I've binge watched all of your videos this week. While all of your guests have been top tier, Dr Wijngaarden's presentation is the best thus far. Very clear and easy to understand. Thank you for posting all of these videos.
Re: Ice Ages were modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not by CO2 You are correct, CO2 is not the primary control knob - as I have demonstrated in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent modulating ice ages was actually ice-sheet dust-albedo. Free download of peer-review paper available: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo. The first problem with ice ages is: When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent. The second problem with ice ages is: Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2. The third problem with ice ages is: During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response. Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming. The fourth problem with ice ages is: The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly. Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years. All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2. Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting. See peer-review paper: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo. Ralph Ellis Image: This is the ‘money-graph’ for ice ages. CO2 is directly proportional to inv-log dust. The inference being, that CO2 concentrations control dust, …by modulating higher altitude vegetation. .
I'll also add the Grand Solar Minimum, increase of galactic cosmic rays which increases not only cloud nucleation but also volcanic activity increase adding to the albedo and a decrease of UV released by the sun changes Ozone which affect planetary atmospheric waves
CO2: its what Plants crave! But really though. Thanks for your comment, and more likely than not ill find myself at some point soon looking into the study you've mentioned. you breifly mentioned, part of the message Iv'e been preaching for years, to absolutely no avail---- hopefully to get the new age hippies, haters of CO2, the man-made climate change activists, to get them to at the very least be open to facts about CO2. The irony of adopting the tree hugger persona, who protests against any and all human CO2 emission: Plants need CO2. On average, the saturation point for plant life on a very general scale is anywhere between 750ppm --- 1,500ppm of CO2 levels, avg. atmospheric readings. Last I checked the daily readings indicate our CO2 levels avg. around 420ppm. Earth has been "greening" as of recently, as opposed to the dead polluted wasteland the climte experts assure us is the case. I for one would love to see more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants leafs would increase in size. Who knows: could help protect us from the next radiation attack from our SUN!
In the 18th century we had 20% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen. We now use 30x the amount of fossil fuels and thus 30x more Oxygen. But we do not have 30x more trees , grass or Algae. Thus we would have about 6-7% less Oxygen in the air.
This presentation is one of the most lucid and rational summaries of global warming and climate change that I have seen. Extermely well done and entirely accessible to those who are not scientists or engineers. Those who are scientists and engineers but who are not working in the climate or atmospheric physics areas will get alot of benefit and understanding out of this talk.
I'm confused. In the beginning he showed that CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises. Sometimes by hundreds of years. Okay then he went on to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas blah blah blah. He never explained how CO2 raises temperature. I'd like someone to explain how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the mechanism by which it is and the mathematics of it.
@deenpac you are exactly correct. As you explain, "He never explained how CO2 raises temperature." Nobody ever does. Once you realize this (and few skeptics ever do, including William here it seems) you will also realize that any further discussion of "greenhouse effect" or "CO2 Forcing," (both of which can be abused to create the pretense that these notions do explicate the thermal impact of CO2 when actually they don't.) is just obfuscation.
@@Kikkan110 Yes, there are. But they are all just obfuscation. Basic analysis of the thermal characteristics of CO2 in comparison to the other constituents of the atmosphere shows NOT MUCH DRAMA AT ALL!!! This is the reason the people pushing this phony emergency shift the argument to inconcise (and convoluted) verbiage like "greenhouse effect" and "CO2 forcing." It's really just an intellecftual bait and switch routine.
Thank you for this wonderful talk, it brings sense and clarity to an issue that is generally characterised by hysteria and ignorance. We need more pure hard science rather than politically biased science. Many thanks for your time professor.
I am trying to understand the graphic at 18:56 but I can't see how increasing CO2 doesn't affect temperatures at higher altitudes. The more we doubles the saturation, the wider the dip gets, because radiation is also absorbed on both sides of the dip and the emission of more wavelengths in the spectrum moves to higher altitude (to lower temperatures). And if it does, the dip gets wider. That is why the highest saturation line (the red one) is a bit wider. So this means that with increasing CO2 more radiation is emitted from higher altitudes, also making the cooling effect of this part of the atmosphere less efficient.
William is well worth listening too. One thing that confuses me though, is that William also says that the historical ice core data shows about a 500 year CO2 lag following temperature changes. Given that, why does William also say that increasing CO2 causes warming (albeit not much)?
I am a geologist. I believe there is sound geological reasoning to conclude the so-called sealevel rise in Netherlands is incorrect. It is that Holland is sinking, not the sea rising. “Rising sea level” in Holland, and coastal erosion in Norfolk, East Anglia, is not a result of sea rise, but is from land sinking. Perfectly normal for any recent basin of sedimentary rocks. Residents in North Norfolk can attest that serious coastal erosion has been going on for centuries.
