In 1859 John Tyndall in the Royal Institution in London showed with his artificial atmosphere unquestionably not only the null effect of infrared heat on oxygen and nitrogen but also its effect on them when CO2 was added. [For this see Gabrielle Walker’s “An Ocean of Air” (Bloomsbury)]. Molecules in a gas are in constant motion. CO2 and CH4 molecules - less than 0.05% of the atmosphere - vibrate when hit by infrared radiation from earth. N2 and O2 molecules - 99%+ of the atmosphere - are not affected by infrared radiation but when CO2 and CH4 vibrate they collide with adjacent N2 and O2 molecules, friction-heating them and they in turn collide with adjacent similar molecules, warming them too in the process. Two-atom molecules like O2 and N2 are not affected by infrared heat but those over that like CO2 of CH4 are and react by vibrating and colliding. This sort of continuous snooker ball effect is responsible for the rapid heating of the whole atmosphere by the relatively few carbon containing and other multi-atom molecules in the mostly nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere. Adding gigatonnes of CO2/CH4 annually is undoubtedly going to increase temperatures annually and when heat always goes from warm to cold air we're bound to reach the stage when what's produced in low latitudes has an almost immediate effect on the air over the poles. On another RUclips video a newscaster announced that the atmosphere in the Arctic was warming nine times faster than elsewhere. Science also tells us that an oxygen molecule in the atmosphere collides with other molecules around 6000m times in a second (The Ascent of Science, Brian L Silver, Oxford University Press.) and this shows how easy it is to understand the almost immediate affect John Tyndall found that GHGs had on his atmosphere when he applied the heat after adding them although the physics and chemistry was not advanced enough at the time for him to understand why. It is thus understandable how the minute proportion of the atmosphere made up of CO2 and CH4 can have such an enormous effect on the rest of it.
How in the world is more rain going to make the ocean less brine? The water that comes down in the form of rain is ultimately sourced from water that evaporated from the ocean. It's like saying you change the composition of your bathtub by putting a bucket in it, and then dumping the bucket back in the bath tub. A NET INCREASE of fresh water can only come from the land based ice.
There was a time when "peer reviewed" meant something. Of course, now political agendas have taken over science and only the views that make the most money (i.e. carbon taxes, etc.) are the approved direction for scientists to go. Any scientists trying to publish real contradictory data end up shunned or worse.
When Polar area was green, it was not at the same position, and sea level was much higher... Billions live on coastline. People may come to camp in our backyard..
I take it that you don't understand the implications of what the positive feedback loop cause by the methane that is being released into the atmosphere. Can you say extinction...?
i was not arguing that FACT i was just remarking how blaming it on humans just wont help? we need to find a viable solution for eliminating methane gas in large amounts now..not in 20 years when people like this decide to stop debating..! we cant slow the coming change in climate and sea levels but we could start to work towards lessening the impact on our plants and animal life by finding ways to purify air on mass,this in turn should help the oceans to remain life sustaining.unacidic.
Yeah? There were tropical forests in Antarctica 80 million years ago, 4 billion years ago the entire surface of the earth was molten, what is your point?
Our global problem is like this, a full glacial cycle takes 100,000-years and CO2 varies 100-ppm, from 180-280-ppm. During the 800,000-year ice-core record CO2 only once got to 305±5-ppm the rest below 300-ppm, ok, we passed that about 1916 and since then added 100-ppm. That's a glacial cycle in only 100-years and it's all ABOVE the highest CO2 value ever reached in the Pleistocene, acidifying the oceans 10-times faster than an extinction event. We must exit the Steam Age for electrons, most grid power is for thermal end-uses 80%, not electricity 20%, so to switch will only take 5-years moving to solar-HVAC, maybe 2-months if it was a war but don't tell. Back to the party, I heard Moses is returning with the first tablets ...
In order to fight against our extinction from global warming we should create survivable communities with the necessary resources to survive global warming. In some respects, they would be like the monasteries that kept learning alive during the dark ages. They could store and protect all the important knowledge needed for high civilization to exist. As harsh as it seems, we might have to let the rest of humanity perish. (Don't worry, I count myself among those who would die.)
