royale atmispheric CO2 concentration is 0.04% not 4%
There are many factors that effect the temperature. Between 1900 and 2000 three million miles of asphalt roads were constructed in the USA (according to the American Asphalt Institute). How does that fit into their simulations?
Dry Western Australia is getting greener from increased CO2.
Aussies love that(i.e. if they were ever informed by MSM)
And the Great Barrier reef is a dying husk of what it once was.
@@megabeaver23 Latest report. Record coral recovery on the reef following bleaching events.
A cyclone that went through some time ago did worst damage due to path it took.
If I understand the global warming propaganda correctly, for global warming to be as bad as they claim CO2 must be involved in a positive feedback loop. In my training as a research chemist around 40 years ago I was shown why positive feedback loops are extremely rare in nature and for good reason. I would find it fascinating as well as good information for others if this channel addressed the need for a positive feedback loop in order for the global alarmists claims to work, why positive feedback loops are so rare, and why negative feedback loops are the norm. Thank you for your consideration of this topic.
@@PaulJoanKieth What I was primarily referring to was the idea that increasing CO2 increased temperature which increased the amount of water vapor which increased temperature even more which then should cause more water vapor into the atmosphere, etc. If all of this was started with a wee bit of increased CO2 and this positive reinforcement continued, then when and where does it stop? And yet this positive reinforcement, as I understand the models, is the basis for the majority of the predicted temperature increases that are woefully incorrect.
@@PaulJoanKieth Don't forget to add O3 Ozone into the Equation...Otherwise your not playing with a full deck of cards.
@@PaulJoanKieth Sir, I am not ignoring your comment nor am I not understanding what you stated. What I was doing was to simply clarify the focus on what I thought was clearly a misguided attempt to legitimize a positive feedback loop that appears bogus as a basis for warming claims by those pushing catastrophic climate change.
@@PaulJoanKieth Simple? Your over complicating the mater by not talking about what truly controls the dynamics of the earths atmosphere...O3 Ozone, H20 Water Vapor, Cosmic Rays and the Sun. If CO2 is a major contributor, then how did the major warming period of the 1920's to the 1960's occur? While CO2 concentrations were far lower than today.
I am not a Canadian. Can I still watch?
Our initial focus was a Canadian audience. We're very gratified at the response from around the world and will acknowledge it in future videos.
@@ClimateDN Please - the UK is in the terminal stages of climate fever - we need an antidote desperatley. The effect of carbon neutral by 2050 will be far more catastrophic than anything coronavirus can do!
Every time I see a beautiful tree I like my car even more.
Kudos to the contributions of John Robson, a sane voice in an insane world.
Here is a question I've asked for more than 30 years, "If there is a lot more water vapor in the air there will be more clouds. What is the effect of clouds?" The climate scientist I asked said that we don't know so we ignored it in the models.
Great info. Thanks
@gghhkm Respect your POV but not convinced.
The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) stated that "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5 °C and 4.5 °C and very unlikely greater than 6 °C". --Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this uncertainty is hardly comforting. I guess some people are just fine with the gamble. I am not.
p.s. our hero is a professor at Augustine College. I had to look it up: "Augustine College is an unaccredited, private, Christian liberal arts college in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada." Oh dear! Motivated reasoning much?
8:16 Weird that he somehow missed Bjordal, J., Storelvmo, T., Alterskjær, K. et al. Equilibrium climate sensitivity above 5 °C plausible due to state-dependent cloud feedback. Nature Geoscience 13, 718-721 (2020). doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1 I think it's clear that the answer is unlikely to be as high as in the recent models (viz. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091220) but, again, that's not necessarily very comforting. An ECS of 3 is likely very bad news -- and irreversible on any time scale that matters.
@@xchopp I have a point of view if that's your question.
The trouble here is that because the policies people are proposing in response to climate change are crushingly expensive, you're obliged to gamble either way. Are you just fine getting rid of reliable, affordable energy, with the horrendous costs in human flourishing and even human life that would result, over something that turned out not to be happening? I am not.