I wish to reply that a 15% to 20% compaction of a sedimentary basin can be expected. A 3,000m deep basin results in a lot of compaction. If the estuary of the Rhine had not been built upon, with dykes and levees constraining the floods of the Rhine, all of what is now called Holland would receive new sediments annually and so topping up the pile where cities like Amsterdam now sit. It would look today pretty well what the Romans saw, but Dutch engineering prevents this from happening, and so Holland sinks. Sediment compaction is what turns sediments into rocks, and organic trash in these sediments gets turned into hydrocarbons. That’s why there is an awful lot of gas offshore Holland and East Anglia
@TomNelson: I found the paper mentioned on minute 6: the correct page is 429. I could not find the plot of temperature Wijingaarden shows in blue at minute 6 of his presentation. Actually, his blue plot seems to be a plot of deuterium profile (Fi2a in the paper, but mirrored along y; maybe he took it as a proxy for temp). His green plot appears in the original paper as CO2 on fig3a., but slightly different. Maybe Wijingaarden has the raw data to get those different plots. Pls help us with this apparent inconsistency.
Excellent, reasoned, balanced, dispassionate...all things that the forces of sensationalism abhor, unfortunately. Just be faithful to the message and hope it eventually prevails over the course of time.
Thanks for the thorough presentation! Are the slides presented in this video compiled somewhere? I'd like to study them carefully. Some have journal citations, some don't. I don't have easy access to these journals anyway.
7:21 “So a water molecule with O18 will tend to evaporate more easily at a higher temperature than a water molecule with O16.” Surely that’s a verbal typo, in that it’s the other way around?
Hartelijk dank William voor het delen van jouw kennis en onderzoek op zo’n duidelijke en directe wijze and thank you Tom for giving the floor. The booklet “Is Global Warming Hot Air”, which is thankfully available for free, can only be warmly recommended for anyone who has any form of concern about the climate (although often weather is meant). It is a splendid addition to the easily readable “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone, and vice versa! Science is debate, is discussion, is reasoned challenging ideas/proposals and therefore science is elevated if scientists exchange reasoned arguments about anything that could be amended, improved or more clarified. In Tom’s podcast #113 Yong Zhong raises questions in view of the publications “Atmosphere and Greenhouse Gas Primer” (3 March 2023) and “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gasses” (22 December 2020); both downloadable for free. It would be wonderful if, one or both of the “Williams” (if I may humbly address them so) would respond. One remark having regard the climate computer modellers or the “holy brotherhood of climate model experts” (as Freeman Dyson defined them, see ua-cam.com/video/8xFLjUt2leM/v-deo.html). It appears to me that all those working on computer climate models are trying the best they can. It also appears to me that they are merely trying to keep their chimneys smoking, i.e. living a common consensus “if you cannot beat them, join them”. Basically, that is fine, since who am I to challenge someone who merely wants to (economically) survive in this world? Nevertheless, the question remains: what about professional pride, let alone personal pride? These scientists/modellers know that any climate model may be suitable to describe a certain situation but are not suited to predict anything. Moreover, so many (like John Christy, Freeman Dyson, Murry Salby, Tim Palmer, William Happer and others) have shown that the climate models do not agree with the observations. In addition, Syukuro Manabe indicated in an interview (ua-cam.com/video/yt246lKVhr4/v-deo.html) that he is of the opinion “…that most important thing is understanding climate change. The prediction of climate change without accompanying understanding of it is no better than the prediction of a fortune teller” which opinion is basically repeated in the booklet “Is Global Warming Hot Air” on pages 129-130. According to the IPCC’s AR6, nobody of the climate modelling society is challenging the overall pursuit of the CO2 narrative. Indeed, a careful reader would find multiple proposed improvements of the computer climate models, however, they always concern additional (local) elements, never the overall idea. The most striking element can be found in AR6-WGI, paragraph 1.5.4.6, 1st paragraph where it is stated: “The most widely used technique is to compare climatologies (long-term averages of specific climate variables) or time series of simulated (process-based) model output with observations, considering the observational uncertainty”. Here it is suggested that if the calculated values/output do not agree with the observations, it is due to the observational uncertainties. It is not comprehensible that apparently the whole climate computer modelling society is collectively silent, even though individuals, organisations and politicians are using (abusing, hijacking or whatever one wants to call it) the incorrect, unreliable predicting results of the models to fuel global fear in order to pursuit results/effects that are neither feasible nor sustainable in terms of finance, available materials/minerals, achievability or even linked to the CO2 narrative.
What no one ever mentions when talking about the 500-800 year offset from temperature to CO2 in the Vostok cores @8:52, which nullifies the GW argument, BUT each of these excursions is a planet sized experiment of the CO2 argument. If CO2 were to work as postulated then the temperature spikes would not be so narrow given the now nearly doubled CO2 but would instead persist at a higher temperature for as long as the CO2 was elevated
So what I am seeing is that Dr. van Wijngaarden has developed a model that is correct as opposed to the RCP models used by others. At current ambient CO2 plants are starved for CO2 and stomata are wide open subjecting the plants to water loss. Additional CO2 stomata reduce size of opening thus less water loss. I would like to see the current warming trend compared to the increase of concrete surface area, I'm thinking heat retention over night.
Question: if CO2 absorbs in the stratosphere at a wave number of 660 or about 15 microns, why would CO2 absorb radiance from the Earth emitted at 10 microns even if considering the Plank distribution?
