amazing lecture. I have a geophysics/geodynamics course at university , we had some sessions about paleoclimate. This lecture says so much in just 35 minutes, very good
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.
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.
21:04 It's also that more evaporation=more clouds=less sunlight=plants emitting carbon and absorbing oxygen. And more warming means thicker and higher clouds
That depends. If the increase in evaporation is driven by higher atmospheric temperatures, this would also increase the condensation point of water, which would mean less clouds. The two factors might cancel each other out. Afaik, the current climate models are inconclusive whether higher atmospheric temperatures would increase or decrease overall precipitation. But more water in the atmosphere would drive temperatures even higher because water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas. This also contributes to the positive feedback loop.
@@martinborm2871 Condensation point of water is mostly due to altitude, if not the Hadley cell wouldn't move during seasons or warmer global temps wouldnt mean wider equatorial regions/rainforests. Also if what you were saying about condensation point being mainly driven by atmospheric temps, the tropics and equator would not be covered in clouds and instead be the sunniest places in the world.
@@mennehgambia1962 Thanks for the prompt reply. Good point. I always thought the tropics had a disproportionately higher absolute air humidity and therefore higher rates of precipitation. I'll have to look into that. I suppose that's what you meant by higher clouds. They would just form at higher altitudes because of the shifted condensation point.
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.
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" ??
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.
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.
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.
You are delusional. The graph is very clear data that climates varies naturally, especially once you see the ones that show climate since paleocene or longer. Its carbon, in different GHG who warms the earth, from biodiversity, and now from machines that uses tons of carbon. Its simple chemistry, get over it idiot.
amazing lecture. I have a geophysics/geodynamics course at university , we had some sessions about paleoclimate. This lecture says so much in just 35 minutes, very good
Best explanation of how climate works, that I've found. Thanks!
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.
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.
Amazing lecture
Fairly simple for a graduate level lecture. Those looking for something similar but juicier should look into historical geology.
21:04 It's also that more evaporation=more clouds=less sunlight=plants emitting carbon and absorbing oxygen. And more warming means thicker and higher clouds
That depends. If the increase in evaporation is driven by higher atmospheric temperatures, this would also increase the condensation point of water, which would mean less clouds. The two factors might cancel each other out. Afaik, the current climate models are inconclusive whether higher atmospheric temperatures would increase or decrease overall precipitation. But more water in the atmosphere would drive temperatures even higher because water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas. This also contributes to the positive feedback loop.
@@martinborm2871 Condensation point of water is mostly due to altitude, if not the Hadley cell wouldn't move during seasons or warmer global temps wouldnt mean wider equatorial regions/rainforests. Also if what you were saying about condensation point being mainly driven by atmospheric temps, the tropics and equator would not be covered in clouds and instead be the sunniest places in the world.
@@mennehgambia1962 Thanks for the prompt reply. Good point. I always thought the tropics had a disproportionately higher absolute air humidity and therefore higher rates of precipitation. I'll have to look into that. I suppose that's what you meant by higher clouds. They would just form at higher altitudes because of the shifted condensation point.
@@martinborm2871 exactly
@@martinborm2871 ❤👍🏿
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.
Just saw an answer tonight. The 100k and 41k milankovich cycles have to both line up. Creating a double summer.
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" ??
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.
Thanks
lots of love from. India
Thanks so much for making this information public access/ 🧡
"Holy balogna Batman??
IMO, CO2 does not drive temeperature -- it follows it,.
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.
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.
Globally should be able to correlate with drying but yes not by one tree or even forest.
I was with you until you showed the hokey stick. Goodbye.
He uses the fraudulent hockey stick graph that abolishes the natural climate variability.
You are delusional. The graph is very clear data that climates varies naturally, especially once you see the ones that show climate since paleocene or longer. Its carbon, in different GHG who warms the earth, from biodiversity, and now from machines that uses tons of carbon. Its simple chemistry, get over it idiot.