Відео

8:32 add to the “difficult” times (along with the little Ice Age and the dark ages) the Bronze Age collapse at 1200 BC - note the dramatic dip from the Minoan Warm period. It is INSANE hubris to actively attempt to cool the planet.

Man-made climate change is a eugenics death cult. It's the pretext for impoverishing humanity, with a long-term plan to keep population low and minimise human development. The greenhouse effect "theory" is scientifically incompetent and amounts to a scientific fraud. As explained by Dr Roy Clark : ua-cam.com/video/PsM4aOmCb_U/v-deo.html

We know why atmospheric [CO2] lags temperature changes. Curious people should look up: (a) Henry's Law, (b) The carbon cycle (c) how CO2 solubility in water falls with rising temperature, (d) how oceans warm (from the top), and ONLY due to sunlight. Because back-radiation, from 'greenhouse gases', does not penetrate water. It is all absorbed in the top few fractions of a millilitre. In contrast sunlight penetrates to a depth of many metres before it is all absorbed. (e) So nearly all the energy from back-radiation must result in an increase in surface evaporation from water. This surface evaporation of water is responsible for about half of surface cooling - by means of latent heat transport (from the surface to the clouds.). It primarily cools the tops of oceans. (f) How earth's oceans act as a 'buffer' for atmospheric CO2, and heat. One reason is because water covers 71% of earth's surface, AND the heat capacity of water is about 4 times that of a similar mass of atmosphere of solid earth. So our oceans are the reason why we have a relatively stable climate! (g) Of course there are also ocean currents warming the oceans but these basically just move heat around (from warm to cold). They don't add. Henry's Law states that, for a given temperature, the [CO2] in the ocean is proportional to that in the atmosphere. If we doubled [CO2] in the atmosphere, the system would put over 95% of that into the oceans. This equilibrium maintaining the same relative proportions is called Henry's Law. These are so many little details of the climate which modelers never tall us about. In particular they never tell you why CO2 is an essential gas for life on earth. It is the basis for life. It is currently dangerously low - according to geological time evidence. Dangerously low because - only 20000 years ago, it fell to only 180ppm during the last deep glaciation. In consequence large areas of earth's surface were denuded of plants. Most plants cannot live with CO2 below 150ppm. At 180ppm plant survival is marginal. Man-made climate alarmists talk about how you must 'believe in climate change' but they never tell us why climate changes. They lie and mystify climate change.

Oh man, just using that garbage chart is an immediate disqualifier. This is not just disinformation, it's really lousy science.

Sorry but a seriously crafted work doesn't start with "controversial" it shows you've colored your opinion before hand. There is no serious challenges to AGW based on paleoclimate data, in fact it greatly supports why what we're seeing in the last century is unprecedented in the paleoclimate record.

This presentation omits many key studies.

12:12 Oh dear... you've forgotten to account for the fact that Solar irradiance has increased over time. Please look up the recent publication by Gavin Foster, Christopher Scotese, Benjamin Mills, and Emily Judd.

1:05:10 No, "not ambiguous at best". If you read the original study by Jeremy Shakun and co-authors they show that temperature is correlated with and globally lags CO2 during the last (most recent) deglaciation even if in some regions it appears that temperature leads CO2.

Absolutely fascinating content and analysis! It's a shame he doesn't have the English language articulacy - eg 39:25 and many others - to be able to communicate this better. Generally very poor use of the English language. But fantastic work here....

I would like to know how they can determine the number of sun spots in the past.

37:00 another completely deceiving graph which tries to show that the temperature is independent from the co2 concentration. Again , the global temperature is a multi variable function. This graph makes zero sense as it ignores the sun power output trend and continental drifting. Pathetic.

Video : Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2

Unfortunately misses key driver: atmospheric pressure. CO2 has nothing to do with it as his data shows! He needs to examine work of Nikolov and Zeller. They are currently treated as lepers by the climate cabal who keep wondering why they can’t get it right!