P.S. In IPCC-speak "medium confidence" actually means a coin toss - it's 50-50. (They used to call it "inconclusive" but found that it made people less likely to take the gamble I'm asking you about.)
You don't know what we missed because of what you missed. Have you watched this video: climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/how-bad-is-co2/? Or do you find it easier to critique views you don't first take the trouble to familiarize yourself with?
I absolutely agree with your content, Dr Robson. Just a very small point - the video clip starts with the Earth rotating west - I hope this won't undermine your credibility.
It just might do that !! The Magnetic poles are moving towards each other and may flip !! Check it out .
best vid yet
Far too logical! Terrific work
Can you please stop fooling people by cherrypicking and misrepresenting science?
You showed a "best estimate" value of 2.5°C per doubling of CO2 from the AR1. Well, but the range used for the projections in there is *from 1.5° to 4.5°C*, and there is no given level of confidence at all for that range.
In the 2007 Report they say: "likely to be in the range of *2 to 4.5°C* with a best estimate of about 3°C"
In the 2013 report they say: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the *range 1.5°C to 4.5°C* (high confidence)
So, where exactly have they been more unprecise recently?
If the climate sensitivity was not more than 1.5°C per doubling of CO2, how do you explain 1.2°C warming since 280ppm?
What is your response to the Hausfather et al. 2020 (Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections) paper?
Co2 is life!
The evidence is out there for all to see. All glaciers around the world are in retreat, arctic ice is thinning more rapidly than all models have predicted, Antarctic ice is in rapid decline and sea level is rising. Whilst individual extreme weather events are hard to link directly to climate change, their increase in frequency is. Here in the U.K. We have had 'once in 100 year' floods five times in the last four years, and in late 2019 vast areas of New South Wales in Australia were lost to fires, followed in January 2020 by freak flood events. So, yes, let's focus on the evidence!
CDN: Let's take some time to mention our sponsors...
Me: RAID SHADOW LEGENDS!
What is needed is open honest scientific debate.
Lol, you. I like you. I like that you think anything to do with politics is going to be honest or open. I wish I could still feel that way :(
@@jamesdurpington8619 Too true unfortunately - but the debate must be held - organised by scientists who are not corrupted by politics. Who the hell would we choose to do it and on which tv channel. Forget the BBC - so biased it only fits on the left side of the screen!
@@Federer935 That's the tough part. Any time money becomes a factor, it's closely followed by corruption. Science, religion, politics, all of it. Tainted by the lust for money, and unfortunately I don't think scientists are immune to that desire. Many scientists that even question climate change "science" right now have their careers ruined, and at the end of the day, we all need to be able to pay rent/mortgages.
@@jamesdurpington8619 Very true - that's how the Nazis gained power and kept it with an iron grip.
Professor Kelp is right....I have no idea why they call him "Nutty."
Alex Epstein’s book “The Moral Case for the Use of Fossil Fuels” is an eye-opener. His thesis is the use of fossil fuels and the energy derived from them in the last 70 years has allowed humanity to thrive. Worldwide we are richer, eat better, live longer, are more comfortable than ever before, and the climate effects of the use of fossil fuels is empirically negligible. The book is well written, easy to understand, and his information is well documented. Read it, you’ll be glad you did.
Well said Duane. Yes all true, also backed up by Dr. Patrick Moore.
Thank you!
CDN always knocks it out of the park. Well done! You guys should do a montage of failed climate predictions.
Follow the money is also a good way to discover the truth.
@@salomaoserra6432 and that's exactly what they would want you to type.
Excellent well thought video
@7:55 Can you post the link for the CDN support Patreon page?
So you cannot exclude a very high climate sensitivity but you still recommend not to worry?
So I recommend you to fly with the 737 max8.
Best estimate is that it won't crash.
No reason to worry.
Besides that even a two degree sensitivity means huge effects based on what we are doing.
And these things are already happening all over the world.
Science in the late 70s/early 80s still looking good...
Then it was scare mongering of a different type. The so called "scientists" were threatening an ice age!
@@mrofnocnon True.
I remember when the IPCC had radio thermometers all over the world. Those in Arctic regions were placed farther apart than thermometers in tropical areas. When objections were made, they were ignored.