A photon relies for energy on its emitting surface and the Sun is high but moon and earth a great deal lower. It's not radiation at night causing climate change. Convection under cloud cover gives frost protection however not seen on a clear night.
@@plinnytheother6107 Something has to be acidic before it can become 'more acidic'. The oceans are extremely alkaline. They use the term 'acificication' to describe a totally unproven movement towards neutral as acidification simply because it's alarmist and frightening to the uninformed (ie. to 90% of the population)
1:00:29 Very interesting question, yet I'm quite surprised by the answer. William did state in his presentation that CO2 increase typically trails the global warming by 500 years and there was a small ice age in de middle ages. So logically this would dictate that most of the CO2 increase is due to the warming of the climate and humans impact is rather small. Especially when you consider how few percentage points human production is compared to natural processes. Keep in mind that 2/3rd of the surface of the earth is covered by water. Humans don't live on water, we only live on the parts of the earth that has a suitable climate and such. So you might think that your area is crowded, until you zoom out and realize that we live in concentration islands, surrounded by vast emptiness. And I live in Flanders, Belgium, where we have really tried hard to build housing everywhere.
the delay in the increase of co2 after atmospheric warming refers to the end of glacial periods, on a timescale of 100k years. large changes in temperature 10 to 12 degrees result in a small increase in co2. from 180 to 280 parts per million. This is the natural process over with. co2 has remained level at around 280 for the last 10k years as temperatures have only fluctuated 1 or 2 degrees in that time. so all of the increase in co2 since the begining of the industrial period are man made. 280 to 420ppm. The question then is how sensitive the climate is to co2 forcing and whether the resulting warming is benificial/desirable.
One way to check if current CO2 increase may be due to the Medieval Warm period is to see if a similar increase occurred at the relevant time after the Roman Warm and Minoan Warm Periods. The charts do not suggest such a rise.
That was very clear and easy to understand. I just totally missed the part where it explained just how the greenhouse gasses are the cause of global warming. Just all a sudden it was presented as a given fact.
No, they can be read and understood, but you have to understand how graphs work. Cutting off the boring lower part where nothing is happening is normal, and those familiar with graphs can see from the figures on the y axis what is going on.
@@fredneecher1746 No. It's lazy graphics and that you "are familiar with how graphs work and that you have to understand graphs" is of no consequence. You are making an explanatory talk and flashing, unclear, manipulated axes do not inform but barage...
don't forget there used to be large forests in Northern Canada, long before humans and long before teh industrial revolution. Explain that. Proves that periodically receding glaciers is normal.
And of course the Vostok ice cores, as he explained well, temporarily "trap" air between the snow flakes. But snowflakes partially melt under higher pressure, whereby gases such as CO2 can travel by capillary action to dilute their ultimate concentration when they are eventually raised to the surface hundreds, thousands, or millions of years later by researchers who cannot monitor that dilution in ancient times past. This issue of course has been explicated by other competent scientists, such as Jaworowski.
Was it Jaworowski that said there was about an 80 year lag in the cores? As in a core from 1980 didn't really provide accurate readings after 1900. Sorry, but it's been a while since I read up on this.
Dear William, thanks for a very thorough and informative presentation. I have to disagree with one minor point however, something that I think that every author on the topic has gotten wrong. Early in the presentation you stated that “Infrared radiation is in other words heat”. I put it to you that this is not the case but the true position is that “Infrared radiation is POTENTIAL heat”. I will give you two examples that display the phenomenon. 1) BATHROOM HEATER: In days gone bye, bathrooms were very cold places. They were not heated as part of a household warming system and so an alternative had to be derived. Infrared globes were used that when turned on made the naked towelling off human feel warm. What was happening is that the infrared emission from the IR globe passed through the chilly bathroom air and struck the skin of the naked human towelling off with wet skin. This skin warming made the recipient feel warm. If you took temperature readings of the air before, during and after the passage of IR radiation, then there would be no difference, ie the air did not get heated by the passage of IR radiation. Only the skin where is struck was warmed. 2) HEAT FROM THE SUN: That phrase “Heat from the sun” if firmly stuck in our vernacular, but I believe is incorrect. What we receive from the sun is a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including about 40% IR radiation which when it strikes surfaces on Earth warms them to result in heat {the vibration of molecules}. Molecules in the atmosphere are also interacted with IR radiation and increase their vibration which is another way of saying “heat”. But what of the transition from the Sun to Earth? Because this is a vacuum, no transference of potential energy is possible but instead, IR radiation passes through unaltered from the Sun to Earth’s atmosphere where is does interact with molecules there. That is why the temperature of the space between the Sun and Earth is nearly absolute zero, 4˚K. Therefore, we do not receive heat from the sun but instead receive POTENTIAL heat from the Sun. Now that little textual change makes a huge difference to our understanding about how sunlight, greenhouse gases, clouds and everything we do on Earth can alter out heat balance. It goes from an inevitable consequence from solar radiation to an exciting spectrum of alterations that we can make to help engineer a more ideal set of living quarters here on planet Earth. Thanks again for your excellent presentation.