About the graph at 12:00 , the evolution of co2 and temperature over the last 500 million years. Our sun is an ordinary star with a well known evolution. This is basic nuclear astrophysics : the sun power output/luminosity increases by 1% per 100 million years. This explains why there were ice ages in the remote past when co2 was way higher. The sun was simply much weaker. Actually the reason why the earth was not an ice ball back then was because of all that co2. See the young faint sun paradox In this graph, replace the co2 evolution with a sun luminosity evolution ( a straight line with a positive slope ) and you could say the same thing : no correlation. But who would be stupid enough to say the sun has no influence on the global temperature ? When you factor in sun and co2 , then there is a great correlation as a bunch of studies demonstrate. There is much to say about this graph. Right under the graph I try to read the different sources. Analysis of the temperatures, oscillation ... Scotese 2002, for the temperature Ok. There is a 2021 paper from Scotese though. May not have been available then. Earth's climate: Past and future By Rudimann Is a class notebook ! But it can be a quality one. I quote, from fig 14-1 "During the deglaciation between 17,000 and 6,000 years ago, climate changes were driven by rising summer insolation and increased CO2 concentration..." Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene, Pagani I quote : "The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica." If you google : "Phanerozoic co2 temperature" you will find the original Monte Hieb graph, with a lot of orange, pink ... and a lot more squarish graphs ! The thing which makes consensus was what happened 251 million years. The Siberian trap , a Large Igneous Province, released so much CO2 over 1 million years that the temperature reached sky high level, 30+ degree C, and the environment became so toxic that it was the root cause of the most massive extinction event ever. On the old Monte Hieb graph there is a great synchronization of the 2 events. CO2 and temperature rise at he same time for this LIP. On the graph showed at 12:00 in this presentation ... There is a flat CO2, only to rise at 208(?) million years. This is highly suspicious to me ! To quote the most recent Scotese paper, Phanerozoic Paleotemperatures: The Earth’s Changing Climate during the Last 540 million years, Scotese 2021 : "At the beginning of the Mesozoic Era, the Earth was an extreme hothouse world with average tropical temperatures approaching 40˚ C. It now widely accepted that the extreme global warming that ended the Late Paleozoic Icehouse was caused by the voluminous eruption of the West Siberian Large Igneous Province (LIP)(Ernst, 2014). During a brief interval (~ 1 million years) at the Permo-Triassic boundary (252.1 Ma)" And also : "In this essay, we have documented that the eruption of ~20 large LIPs are strongly correlated with times of warmer global temperatures (Figure 15 Tables 3-7)" I have only just noticed the "Wikipedia" label on the bottom right ... This is an even bigger farce ! I do not trash Wikipedia, but to use it as a source for a presentation like this ? Not serious. Also on that graph at 12:00 you can read "Conclusion and interpretation by Nasif Nahle". Fyi, Nasif Nahle says CO2 is responsible for cooling ... 🤣 The Late Paleozoic Ice Age: An Evolving Paradigm , Montanez & Poulsen 2013 The Earth’s Changing Climate during the Last 540 million years, Scotese 2021

January 2024....here. Trudeau , the climate change buffoon has resigned 😊🎉😂🙏💪🤣🤣🤣

The climate crisis is the greatest hoax ever created and shoved down our throats. All misinformation and disinformation propaganda lies deception and manipulation. CO2 is the gas of life, if levels drop lower than they are plants start dying and then all life will die. The optimal level of CO2 for plants is 3 to 4 times greater then current levels, fact.

Thankyou Roger and Thomas, such a complicated system to try and understand.

Enlightening Energy In v Energy Out graph at 8:30. Very interesting presentation, this is such a complex issue that reducing it to one main influential parameter (CO2) feeds the sensationalist monster but starves the intelligence fairy.

Wow. So mankind actually has zero effect on climate, CO2/methane does NOT trap heat in the atmosphere, and we should be more worried about cold than heat. Way to go, brutha. Ignorance is truly bliss, delusion comforting.

at 33:00 of this video it shows the earth's temperature following Earth's Obliquity but not C02 - C02 is rising. My theory is that as the globe was getting colder over time the earth's vegetation was also slowly dying off and drying out as would be millions of plant life species and creature species. If the vegetation was dying and drying out this would lead to massive fires that release C02 into the atmosphere as would the C02 in dying plant and animal life also be released. This would explain the increased C02 levels. You could also add increased need for fire by man at the time cutting down trees, building shelters and burning massive amounts of wood to keep warm....

This seems to be quite clear, CO2 causing climate change is a myth. I'd say this was brilliant, the climate change drama is a political/science/money farce.

It seems to me that the natural state of our planet is actually glacial due to the amount of water on our planet and our distance from the SUN. However, the sun's cycles often warm the planet enough to reduce or eliminate ICE and snow for periods but it will always go back to glaciation.

baffled that someone would dedicate so much of their time on mental gymnastics such as these. sad!

thank you so much for explaining all of this - this gives me debate points when dealing with climate alarmists

When you get right with the biblical history, any more of as well, appreciate your efforts