Follow the money. $$$$. Governments and companies getting rich through universal carbon taxes and trade offs. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
Could you please post the links to the peer reviewed scientific papers from where you sourced your data from?
@@PaulJoanKieth My question is an open one, not directed at a particular individual but anyone who could supply the links requested.
@@Ree1981 Thanks Ree , I had my suspicions but I never like to jump to conclusions without studying the evidence first. Assertions were made in the video that I hadn't come across before which is why I wanted links to their source material. I'm inclined to think that it doesn't exist.
You omitted to explain a crucial detail in what is otherwise a very good presentation. ECS doubles so from what 350ppm to 700ppm or from a different base? At current growth rates when would 700ppm be achieved and do other factors such as the greater uptake of carbon from the greening effect slow the rate of growth?
Need to panic - probably not. No need to be concerned - probably not. The most common sense approach lies somewhere between these two extremes.
I think the only good thing that has come up recently with all this is the idea of pollution. The need to be concerned is that we're cutting down forests and polluting bodies of water like they're going out of style. CO2 might be the thing that helps build our forests back up.
I agree. Large scale deforestation has little to recommend it. It does seems that in the short term higher levels of co2 (relative to pre-industrial levels) are indeed beneficial to growth. However the effect may be short-lived as plants adapt and acclimatize. In addition extra growth may be limited by the levels of other nutrients in the soil. Restraint is still called for.
@@jamesdurpington8619 Trees have been cut for hundreds of years and are being cut today. How can that be? Could it possibly be because of wood products companies' replanting programs? They are so greedy that they want to keep on cutting into the future instead of stopping now and adding to the already high poverty in America..
In the meantime, you have a choice to keep on living in society, or living in the wilderness where there is no production of anything. Yes, You could move into the jungles of Costa Rica if you really wanted to. Stay off of the beaten paths so that you are not bothered. www.costarica.org/attractions/jungle/
A simple analysis of the motives of political and commercial players tells one everything needed about what's going on. The idiots are the impassioned masses that buy into the hysteria and panic. They are truly just useful idiots.
Frighteningly true - UK has just had a dose of the Greta climate youth blackshirts.
@@PaulJoanKieth Frighteningly brainwashed. You will go far.
Pantomime52
I am an old man, but I can still remember my 7th grade world history text books that introduced me to the terms Climatic Optimum, Little Climatic Optimum, and little ice age. These were naturally occurring periods in which the earth was much much warmer that it is now (or is predicted to return to by alarmists) or much colder. Mankind existed and even thrived during the warm periods.
Modern civilizations began during the Climatic Optimum when the equatorial regions were much hotter and consequently much wetter than is the case today. The overall desertification of the mid-east is the result of global cooling not heating. Currently the planet is recovering from the Little Ice Age. Average temperatures have not yet recovered to levels that preceded it.
Temperature fluctuations are normal, but if you start your analysis at the lowest recorded temperatures in the recent past you will automatically notice a upward trend. You can then attribute any reason for the temperature rise you want.
Note I am not disputing whether or not the climate is changing now. I have merely observed that within recorded history the average temperature of the earth has varied widely and mankind and the entire biosphere has thrived when the temperatures were higher.
I do not believe man made CO2 emissions are driving the temperatures higher, but if they are the answer is to reduce "worldwide" CO2 emissions not issue carbon credits and demand offsetting debits. The nations issued the credits can't use them and the nations faced with reductions can't afford the effect on their economies that reductions would entail.
Suddenly, we have trading organizations arise that will handle the exchange of credits for debts for a small processing fee. Worldwide it is approaching multiple billions of dollars a year.
If man made emissions of CO2 was determined to be the sole source of the earth's warming, then the goal must be global CO2 reductions. Not a system in where carbon credits are exchanged which makes someone rich, but offers no total reduction in CO2.
Rearranging the deck chairs and offering steerage class passengers a meal in the first class dining room before the ship sinks is not a recipe for success. If the ship is sinking plug the holes. Bail! Ignoring, reality and trying to make money off it is stupid to say the least.