You will have to define what 'heat' is before you can discuss what it is not. If you are correct we will have to quit calling electric heaters electric heaters and start calling them potential electric heaters--when they are turned on. And when they are turned off we will have to call them potentially potential electric heaters. I have heard the argument put forward in discussions of energy transfer that the word 'heat' should be eliminated from the thermodynamic vocabulary, but I like to remind the putters forward that "thermo" is Greek for heat, and that 2000 years from now the English word 'heat' could possibly be resurrected to name what we call thermodynamics: dehotmakeworks or sumpin. --AGF
Wel, if the sun is causing climate change, lets turn it off for a couple of days. No need to thank me, im sure fame and furtune will follow. A Nobel prize might be nice as I can add it to my collection!
The bigger problem would be a lack of CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the stuff of life, as important as O2. At present, looking at history in Millions of years, not hundreds, it seems that we are act in a CO2 drought at 400ppm. If CO2 was to drop to 200ppm plant life would be in a severe state of distress..At 150ppm all plant life dies..and so does everything else. In commercial greenhouses there are CO2 generators to boost the growing environment to 1000ppm, as this is the level most suited to plant growth. Also, a rise in global temperature of circa 2C we could adapt to, a reduction of global temperature by circa 2C would be very much more serious. Somehow some clarity needs to be given on the subject, as currently, nothing may be said against the climate orthodoxy.. which could well be leading us all down a very dangerous path.
Sorry, but Hawaii is one of the most volcanically active regions on the planet, hardly the place to get an accurate and representative measurement for global CO2 concentrations! What am I missing?
@@seesharp81321 and they are missing the volcanic activity? There are many places on the planet without people and without volcanic activity, why Hawaii?
I'm not a climate expert, just like most of the other commenters here, but I would suggest that steady~ish trade-winds at those altitudes would blow the volcanic CO2 away pretty quickly. Prove me wrong... Only in still air can you see woodsmoke from a fire staying concentrated - in even a light breeze the visible smoke disappears very fast. Did the scientists who set up the CO2 measuring system locate it generally up-wind & downhill from the volcano's vent{s} to minimize this effect? Seems pretty obvious to me. Has anyone done the obvious experiments & published their results?
@@jrb_sland5066 My explanation is more simple: even though there are many more places to choose that don't have the confounding factor of next-door volcanic activity, Hawaii is the most pleasant American location the involved scientists could reside. In addition to the fact that it is nice to live in Hawaii, it also gives them the leeway to "play", "tweak", whatever you want to call it, with the measurements. Let's watch what will happen when the volcanoes there become more active and whether they'll immediately start shouting "wolf" again because of supposedly rapidly rising CO2 levels in their measurements. I don't trust anyone involved in this ordeal. P.S. When there are billions of places to choose from you don't go next to a volcano to set a measurement for atmospheric CO2 that represents the whole planet's atmosphere, no matter the stability of air currents in the region. There must be much more suitable locations that tick all the necessary boxes. Moreover, why not a multi-sensor approach by averaging a LOT more locations than just Hawaii. This doesn't seem right to me.
The biggest difference, maybe the number of airplanes in the sky daily, the removable of trees and replacing them with cement or blacktop. The total population increase world wide. The temperature changes as it has for thousands of years.
There is a UA-cam video but it's stupid- introduce compressed CO2 into tube holding a candle at one end and watch the candle image disappear in the IR camera at the other end. BBC CO2 absorbs heat experiment. Yuk. Trying to see increasing back scattered IR from more CO2 might be the right experiment. Haven't seen that done on a bench top experiment.
This is the sort of lessons that should be taught in schools and collages all over the world, as as counter balance to the rubbish that is being used as propaganda by the zealots of Global warming! Along with the books on climate by Dr Patrick Moore and many other Scientists such as Borne Lomborg & Joel Kotkin!
I'd love to hear a discussion about historical records of long-term temperature vs. carbondioxide over time as the climate cycles from glacial maximums to minimums.
@@rogerphelps9939 Climatologists should limit themselves to do the weather forecast like meteorologists. Physics is another level. And everything is about the big picture. Which is exactly what the above mentioned people do. But there are more.....easy to find with a little effort. (Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. and Martin Durkin on updating The Great Global Warming Swindle, and fighting the “new class”. Do not forget to listen to " How the sun affects temperatures on Earth "(w/ Valentina Zharkova, Northumbria University)
Champion series Tom. It's all seems academic now. A friend working on compiling for a second tier green hydro plant in Queensland, Australia stated that regardless of what scientists think and even say, the science is settled as far as commercialising the nonsense is concerned with renewable energy replacements for our beloved FFs as the former is now regarded in the 2050 net zero scheme of things as by far the cheapest energy and so the most optimum to invest in whilst divesting from t'other.
We should be using the lowest cost energy, regardless of what form it is. Not to "save the planet", but simply because it makes economic sense. There are a lot of websites claiming that solar is now the lowest cost. I don't know if that takes into account subsidies.
Spring this year in New Zealand is not as hot as the past few years, sun less intense and massive cloud cover keeping the heat out and deluges of rain.
One question concerning the lag in CO2 rise following temperature rise: down to what scale can that effect be detected? The onset of interglacials is obvious, but how about mini-ice and mini-warm periods? Is there a detectable CO2 rise associated with that? How about even smaller temperature shifts such as those that occurred in the 20th century?
