Відео

These are all basically the same question. If the ice melted in the Arctic wouldn't we see a smoothing out of the temperature gradiant across the polar front? And wouldn't the polar easterlies warm, therefore decreasing their density, and therefore weakening upward convection of the ferrel cells warm westerlies that get pushed upward by the cold polar easterlies to make the polar low pressure? So wouldn't warming of the Arctic weaken (possibly severely) the polar cell and the northern part of the ferrel cell?

Amazing series! Is it possible to share the slides or notes of this series?

Boy I have a lot to learn

I love these videos are awesome they're exactly what I needed

This is great. Can we find the PDFs of the presentations?

Thank you so much for this video! Helped me a lot to understand parametrization for my exam :)

You are amazing! Thank you so so much

Huh?

I was with you until you showed the hokey stick. Goodbye.

Even with all that money and computing power the models are still way off.

Omg I love this! I was looking for exactly this!!

Extremely helpful - thank you!!

"Holy balogna Batman?? IMO, CO2 does not drive temeperature -- it follows it,.

At 2:23 the image shows variability in tree ring width from side to side. If one is working on an early tree ring sample do they have the full diameter or just "one side" of it, I wonder.

Thanks its helpful to understand the weather climate up to this date 2024

Great lesson. Does anyone know why the adjustment rate of the ocean is 15 W m2 K-1? (#6:41)

Please is there a place where i can solve questions after watching all the videos

I did not hear how you calculate temperature from tree rings? Which I understand is what lead to the "Hockey Stick" using these proxies of prior temperature. These tree rings then in modern day do not match with actual records. Therefore there must be something wrong with the "Hockey Stick" ??

I have a temperature data, how can I calculate the wave number by using this temperature data? thank you

Do you have Hovmellor matlab code

Thank you for making that clear. Climate modelling is an art and no science.

History of the climate model? Son, there is no mention of Milankovitch in your school textbooks?! I'm sorry that they condemned you to eternal darkness at such a young age.

What I want to know is why scientists don't use antarctic ice core data to determine co2 levels beyond 800 000 years ago, when we know the antarctic ice sheet formed 34 million years ago. Only the accuracy of timing beyond 800 000 years is lost, but we still know that since in all the ice core data there wasn't an instance with co2 levels beyond 300ppm, this means there wasn't an elevated co2 level up to 34 millions ago either, contradicting the unreliable proxies. And since we now could adjust the proxies with that information, it would mean the co2 levels were estimated too high even beyond 34 million years ago. Finally, given that crustaceans never all went extinct, since they appeared 500 million years ago, but they can't exist without sufficient carbonate, which is disappearing with the acidification of the oceans right now, that again, we were never in a co2/methane regime like we are now, ever since animal life appeared basically. We can't lose ocean life, that would be terminal I think. So my suggestion would be no more new fossil projects, write off everything that's still in the ground and untapped (until maybe a thousand years later when we feel like preventing an ice age). Make existing production expensive by a phased in massive tax over 10 years, so nobody is going to buy new ice vehicles much longer 22:21 yes I don't buy the linear correlation of O18 with temperature. It's not going to be linear and depend on a bunch of other variables. 27:11 I think it is very dangerous to 'estimate' that co2 was much higher back then based on some random co2 models from a few people. In my mind there is absolutely no way to estimate the turnover in biomass and the amount of biomass that has decomposed back into the atmosphere..I mean seriously go pound sand. All we know about co2 for sure is the antarctic ice core record and that one is clear as hell: do not go over 300 ppm. And yes nobody talks about the sun having been much weaker back then (according to same models I take it) which means you can't take elevated co2 levels at face value. In any case this 'co2 was higher nothing happened' is gaslighting.

Geography teacher from the UK here. This is an excellent video - clear, succinct yet detailed. Very helpful indeed.

Great talk that helps me build general knowledge about the model Intercomparison and evaluation. Thank you a lot!

What is wrong with the feedback loop claimed for CO2? Big question is how then does glacial maxima terminate and how does interglacial terminate if CO2 is a major factor. That CO2 lags both termination means that CO2 concentration is the effect and not the cause. Otherwise, it would either be that we are stuck at warm temperatures or we are stuck at the bottom of a glacial maxima. If ever CO2 has any effects, it is too small to be the driver of global temperature.

Tom Gallagher from Calgary University explains the climate record quite accurately using the continental drift theory and carbonic acid cycle. CO2 doesn’t play any significant roll in his theory but it is quite compelling.

The CO2 warming theory leaves out the role of carbonic acid in the climate cycle. The other factor missing is the Beryllium-7 paleo data that recorded the suns effect on climate which along with water vapor and clouds explains the climate record quite well. Climate scientists need to remove the CO2 goggles so that they can see the real drivers of climate.

What is the meaning of annual oscillation (AO)?