The "Al Gore" green crowd that believed if they bought a 50 pound lump of coal and buried it in the backyard it was okay for them to fly because they had sequestered an amount of carbon equal to their passenger share of an intercontinental flight and were thus carbon neutral. Really? Why did they mine it in the first place. It was already "sequestered"! Digging it up and reburying it has absolutely no affect. It merely allowed environmentalists to feel good about themselves while the guy that dug the coal and the guy that sold the coal both made money
Pantomime52 Nice to be able to debate an issue without resorting to emotional arguments.
Actually, the world has been warmer than it is today or is predicted in reach in the near future. You can find this out for yourself by Googling "Climatic Optimum.". Most of the variation can be accounted for by orbital mechanics and the earth's axial tilt. Currently, the climatic alarmist want to discard past research by asserting that the warming trend periods were not uniform and the southern regions were cooler than the northern hemisphere.
Anybody that has ever visited the sea shore will have observed that there is an onshore breeze in the morning. This is because the land warms up faster than the water. Heat rises and you get an influx of cooler air from the ocean. Since most of the land masses on the planet are north of the equator you would expect that any warming would be accentuated there rather than in the south which is mostly water.
I suspect that this simple fact would tend to make the alarmists claims spurious or at least suspect. Ice cores from by the Arctic and Antarctica both show warming trends about the same time. To me this indicates that the warning was a global phenomenon whether the magnitude of the warming varied by planetary location. It is amusing that alarmists twist the "land warms up before water" physics by pointing out that currently the northern hemisphere is warming up faster than the southern hemisphere, but then attributing this observation to the distribution of the planetary population and consequent greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is a couple of things I have observed and speculated about.
In the 1970's the Climate Scientists were predicting a new ice age. Coincidentally, the Environmental Protection Agency was formed. The first issue they focused on was Acid Rain caused by Sulfur Dioxide. Interestingly enough if you graph reductions in SO2 emissions and the Ski Jump spike in reported temperatures you will see that they are reciprocal.
In the 1990's, scientists showed that SO2 was a catalyst for cloud formation. Since since clouds reflect sunlight, a reduction in cloud cover would logically follow. So, did we cause the current weather anomalies? (Note- Scientific research is being conducted to determine if seeding the stratosphere with SO2 to create clouds would avert global warming.
Another, observation is that sunlight is bent by interactions with gravitational and electromagnetic fields. While this phenomenon is most strongly observed around Black Holes, the underlying physics would argue that what holds true on the macro scale must also be true on the micro scale as well.
I earlier pointed out that most of the recent (I.E. last 10,000 years or so) global warming events can be proven to be mostly due to changes in the earth's orbit or axial tilt. I wonder if scientists have also factored in the affect of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields of the other planets? The reason I ask the question is that during the recent past (sorry I can't leave this post to look up the actual date) we were being told that a once in 900 year planetary alignment was going to cause massive earthquakes on earth due to the concentration of planetary gravitational forces pulling in a direction counter to the Sun's.
Obviously, we didn't all die due to earthquakes, But, did the planetary alignment cause a focusing effect on Sunlight in the arc occupied by the planets? I don't know and doubt anybody has investigated the event. Currently satellite monitoring of the amount of sunlight being received by the earth is being performed in near earth orbits. To determine whether or not any "bending of light" causing a change in the solar constant is occurring would require satellites both preceding and following the earth by 120 degrees. Closer spacing would allow better observation of any planetary effects.
Not saying the speculation about planetary affects above is true or not. However, it is a possible area of investigation. Some scientists have reported a concurrent melting of ice caps on Mars and an increase the luminosity of the atmospheres of the moons of Jupiter as being evidence of warming occurring on those planets as well. I must point out that other scientists dispute these observations and say even if true there are alternative explanations. But I must also point out a potential bias because these same scientists are those how argue that climate change is a man made event and must be eliminating the effect of mankind on the planet.