I have always struggled with this also - particularly the "800 year lag" Any increase in temperature should cause an increase in CO2 emission from the oceans. And there would be no perceptible delay in that. Basic molecular physics tells us that recent CO2 increases could largely be the result of increased global temperatures. Except that historically, equivalent increases in CO2 didn't occur during previous temperature increases. Confusing isn't it !
@@burgesspark685 even the “800 year lag” looks like an attempt to minimize what the Vostok chart actually showed: that at the major inflection points, CO2 consistently didn’t turn around, itself, for 8,000 to 10,000 years. But whether it’s 800 or 8,000 years, CO2 has always lagged temperature change. When has anyone seen a presumed forcing function in nature lead from behind in the time domain? Never.
1:04:00 Suggestion to the Professor::: Start out by stating your conclusions at the very beginnigs of your presentations, by saying something like this::: ("In this seminar I am going to conclude.... through a one hour presentation"). This way, listeners know quickly what you want to prove, then pay good attention to how you actuall do it, throughout your speech!!
We are one or two large volcanoes away from extremely cold (death) winters and colder summers with rising CO2 happily doing nothing to help mankind (animals) stay warm and alive
@@rogerphelps9939 a lot “hasn’t happened”…..meanwhile the human species thrives all over the planet due to the access to energy we have in oils. Many areas will become uninhabitable as has been the case of cyclical climate. Hence we are migratory animals.
Gee! No discussion about sea levels constantly rising due to fossil fuel combustion and due to metabolic water production both of which affect the ocean acidity and heat absorption.
Plants need more carbon dioxide than current levels for optimum growth. We should be campaigning for higher carbon dioxide levels, more in line with the historical mean. Imagine being a chuffing great dinosaur now? Elephants, (where they still barely exist), struggle to find enough food in the wild. We eat plants and most of us also eat animals that eat plants so less carbon dioxide than current levels exponentially equals less food as we're only at three times required parts per million for plant life to survive, let alone flourish like it did millions of years ago, allowing unlimited animal growth in size and appetite. The planet was tropical everywhere, even at the poles, hence Greenland not being called Whiteland as it might be today if not for the political 'incorrectness' of such a 'racist' name, despite no connection or relevance to the skin colour of the presumed human population unless they were all little green men and 'blacks' apparently never being native to the country but hey, since when did facts matter when you have an obvious agenda to silence your opposition? Inevitably less food caused directly and indirectly by further reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to below the optimum level equals fewer animals and fewer people, (that means fewer black people as well by the way - a LOT fewer since they aren't currently being allowed to even have household electricity). Massive global depopulation is literally the publicly stated goal or end game of those pushing for Net Zero and such misguided, fear based policies. Let's hope that the potentially incoming child prodigy that cures Bill Gates' terminal brain cancer, for example, isn't starved to death, brain damaged or paralysed by his experimental 'vaccines' or environmental 'philanthropy'. I'm sure he thinks he means well though and he does have access to the world's largest data gathering tool called Windows, each room having a window into it, so to speak, like every room having a surveillance camera per Orwell's 1984. Wasn't it someone at Google or whoever that said that they know us better or soon will know us better than we know ourselves? Shop online? Watch UA-cam? What more do they need to game you? Watch the classic movie, Network, for an early example of this concept in use. The idea is that the planet is just a corporate business and we're all consumers at the end of the day and money makes the world go round so stop complaining and watch television, drink Coke and shut up but I think it's about more than that. Killing the Human Spirit itself ranks high on the list. There have been a couple of notable attempts in recent history when unbelievable acts of atrocity have been committed in the name of political division over the simple argument as to who gets to tell us all what to do; A very small group of people called, 'The State' that always gets and stays in power whichever way you vote or us as individuals running our own lives and realising that we don't need them except in their capacity to organize national infrastructure and military protection from others who still believe their corrupt leaders and try to invade us or place trade sanctions upon us, both effectively acts of war. Hypothetically though, assuming that all of these petty differences could be solved by simply electing more intelligent, less corrupt leaders, if they weren't too busy running their highly successful businesses to increase our standards of living, if you wanted to take over an entire planet for its resources but were outnumbered by the native population, how better to do it than what we are doing to each other now? Some blame the love of money, others blame The Devil, Aliens or Angels and Demons, both interdimensional beings of probable otherworldly origin and opposing views but seen in the context of some unknown outside force or occult, (hidden), entity, dimensionally shifted slightly from ours, it all makes perfect sense, not only in pounds, shillings and pence, as Roger Waters put it, as money is only the carrot and stick needed to force exponentially increasing competition with each other due to unpayable interest on debt by design and make us an absolute doddle to manipulate en masse with a simple interest rate hike. The world economy now teeters on the brink of collapse and holds its collective breath every month in eager anticipation of Jerome Powell's next FED rate announcement, making him de facto the most powerful man in the world, at least on the face of it and obviously figureheads come and go but equally obvious