There are people all over the world building "climate change" arks. I'm working with a group now we are preparing for the collapse of modern civilization we are training in skills and gathering the knowledge we will need to survive. It's extremely frustrating for those of us that were looking to enjoy a confortable retirement that now we will have to struggle to survive in pre-industrial living conditions similar to American frontier days of the early 1800's. Generating electricity and proper health care will be the most challenging task it seems.
I would like to see us put the most important facets of civilization and human learning on silicon microchips and other media to weather out the coming dark age. It would be similar to the monastaries that preserved human learning during the first dark ages.
+Tom Palmer You can do that ast home on a persoal computer. I'm storing 100's gigabytes of information in science math covering agriculture, natural medicine, basic mechanics and electrician knowledge and metalurgy all on solid state hard drives along with about 800 different movies. The collapse of civilization will brutal at first but enough humans should survive to begin rebuiling , I'm predicting something like what happen to western europe after the black plague. So fewer people but plenty enough to pick up the pieces and keep going.
Yes! The next step would be to coordinate with others of a like mind to produce a systematic repository of human knowledge. We must preserve the technology and values of civilization.
Okayish lecture. The question guy at 39:40 interested me, though with some tedium, as he babbled a load of eclectic nonsense he'd read or heard because I always assumed they are all mischevious imps but this fellow is clearly just well short in the mental capacity for logical analytical thought. I thought the speaker just babbled too much himself in reply but then I don't think at all on my feet so can't cast stones. I picture Richard Dawkins, soul-killer, answering this guy. Would be a riot.
Nonsense. That questioner was a crackpot. There are a lot more of them then there are scientists, because it takes great skill and intelligence to be a scientist, but not so much to be a crackpot. All *his* so-called facts were false, as the professor pointed out as gently as he could. Please please please stop.
In 1859 John Tyndall in the Royal Institution in London showed with his artificial
atmosphere unquestionably not only the null effect of infrared heat on oxygen
and nitrogen but also its effect on them when CO2 was added. [For this see
Gabrielle Walker’s “An Ocean of Air” (Bloomsbury)].
Molecules in a gas are in constant motion. CO2 and CH4 molecules - less than 0.05% of the
atmosphere - vibrate when hit by infrared radiation from earth. N2 and O2
molecules - 99%+ of the atmosphere - are not affected by infrared radiation but
when CO2 and CH4 vibrate they collide with adjacent N2 and O2 molecules,
friction-heating them and they in turn collide with adjacent similar molecules,
warming them too in the process.
Two-atom molecules like O2 and N2 are not affected by infrared heat but those over that
like CO2 of CH4 are and react by vibrating and colliding. This sort of
continuous snooker ball effect is responsible for the rapid heating of the
whole atmosphere by the relatively few carbon containing and other multi-atom
molecules in the mostly nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere.
Adding gigatonnes of CO2/CH4 annually is undoubtedly going to increase temperatures
annually and when heat always goes from warm to cold air we're bound to reach
the stage when what's produced in low latitudes has an almost immediate effect
on the air over the poles. On another RUclips video a newscaster announced that
the atmosphere in the Arctic was warming nine times faster than elsewhere.
Science also tells us that an oxygen molecule in the atmosphere collides with other
molecules around 6000m times in a second (The Ascent of Science, Brian L
Silver, Oxford University Press.) and this shows how easy it is to understand
the almost immediate affect John Tyndall found that GHGs had on his atmosphere
when he applied the heat after adding them although the physics and chemistry was not advanced enough at the time for him to understand why.
It is thus understandable how the minute proportion of the atmosphere made up of CO2 and
CH4 can have such an enormous effect on the rest of it.
Again, for the American viewer 1C=1.8F(F=C9/5+32 or F=C*1.8+32) So when he says we have warmed by .8C he means 1.44F (global average)
If I've done my math right, the 20terragrams is 44,000,000 US Tons. (20T/1000 to get kilos times 2.2 to get pounds /1000 to get tons)
Anyone got a transcript?
How in the world is more rain going to make the ocean less brine? The water that comes down in the form of rain is ultimately sourced from water that evaporated from the ocean. It's like saying you change the composition of your bathtub by putting a bucket in it, and then dumping the bucket back in the bath tub.
A NET INCREASE of fresh water can only come from the land based ice.