A couple suggestions: Where is the W/m2 change due to the greening of the earth from CO2 fertilization? There is also no discussion about the decreasing effect of CO2 infrared emission as concentration increases or quantification of CO2 saturation level in the energy absorption and emission band.

You are amazing!

wonderful greta will tell people what to think.

Thank you, Prof.

Taco bell vorticity energy! Taco bell employees for vestal!

After my nap I'm researching vorticity!

The hockey stick handle based on dendrological records is not accurate to any degree whatsoever. It shouldn’t even be shown as resembling anything factual related to global temperatures.

Tree ring records cannot be used to recreate temperature records. Precipitation is the primary cause of tree ring thickness. Temperature has very little influence on tree ring thicknesses. Droughts and temperature are not well correlated.

The discussion on sea surface height anomaly don't take into account the effect of wind thas can displace water : by geostrophic way, if you put a westely wind over the ocean at mid-latitudes, you will induce an se surface height gradient. No T or S effects here.

28:00 I've always learned that Ekman induced vertical motions was basically a low-level effect, so the presentation here is a bit weird i think. To understand vertical motions in the free atmosphere, you have to look at something other than Ekman things.

Modelling is a great tool but only after a level of certainty about the parameters have been reached. In physics some known factors can be easily established by sheer experience and real live data observations. However, in regards to climate only a very limited amount of parameters are certain. Complicated by a dynamic interactive non equilibrium system one could say with absolute certainty that no model or series of models can be relied upon, not even an average even if they all agree. If the underlying premise or assumption is wrong the outcome is as well. So, if you assume the greenhouse gas theory is right in ALL your models All of them will more or less point to the same thing. Since everyone seems to be focused on Co2 maybe it is best to start the models without that and see how they level up to real time measurements. A lot better than they currently do would be my assumption

Climate sensitivity to CO2? Any statement about this is simply that but not a statement of fact. Ergo, highly speculative and uncertain especially given the amounts of CO2, its saturation and frequency response. And guess what? The more you zoom in the less certain it becomes. Unfortunately the whole climate discussion in terms of political policies hangs on this one element.

Upwards radiation fr the surface is clearly very small as it will be drowned out by convection and conduction to a lesser extend. Another point is that the influence of greenhouse gasses is ( as standard) overstated. I understand you need to connect both upwards radiation and greenhouse gasses in order to make your calculations work. However, convection usually trumps radiation as does conduction. Furthermore, the oceans play a bigger role than the Earth's surface in regulating energy transfer. Overall, H2O which includes clouds and water vapour completely dwarfs anything Co2 might do both in its frequency spectrum and saturation points in light of greenhouse gasses which is of course a misnomer but anyway. The assumptions about greenhouse gasses are always stated as if they are fact. I see them more as speculation just like the use of the SB law. It assumes the Earth as a blackbox but both the Earth and the atmosphere do not fit into the SB straightjacket as far as i can see. It seems, pun intended, rather...forced.

Hello, at 4:15 why pressure surfaces under the warming arent affected ? I would say that the increase of volume of the layer that is warmed would push down on the surfaces below and distord them?

47:57 No, snow and water are near-perfect blackbody absorbers. They have an emissivity of near 1, similar to the others. I call that a paradox, but is it true. (I also have the solution).

Thanks a lot

Very poor explanation on the role of H2O as a greenhouse gas! In fact understates the role of water vapor in the atmosphere, which as a molecule is 10x stronger at being excited by infra-red than CO2. H2O makes up 3% of the total atmospheric gases (Nitrogen is 75%, Oxygen 20%), CO2 makes up just 0.04%.

I'm very interested in the video. can i have it in french language?

Hello I'm afraid I can't reflect the opinions of the others who commented here. I watched the first lecture which was predictable by it's nature, no surprise there but suddenly in this second lecture we dive into black body radiation which is something of a heavy concept especially if you haven't come across it before. Furthermore, the equations just dumped in front of the students, myself included, seem almost to shock and put people off. There is no real explanation of the black body radiation and the ensuing calculations are almost completely unhelpfu because they aren't shown, a fail in an exam I might add. So we went from being put to sleep in the first lecture and part of this one, to being thrown under the bus in this one. Sorry but it just makes me so angry when people who are supposed to be teaching others do this.

Hi Paul, this is a great video that clearly walks through a problem I've been struggling to wrap my head around. I do have a question on your statement that the kinematic method "tends not to be used" because of inaccuracies in measuring the ageostrophic wind. This is confusing to me because I think it's still very much the case that both ECMWF & the WRF model use the kinematic method as the basis for their omega calculations. Do you mean instead that the kinematic method is rarely used for deriving realistic vertical velocity estimates based off observations? It seems to me like it would still be a viable way of calculating vertical velocity on gridded model output fields. Is this a correct interpretation?

Thanks for the explanation of vorticity and how it relates to curl of a vector field. Now i understand the math behind some terrible python code.