is that the same anti-human policies move ever forward regardless of which side 'wins'. The obvious use of false flag terrorism like 9/11, 7/7 etc., bioterrorism such as Ebola and Corona, (Bill Gates allegedly being a central figure in both outbreaks, though ironically, hardly any Africans have died of COVID or the boosters since they so tragically couldn't get enough of them, if you watch the evening news who call it a racist, humanitarian crisis). Many other forms of psychological warfare are used to divide and rule, even down to family members disowning each other over non-compliant mask wearing or 'vaccine' status if regular left/right politics isn't enough. It's easy when you know how to trip the amygdala, ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala ), into fight or flight mode when critical thinking becomes secondary to survival at ALL costs, including even close family relationships upon which we have been tribally dependent since literally day one. We are so backed into a corner now that we will even forsake our own relatives and skilled, loyal employees, especially 'essential workers' if unjabbed, to be seen to be doing the 'right' thing, as we have been instructed to perceive it through a narrow lense. Where tenure, career or their goal of simply having more money than month are involved, even otherwise honest individuals will unconsciously suspend disbelief, (like when you're watching a well crafted movie, essentially becoming hypnotized and forgetting that it's not real, a skill we develop as playful children), believing their own lies for convenience and profit. Today, money equals basic survival, since we have adopted or rather been handed down central banking and most of us have never known any other monetary system. Central banking equals lies and universal deceit as it is based upon a scam or lie, that money or rather currency created as intrinsic debt, (i.e. borrowed into existence), cannot therefore ever be paid off by definition when interest is attached, except with supply inflation and therefore dilution of each unit's value, requiring ever more theft through taxation and now bank bail-ins or direct theft from our bank accounts in 'emergency circumstances', that is, when they can't borrow enough, become insolvent, bankrupt and collapse so we get to bail them out instead of government agents who will also tax us more anyway as if they did. CBDC's or Central Bank Digital Currencies are now being implemented globally, giving governments, (wholly owned and run by central banks as their agents of force), the power to censor transactions according to algorithmic social credit score and vaccine status through Digital I.D.'s, the intention being to have a subscription based immune system, reliant upon regular injections to stay alive, in the face of increasingly virulent manufactured diseases, to be blamed on nature or Gaia, (the Earth Spirit), taking revenge on us humans for irresponsibly overpopulating the planet by uncontrolled, "Wild breeding". Dr. Steven M. Greer has stated that aliens are all friendly because they would have attacked us by now if they were hostile and assuming that they behaved like us, this may seem logical enough but logic is based upon certain presumptions being factually valid. If any input data is invalid or the circuit is built with inherent flaws, such as assuming that aliens or wealthy, Elitist earthbound humans for that matter are as crude as we are in their warfare tactics, such a logic circuit will return logically consistent, (with the hypothesis), but factually incorrect results. Logic is still only reason based upon assumption and is capable of bias like blind faith. All science is capable of bias if conducted by pseudoscientists or those with a paid agenda. Science is typically very expensive and does not return an immediate profit, if any. What if 'they' were somewhat smarter than us, (which one might presume), if indeed they are here in any number atall? If one alien is here from another planet or dimension, we are but monkeys to them. Throw us a banana and we'll do anything you want. Bananas are banknotes or digits in a computer now but it's the same principle. Would they slowly infiltrate undiscovered through a network of Secret Societies, using the target population as useful idiots, (who conveniently know where all the gold etc. is buried), or just annihilate them? Who would mine the planet's resources to build their spaceships or biospheres? They may not even have opposing thumbs for all we know! Either way, something or someone is openly attacking us now on all fronts and division is the last thing we need. United we stand, divided we fall. Where we go one, we go all. 🌎
@@lonelyp1 Normal climate of the area? Weather is what it is today. Climate is what is for decades on average. So your telling me that no snow and 51* is the normal for past few decades but say 100 years ago there was snow? Of course not! Your saying that you are used to snow in the ground at that time of year and this year on that day it’s warmer. That’s weather not climate. For you to think that it’s 20* warmer on average due to a 1.5* increase in the last 100 years is, well wrong.
The politicization of climate change happened after the conclusions of climate change were already reached and predictions were made. There was no politics involved. Politics happened when people didn't like the conclusions and predictions and attempted to disprove the science. Science terms are not 'fancy words' for common concepts, they are precise words scientists use to understand the concepts. Without any rebuttal from any of the majority of climate scientists who support climate change, what is presented here doesn't mean much.
The vomited words of a brain-dead moron Sorry if that seems harsh, but I have lost patience with this type of imbecilic thinking from people who have not researched the subject and just repeat alarmists propaganda nonsense.
This is important information for people who don't know any better. The issue is that putting out the "house on fire" is not the goal, the goal is to evict the occupants. For the people who attend Davos every year, you're the problem. So, unless you’re okay with 2000 psychopaths deciding your fate, I suggest you get of your collective arses and spread the news, hassle your local Politian, do something or your kids don't have a future.