There was a time when "peer reviewed" meant something. Of course, now political agendas have taken over science and only the views that make the most money (i.e. carbon taxes, etc.) are the approved direction for scientists to go. Any scientists trying to publish real contradictory data end up shunned or worse.
When Polar area was green, it was not at the same position, and sea level was much higher... Billions live on coastline. People may come to camp in our backyard..
There were forrests in Greenland 800 years ago. So I have to agree with the crackpot.
I take it that you don't understand the implications of what the positive feedback loop cause by the methane that is being released into the atmosphere. Can you say extinction...?
Adapting, IF possible.
how many times does he say "RIGHT" , put me off the lecture "right".
i was not arguing that FACT i was just remarking how blaming it on humans just wont help? we need to find a viable solution for eliminating methane gas in large amounts now..not in 20 years when people like this decide to stop debating..!
we cant slow the coming change in climate and sea levels but we could start to work towards lessening the impact on our plants and animal life by finding ways to purify air on mass,this in turn should help the oceans to remain life sustaining.unacidic.
Interesting, but if the guy says 'right' one more time I'm going to burst a nut.
Yeah? There were tropical forests in Antarctica 80 million years ago, 4 billion years ago the entire surface of the earth was molten, what is your point?
Our global problem is like this, a full glacial cycle takes 100,000-years and CO2 varies 100-ppm, from 180-280-ppm.
During the 800,000-year ice-core record CO2 only once got to 305±5-ppm the rest below 300-ppm, ok, we passed that about 1916 and since then added 100-ppm.
That's a glacial cycle in only 100-years and it's all ABOVE the highest CO2 value ever reached in the Pleistocene, acidifying the oceans 10-times faster than an extinction event.
We must exit the Steam Age for electrons, most grid power is for thermal end-uses 80%, not electricity 20%, so to switch will only take 5-years moving to solar-HVAC, maybe 2-months if it was a war but don't tell.
Back to the party, I heard Moses is returning with the first tablets ...
Oh look, Valhala56 is thumbing-up 2012 videos with real information in them.
No moar G4Mongoloid?
In order to fight against our extinction from global warming we should create survivable communities with the necessary resources to survive global warming. In some respects, they would be like the monasteries that kept learning alive during the dark ages. They could store and protect all the important knowledge needed for high civilization to exist. As harsh as it seems, we might have to let the rest of humanity perish. (Don't worry, I count myself among those who would die.)
There are people all over the world building "climate change" arks. I'm working with a group now we are preparing for the collapse of modern civilization we are training in skills and gathering the knowledge we will need to survive. It's extremely frustrating for those of us that were looking to enjoy a confortable retirement that now we will have to struggle to survive in pre-industrial living conditions similar to American frontier days of the early 1800's. Generating electricity and proper health care will be the most challenging task it seems.
I would like to see us put the most important facets of civilization and human learning on silicon microchips and other media to weather out the coming dark age. It would be similar to the monastaries that preserved human learning during the first dark ages.
+Tom Palmer You can do that ast home on a persoal computer. I'm storing 100's gigabytes of information in science math covering agriculture, natural medicine, basic mechanics and electrician knowledge and metalurgy all on solid state hard drives along with about 800 different movies. The collapse of civilization will brutal at first but enough humans should survive to begin rebuiling , I'm predicting something like what happen to western europe after the black plague. So fewer people but plenty enough to pick up the pieces and keep going.
Yes! The next step would be to coordinate with others of a like mind to produce a systematic repository of human knowledge. We must preserve the technology and values of civilization.
+Tom Palmer You do realize that nearly all Universities and other institutions already archive all their knowledge already.
Okayish lecture. The question guy at 39:40 interested me, though with some tedium, as he babbled a load of eclectic nonsense he'd read or heard because I always assumed they are all mischevious imps but this fellow is clearly just well short in the mental capacity for logical analytical thought. I thought the speaker just babbled too much himself in reply but then I don't think at all on my feet so can't cast stones. I picture Richard Dawkins, soul-killer, answering this guy. Would be a riot.
See ameg.me for more proof.
Nonsense. That questioner was a crackpot. There are a lot more of them then there are scientists, because it takes great skill and intelligence to be a scientist, but not so much to be a crackpot. All *his* so-called facts were false, as the professor pointed out as gently as he could. Please please please stop.