A side note. Pollution is defined as any effect of mankind on the environment. Similar effects caused by animals or natural processes are considered "natural.". So, if there are a million buffalo eating grass and farting methane it is natural. But, if you replace the buffalo with a million cows who eat grass and fart methane, suddenly the cow's methane is a greenhouse gas and must be controlled, even if the quantity of methane release by the cows is the same as the buffalos.
Excuses are made for aboriginal people by environmentalists who state that the forests were better managed by natives who routinely started the woods on fire (as an aid to hunting) because it prevented the catastrophic fires we have seen recently. I would argue that starting the forest on fire and shooting everything that runs out of the smoke a good game management practice. Furthermore, is there a difference between CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and that released by a forest fire? Isn't it the same molecule, with the same affect on the atmosphere?
Maybe we should be thinning the forest to prevent catastrophic fires and burning the resulting product as fuel instead. It is a renewable resource and releases no more CO2 than was absorbed by the tree in its lifetime. So, net effect on CO2 concentrations would be minimal and as long as a new tree grows either as a product of natural process or planted immediately by mankind CO2 removal from the atmosphere would offset that burned. After all, is there any difference between CO2 released during a forest fire and wood burned in a furnace if it is the same tree?
I will stop for now. As before I am not saying we shouldn't be goods stewards of the planets resources. I am merely pointing out logical inconsistencies in the laws proposed, demanded, or already passed by (please forgive me for using the term) environmental wackos who seem to think their enjoyment of the world would be enhanced if only they and a few close friends were left to live in a pristine wilderness.
Nice discussion.
CO2 is good for the planet !
And another Swede! Keep going!
If it was possible to tax water vapour, the alarmists would be screaming about Dihydrogen Monoxide Pollution, since that's by far the most significant greenhouse gas. CO2's effects are far less and they're logarithmic. Doubling the CO2 concentration from its current level would have very little additional effect on the temperature. But that's all too complicated for the St Greta's® of the world.
The video incorrectly states that the largest effect (I'm assuming as regards temperature) from CO2 would be over the tropics. The reverse is actually true. While a mid-tropospheric "hot spot" hasn't formed as predicted by models, the greatest temperature effects from rising CO2 are predicted to be in the polar regions.
Aren't you missing the point? The Tropics shows the most consistent temperature as despite the planet's obliquity and eccentricity, the equatorial regions remain warm regardless of the season or the position of the planet during the orbit. Surely the poles are subject to the greatest variation of temperature during the seasons as their angle to the sun can either create permanent daylight or permanent nighttime. In that case, during the arctic winter, no matter how much extra CO2 is in those latitudes, there will be virtually no radiative forcing as there will be minimal energy hitting the Troposphere.
On the other hand, as the equatorial regions are barely changing at all, any appreciable change in forcing would be spotted. On top of which the Troposphere is much higher (16 Km) at the equator rather than at the poles (10 Km). So naturally the atmosphere above the dew point, where it is solely CO2, Methane, Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide causing the forcing is where we need to see any changes. Except of course all the balloons and satellite measurements are telling us there isn't any change at higher altitude (where there should be due to CO2) but there is at lower altitude, due to increased water vapor. The obvious conclusion is that CO2 is not causing much (if any) warming, but water is.
Love your videos, love from Australia.
Who is this guy? Why does he think he’s smarter than climate scientists? Asking questions is fine in the context of primary research, but a consensus has been reached and time is short. This guy has an implied political agenda he is not divulging. He is trying to undermine decarbonization by creating skepticism in clever sounding video clips.
Here's who I am: climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/a-historian-looks-at-climate-change/ As for our "implied political" you have a noun you're not divulging. Whereas we're very up-front about what we think and invite you to try to dispute it using facts and logic not innuendo. And about that "consensus": climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/the-97-consensus-slogan/
@@ClimateDN your sources seem to be yourself, interesting.
@@crissis3263 If we have previously discussed something we will point people to that previous discussion. There's nothing odd about it. Have you never heard an author recommend their own book on a subject?
Thanks dr. Robson thanks from leendert Herman Wassenaar78 Holland
You're welcome. Please share it with anyone you think might find it helpful.
Well done
Dr. Robson: "If both [ECS and C02], we face a crisis."