18:15 - never saw saturation that clear, nice. BUT: "you expect T of the surface of the earth to go up by ...". (when infrared FROM the earth is absorbed) I totally miss a plausible explanation for the assertion, that absorbed + "mirrored back" IR from a radiator, the earth, can heat that radiator up. Sounds to me like a violation of 1. Energy conservation, 2. Second law thermodyn. (Heat flow from cool to warm no possible) and also Stefan Boltzmann: Heat flow from a radiator is NOT dependent on emissivity of environment. Is there any interview addressing THAT? It's the good old Gerlich + Tscheuschner paper in general... Or maybe somebody knows of an experiment demonstrating that the radiator warms when CO2 is doubled? I just find falsifying experiments, e.g. Ohlsen et al.
I have spent some time researching the Vostok ice core CO2 and oxygen isotope proxy temperature data as it relates to whether CO2 leads temperature or temperature leads CO2 and have found no published analysis worthy of the conclusion of which is causal. Some analysis claim the data support that CO2 leads temperature and therefore is causal while others conclude that temperature leads CO2 and therefore is causal. I say that neither position is justified because the data sets DO NOT contain sufficient information. There are only two ways to infer cause and effect from correlated data produced by a dynamic systems WITH feedback: one must stimulate the system with a Gaussian forcing function or have knowledge of the system design. Since neither is true the ‘apparent’ leading or lagging factor is not proof of cause and effect. Applying entropy transfer concepts to the data shows that if the theory is appropriately applied there, that there are many periods where CO2 is causal and reversals to where temperature is causal. In the 600,000 year data record this happens maybe 100 times!
Excellent video! Great to see all the snippets I have seen collected in one spot. I saw a lot of this in William Happer's presentation. It is sad that most could watch this and not believe that their AGW religion is false. Cognitive dissonance. At minute 32, as an agronomist, I would contest a few details. We could go to zero synthetic N and still maintain reasonable yieds, not a 70% decrease. Growing hairy vetch before corn is one example. Of greater concern is the huge destruction of ozone from NO2.
I think the question would be more as to whether the ozone is being damaged faster than the planet makes it. Shine UV light on O2 and you get O3, that's why there's more of it between the tropics. ( Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen an estimate of how much O3 gets made every year.)
Does the IPCC even do comparisons too satellite observations for their models? Gonna be hard for alarmists to argue with this given the agreement with observations.
Maybe i missed it but if the level of Co2 has risen, how much of that can be attributed to the oceans releasing Co2 from temperature rises? Also, it seems that more information is at hand lately which shows the various ways Co2 levels are measured. Taking the ice core data from older samples and more recent data from other sources. This discrepancy seems important. It is in another video on this channel. I recall the conclusion stated that Co2 levels were not much different in the last 200 years. I am likely wrong about the time frame. Anyway, it seems that it has been quite steady yet mr van Wijngaarden says the Co2 elevation is definately mainly from industrial processes. Can anybody help me out?
Two glasses tap water place one in a warm place and the other a refrigerator. Soon the warmer shows dissolved CO2 being ejected as bubbles and the cold one has no bubbles does this help understanding water breathes co2 and the colder the greater CO2. Try refilling cold water soda stream bottles and save CO2 wastage,
Here's a question... let's say I am an infrared photon at the surface of the earth. I am making a beeline for outer space. What are the odds that I get through without being absorbed by a GHG?
@plinny theother well I think that's my hypothesis, the odds of my photonic self interacting with, say a CO2 molecule, is pretty low. Also, according to the good doctor absorption spectra, the photon might not be the right wavelength to be absorbed by co2
Excellent unless you meet a resonant molecule to vibrate with no energy can be transferred. As you were emitted the planet cooled by one photon immediately what ever you do? Radiation is energy leaving an object. Transference is only by vibration with a suitable molecule. Photons rely on energy level from the emitting Surface. The Sun photons diversify but we can focus these burnin paper or even melting steel. No lens can burn with moon beams.
In the 18th century we had 20% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen. We now use 30x the amount of fossil fuels and thus 30x more Oxygen. But we do not have 30x more trees , grass or Algae. Thus we would have about 6-7% less Oxygen in the air.
I agree with everything, but I would like to add two missing information. The first concerns the productivity generated by the use of nitrogen fertilizers. The brutal increment of productivity means greater carbon capture transforming it into a plant physical structure. Thus beyond the small impact on methane generation it is necessary to consider the positive balance of CO2 capture. The other point to clarify is that although it does not make sense to prevent farmers from planting in the Netherlands, the argument that Brazilian agriculture is less efficient is not correct. Brazil breaks productivity records per hectare in most crops due to high -tech use and the vast majority of production does not occur in Amazonia. The Brazilian Forest Code only allows the agricultural exploitation of 20% of the area of private properties in the Amazon and in addition to 90% of the Amazon territory is an indigenous or forest reserve area. Brazil only cultivates 7% of all its territory.
Too bad that Dr van Wijngaarden is not aware of the study from a few years ago that corrected the 800 year lag between CO2 concentration and temperature, turned out people forgot to correct for the fact that airbubbles rise in ice over time. After taking that into account the lag completely disappears.
That has been proven to be as unreliable as the tree rings. One confirming measurement is the stomata of leaves, they number of stoma on the leaves is indicative of the C02 content, the age of the leaf is confirmed by carbon dating.
@@jackwesselman6281 maybe that works for living plants, we are talking about the ice core measurements from Greenland/Antarctica, there are no stomata in the ice.