At 1:08:08 Mr.Gallagher presents a table that suggests (or at least says) that "solar insolation on the earth changes by 100 W/m2 between summer and winter" as well as at other times. This is obvious nonsense and I stopped watching this little video at that point. Solar insolation is a term used to describe the total amount of energy from the sun irradiating the top of earth's atmosphere. It is normally expressed as an average over the entire planet of around 348.5 W/m2. The earth moves around the sun in an elliptical orbit and the radiation no doubt changes sightly between the apogee and the perigee of that orbit but the average is still 348 W/m2. Summer and winter are terms used to describe the effect on different hemispheres at different points on the earth's orbit over a year but the total amount of solar insolation is exactly the same irrespective of the planet's place in its obit. When it is 'winter' in the northern hemisphere there is less insolation in that hemisphere but this is exactly balanced by the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere and vice versa. The earth is a ball circulating around a furnace. It doesn't matter where in the obit the ball is, the radiation from the furnace is exactly the same (for a circular orbit). If the presentation makes elementary schoolboy errors of this kind, one assumes that the balance of the 'information' is potentially equally unreliable.

@1:09 False. It is a hypothesis until proven.

@8:10 'Atmosphere GHG' list is lacking the greatest contributor H2O.

@40:48 The charter of IPCC is unscientific. IPCC was tasked to find and publish evidence to support AGW hypothesis. This task is not science.

Roger needs to answer the following: How much of the climate do we "control", and what is the ideal concentration of CO2? In doing so will lose most of his followers. The primary forcing is CO2, and we are responsible for all of the increase. Since there is less solar irradiation in the past 60 years or so, it's clearly not the sun. It's not earth path or wobble. Primary forcing for the past 200 years, as Roger would have to admit, is CO2. "Ideal" concentration is a question a middle school child would know, but Roger should answer that as well. The ideal would be a level between 180ppm and 350ppm like we have had for millions of years (estimated at 3 million years), i.e., a natural level had we not disrupted it. So to answer the question today, keeping it at or below 420ppm would be ideal. Better would be 350ppm, but that's simply not going to happen. Roger will not answer those questions because he needs his followers to remain duped into thinking we are not the cause of the rapid warming. His duped followers will not accept those well-established answers because they have been fed a lot of far right-wing nonsense.

@21:18 Cloud prediction accuracy 25% to 35%? Did they demonstrate how they obtained these 'accuracy' numbers? I bet they did not.

1st 'draft' of Working Group 1 report is not published as such as far as I know*. Instead all report 'drafts' are finished and then all WG1,2,3 reports are edited to comply with the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers). Texts are edited, material deleted and material added to those reports by the IPCC bureaucrats. ---- *from an interview of John Christy So the work of the real scientists is butchered and their names cynically exploited in this psychological warfare operation.

When the ice is all gone and the ocean water reach your feet... then you will understand the logic of climate change.

incredible...your 3 parts...wonderfull information

as YOU EXPLAIN...the earth, climate, phisics of the earth it´s very very complex to say that CO2 it´s the guilty of "climate change". What´s the point to point to Co2 as the guilty molecule. It doesn´t have any sence

Seen anomaly in your records around 1036 AD? ua-cam.com/video/c876lPZ-UZU/v-deo.html

12 K vues ? curieux. excellent

pourquoi si peu de vues pour une vidéo aussi intéressante ? Merci pour ce très bel exposé.

après 3 ans, 8800 vues ? et 266 like ? La bêtise des interautes semble infinie.

Merci pour ce brillant exposé. Pourquoi si peu de vues ? Censure ? Dérange le changement climato-financier ?

Great presentation!! Very comprehensive and well presented. Thanks!!

Excellent synopsis!! Every climate scientist should see this.

A great promotional video. Thx Roger. We miss you out there.

12:00 it is so wrong to show that co2/temperature over the last 500 million years without saying the sun is warming by 1% per 100 million years and without talking about continental drift whihc is going to impact the thermohaline circulation and the capacity to build ice caps at the pole.

Brilliant, Al gore established the CCX in 2006 which is going to make him very rich when carbon trading starts. Al Gore put panic into the feeble minded while rational thinkers asked and continue to ask what is the evidence that co2 is the boogie man?

Brilliant. Surely your presentation negates the CO2 madness of Climate change. THANKYOU

Awesome presentation. Couldn't this issue be solved by requiring battery disconnect whenever connecting to shore power? I was thinking having a relay or contact or whatever you want to call it Automatically disconnect when plugged in?

Now the climate crisis people are trying to modify history to show that the temperature has not changed in the last 10,000 years. There are such papers coming up. These years will be recorded in history as when science succumbed to politics and fraud.

What happens when a group of skeptic scientists who are funded by oil companies gather all the raw temperature data they can, and they create their own algorithms and show all work? What do they conclude when they compare their results (temperature graphs, forcings) when compared to others?

Some rather "inconvenient" information there for the tax collectors?