Not necessarily. To tie the two together we need more than scientists wondering what will occur if C02 doubles. There must be finite correlating evidence, and then the causal evidence must be weighed against other possible causes, such as the sun, et al.
Otherwise, a very good video.
You are obviously another product of a public school "education." I won't respond.@@PaulJoanKieth
Could you please do at least one video like this one without asking for patronage, enabling me to send it to my alarmist friends without giving them the ability to question your monetary motives
I've spent the last 6 mths on the saturation topic & when I draw it out now I see what they mean about saturation. It's similar to humidity & how it makes us feel during a heatwave. Do it at home experiments to mimic the effect would be like pouring sugar or salt by the tablespoon into say a glass of water with say a nail in the bottom & watch how the turbidity affects it.
Thank you. Some things are missing though. How can we double the C02? Are there no other factors that may have caused the recent warming? And how big is human's part on rising C02 levels? Taking these open questions into consideration it is unclear if there is any danger at all.
Nice analysis John Robson. I invite you to also question the notion of 'equilibrium'. I don't think this is a robust concept in physics, chemistry, or climateology.
Take a fucken science class, everything is about equilibrium. Even in a high school chem class you'll hear that word 500 times
The models consistently over estimate the ECS. The models are insufficient at this point. New science suggests little or insignificant impact of CO2 doubling except increased greening.
The formation of arctic sea ice was slow in 2020. Artic ice generally starts in the area of east Siberia, and was likely delayed by an unseasonably hot late summer. Researchers in the area have now discovered permafrost in the seabed was melting and producing large amounts of methane. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas as compared to carbon dioxide. This isn't a climate model, but a real world finding
And because of CO2 the temperature is rising melting permafrost and then releasing methane warming the planet melting more permafrost
8:22 the chart with the ECS estimates being on the low range of the original. Its easier to get funding and grants when there is a :perceived impending climate doom.
CMIP6. Almost Nooooooo Human forcing. The science laughs at the Climate Alarmists
They are living in the past....
Great info thank you.
Thank you for the science.
for computer models, the saying--Garbage in Garbage out!
Getting climate education from Robson is like getting dermatological advice from the Clinique counter.
at 3:10, you make an error that taints everything that follows. The statements regarding ECS are not "findings".
Keep up the good work John, greetings from the UK
It seems you're willing to gamble on our ecosystem, for which you'll never witness the outcome. But your grandchildren will! But, those are tomorrow's problems, right?
The problem is that the alternative is to gamble our economy on what may well turn out to be a phantom menace, causing a disaster by 2030 that your grandchildren will certainly witness and you may well also. There are major potential risks either way. But there's no avoiding the hard work of figuring out which ones are real. (Besides, according to most alarmists we are already witnessing the outcome, a proposition that I grant is hard to sustain factually. But surely that calls their judgment on other issues into question too.)
@@ClimateDN _"the alternative is to gamble our economy"_ Our economy is a gamble in it self. _"There are major potential risks either way."_ True, but that doesn't mean we can do nothing. Our economy will recover, Our ecosystem fit for humans might not.
CO2 is food for plants and trees. The more CO2, the more trees and plants grow and thrive
What about plants? They take up CO2 to grow and therefore must have a huge impact on the amount. If we reduce CO2 plants will suffer. Plus the oceans have CO2 in the water and will emit CO2 as they warm.
Dr Robson, Is the ecs effected by increasing plant growth due to increase in co2? Have they left this out of the models?
What is the appropriate CO2 level in order to stop AGW? Just asking.
Floyd FloydNC There is no AGW. Our contribution is so small that the effects are lost in the sampling scatter... We can not measure it, in other words.
S R.B Yes I know that AGW in nonsense. I always ask that question when people start talking about CC. CO2 levels are only @ 0.04% in our atmosphere and man made CO2 is only a fraction of that. I just wanted to see what the AGW climate alarmistes crowd were going to come up with like explanation. No answer for the moment here and neither from the IPCC fearmongers. They say that 414 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is a bad level, but they can’t say what is a good one. This is not science.
Pantomime52 250 ppm? How do you know that this is the appropriate CO2 level? Just guessing I suppose.
Thanks John - but - I think it needs to be mentioned in each video - That the Question is also - "Is man's contribution to the CO2 level enough to tip the scales towards catastrophe?" Because that is where all the hubbub is - and errant policies - and attempts at controlling world wide energy use - carbon credits and the money made off them - financial ruin to Western societies and suffering to the common people and third world especially. - etc., etc. What do you think, sound reasonable to keep reminding everyone of that question?
You're saying the 1.5 c° is the temperature increase that would come from doubling the current Co2 levels? I'm pretty sure that's not how this number is meant to be represented...
So if we have no warming in the tropics with a 70% increase in CO2 how much temperature increase will we get from a 100% increase? I think I'll light the BBQ and eat some meat.
@@PaulJoanKieth So they say do you house somewhere there?
@@PaulJoanKieth More fake facts. TROLL
Most of any effect will be where the sun shines most on the equator. Thus ECS can be higher without any rise in sea levels. The warming effect caused by CO2 is logarithmic. That means that for each rise in degree warming you would need to double, triple and by many magnitudes the amount of CO2 in order to get a 2 or 3 degree rise above 1 degree. Then there are valid arguments that the CO2 spectrum is already saturated due to the fact that it shares the same spectrum as water vapor and thus, you will get no more warming. What's more, the combined emissivity of CO2 and Water Vapor is less than the sum of each.
@gghhkm The only way you get more than 1°F warming from CO2 is water vapor feedback and nobody really believes that. The runaway greenhouse effect doesn't occur because the 15 micrometer band which is the main source of absorption "saturates" and the addition of more CO2 does not increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere. The effect on temperature is the logarithmic curve and we must be on the flat part because there is no indication of temperature increase over the past 30 years. At least not according to our data.
What is the significance of the 1.5 degrees? Is that a rise per time period? How long? Or a rise per CO2 rise?
ECS is an estimate of how much global temperature will rise if atmospheric CO2 doubles. So the estimate now is that if it were to rise from, say, 300 to 600 ppm, once all the complex feedback mechanisms had settled down which would take decades or longer, the average temperature around the world would be 1.5 degrees higher. And atmospheric CO2 would then have to double again, that is reach 1200 ppm not 900 ppm, to see another 1.5 degree increase.
The standartly used 3-sigma 99.7% confidence interval for the ECS is. from 1.5 'C to 8'C (extremely likely in the IPCC speech). This is an 500% uncertainity. Unreluability is evident even without comparison with data-based ECS estimates.
Many people don't know that the IPPC "most likely" scenario of 3C rise assumes the entire third world develops substantially, largely through coming up the energy production/use curve. This equates to burning coal at about five times the rate the world does today. It assumed few advances in improvements in efficiency in generation and transmission, none in storage, and none in emission control and management. In other words, it contradicts all human history, especially that of the past 200 years where innovation and invention has occurred rapidly.
Maybe worse, most plans go after those nations already reasonably managing their emissions, while giving a pass to the worst offenders, and perhaps denying the third world its shot at joining the rest of us in terms of quality of life.
Climate change is not trendy anymore. We can get alarmed about corona virus now, but who to blame?
The cO2 feedback modelling is predicated on the theory that the gas’s ability to capture heat and radiate it back in all directions warming other gasses and water vapour etc and supposedly trapping heat closer to the surface.
I have a problem with this theory and it is simply that heat rises. You only need to look at a lava lamp to see thermodynamics in action. It is entirely possible that cO2 is acting to cool the planet by capturing heat and transporting it to the upper atmosphere where it can escape out to space.
@@PaulJoanKieth KEK! You can push wire rope.
Pantomime52 . You misunderstand science and or seem to be wilfully ignorant. If you understand science as you attempt to imply by tossing insults and dispersions you wouldn’t just be an alarmist troll spouting crap you’d actually say something actually based in science to refute what I said but if you had any kind of clue you would have looked into the validity of my point before commenting but like all alarmists your opinions are scientific facts and everyone is wrong.
The only problem with pushing rope is if the alarmists scientists said it was the mechanism of climate change you’d believe it without even attempting it your self.
@@PaulJoanKieth More insults self aggrandizing and as yet no science just a few buzz words and a total lack of understanding.
The possibility that cO2 is cooling the earth is a scarier one than the obvious wrong premise that it is heating the earth, the records of ice ages put a nail in the coffin of cO2 heating the earth but unfortunately not the opposite, and Ice ages are far worse than a little bit of extra heat.
The take away people must seek even if the issue still is up in the air. People: if you have a heat wave-learn to acclimate, buy an AC, buy dri-fit clothing, hydrate. Do not think that a politician can wave their hand & the heat wave is going to go away. You have to ask yourself: why does anyone think that mankind can totally undo a natural process & invent things to meet your ideal. This is all about power. What they want to do is for you to give up your AC, your car, & anything else.
Can someone explain please why the higher the number 4.5 would make noticeable results take longer to arrive? Seems like it would be the other way around. Just trying to figure it out. Thanks
I seems CDN has figured out that cherry picking and fabrication is a great way to prove your point, even if it isn't true.
Abuse is not argument.
@@ClimateDN There is no reason to argue the merits of propaganda like this. It is obvious why this video was made and it has nothing to do with scientific discovery.
@@chrisleaver929 Nor could you argue its merits if you tried, evidently. It is obvious why this comment was made and it has nothing to do with civilized debate.
@@ClimateDN So, obviously it is just better to completely dismiss the video entirely. Thanks for the insight.
@@chrisleaver929 Here's your hat. What's your hurry?
I once had a teacher who warned us that the enviros would try to conflate CO2 with CO1 and then use that to scare people with, relying on them not knowing the difference. And he was right. Oh boy was he right...All the hysterics I talk to about this clearly think they are the same thing. Anyway, I almost think you're giving too much credence to the gobbledegook being spewed by the enviros in these videos. Anyone with a relatively basic understanding of chemistry knows that CO2 is a heavy gas and that it therefore sinks quite quickly. This leads to CO2 accumulating in lowest place it can find. Depressions, caves, basements and the surfaces of lakes and the ocean. There is not some secret reservoir of CO2 floating around in the atmosphere. So if you can breathe in your cellar we're probably fine, plus any CO2 down there will NOT, I repeat NOT cause any global warming whatsoever since it does not interact with sunlight. And once in these low places that are not your basement it binds easily with the water, as it does with minerals. So not only does the carbon in CO2 get scrubbed by plants, but even the minuscule amounts that don't get chemically absorbed in soil, rock and water.
Finally, even when the earth's atmosphere on rare occasion manages to store large amounts of CO2 briefly, which only happens when there is a volcanic eruption, this accumulation COOLS the climate. Anyone who knows the first thing about volcanoes knows that. And that doesn't last either, and the atmo normalizes in a few weeks to months. None of this is even slightly affected by human activity and we should stop pretending that it might be just to spare the feelings of a few dangerous morons. They are morons and must be told that they are morons. This is all a big bet on the collective ignorance of the human species. Do you or do you not have the capability to look up basic scientific facts that flatly contradict the religious dogmas of the climate cult? That is the question being asked of all of us, and if you ask me the answer is just depressing and sad. Because clearly a lot of people do not have this capability.
Exceptional viewing, guys! Excellently produced videos. Highly recommended. 👍
Government fear porn. Reason? It’s easier to control people with fear than with knowledge
Gee!
As the CO2 increases towards doubling, the plants will eat it up faster and they will grow better, the biosphere regulates the amount of CO2 by consuming it and by diluting it with the oxygen that it produces. Deforestation should increase CO2 and desert reclamation should decrease CO2. Warmed by solar radiation, the temperature is maintained by the atmospheric pressure, the planet Mars atmosphere for example is mostly CO2 but Mars is very cold because the pressure is very low. The moon has zero pressure and so is very cold, even in full sun. Scientists that want to explain this are suppressed by political strategists.
I love your well presented videos :) Just so you know, your audience isn't only in Canada and you might consider yourselves international rather than just speaking to Canadians.