@@DavidvanDeijk I thought this was a Global problem, C02 for the most part is fairly evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. I would suggest then what ever measurement made through ice cores could well be confirmed through all other means of evidence to support it's numbers. This could include stomata from other regions but similar time frames, could also include the dead zone up mountsides where C02 has thinned below viable levels, as well the tree line near Arctic circle can confirm temperature.
@@jackwesselman6281 Yes it is a global problem. And there are many historical proxy data we can compare. We like to get as many as possible and compare all of them. That does not invalidate your stomata method, it just is not related to what I was discussing.
Mauna Lao not polluted? It is one of Earth's most active volcanoes, spewing carbon dioxide from the earth constantly, also being surrounded by an ocean which is a CO2 sink, and varies CO2 release constantly according to Henry's law determined by the temperature of the water because of solubility. It is certainly not a good site for objective measures of average CO2 values on Earth, and it would not be surprising if its selection as a site for CO2 measurements was politically biased, because when ocean waters warm, CO2 concentration in the air goes up immediately, and we have been in a solar maximum recently. The same holds for all the other "greenhouse gases", a misnomer, whose solubility fall in ocean water when the water's temperature rises, and volcanoes are also significant methane emitters. To be frank, Mauna Lao could not be a worse site to represent the planet for trace gas monitoring.
There is no such thing as a global average CO2 level There is no such thing as a global average temperature In truth, we have very little idea what they might actually be
@@burgesspark685 , that's true. When do we measure the average? 2pm local? 10am local? Every location has its bias towards plankton, plant life, swamp methane production (which becomes CO2 with oxygen), etc. Every location is always changing, even the smallest area can have wildly different measures than the one next to it.
@@climatesciencejournal Practical physics has real difficulty in determining the accurate temperature within your living room at any one time, never the mind the "global average"
Very informative on info we already know. Good to see the saturation curves because I always believe saturation occurs. It also counters the lie that co2 forces vapour warming. Where in actual tge cloud vapour reduces the forcing of co2. Merry Christmas 22.
@@Leitwolf22 sorry but "saturation" does not give the wrong idea since it is the measure of the degree of absorption possible on the *logarithmic scale* of CO2 absorption. It is the critical factor in disproving the alarmists hypothesis of CO2 forcing. Overlaps are also very important - but overlaps on their own would not dispel the alarmists claim that increased CO2 would cause further warming.
@@Leitwolf22 no co2 forcing in the north and South Pole for 6 months every year. Co2 doesn’t hold heat. Overlap, saturation and the fact that co2 only radiation is a few bands. But of course co2 has a warming contribution because it’s a greenhouse gas. But ocean oscillation and the earth ocean play a far bigger part in climate than co2. Co2 provides warming so we don’t freeze.
@@Leitwolf22 it’s a shame many of the models don’t use the log scale of co2. I’ve looked for this consensus and it simply is stated as political fact. But many scientists don’t agree. Now whilst co2 is a warming gas, whilst humans contribute to co2 levels, there are other mechanisms at play within the earth biosphere which control climate. B-A and D-O have been triggered many times without control from co2. Ice pulse melts have produced rapid sea level rise without co2. They produced rapid temperature drop and rise. But now all these tipping points only due to rise in co2 and temp. Strange how all these previous tipping point have no connection to co2 but probably a disruption in the earth heat engine. What about the Acrim v pmod assessment pushed by people with agenda. Or the discrepancy in tree ring data. Now I don’t doubt co2 is warming but to pretend that co2 is the main mechanism in climate when we can’t even understand the reason for pulse melts, or even know adequately all the mechanisms of the planet, than the alarmist take a very arrogant position. Of course we shouldn’t pollute the planet and and of course we should use resources sustainably. But the climate change agenda has now been highjacked using rogue science, politicised and pushed for the power of the political class. Because of climate alarmist, we now get to see the real agenda of the political class. It’s called Degrowth agenda. It is social ecological economics. Ie anti capitalist. Climate change has become a simple anti capitalist agenda vehicle for planetary change.
@@Leitwolf22 you criticise others for obfuscation and lack of understanding and yet you fail to explain your position with any clarity - claiming that it must be wrong because it is the "consensus" I may be more willing to consider your argument if you gave any substance to it - but you havent.
@@burgesspark685 You point is well stated and perhaps another way to support the term saturation to explain the logarithmic relationship between the concentration of CO2 and its forcing effect of temperature is to liken it to the diminishing returns of stepping half the remaining distance between your present position and your destination. One never arrives and each new step has little effect.
For me it is simply about albedo. An albedo if 1.0 mean that all light is reflected off the earth ie a snowball planet. An albedo of 0 implies a water planet. Nearly with variation due to angle of light on the water. The albedo of earth is about 0.31.
Excellent presentation. Just one concern: why do you use the term "Greenhouse gas" when the warming of a greenhouse has nothing to do with a back and forth of heat radiation but occurs due to convective heat exchange within a CLOSED system (which the atmosphere is not)?
I would agree that putting sewage into the sea is wrong, however how much sea life dyes and delicates in the sea every day 365 days a year, now that is sewage. What is one blue wale worth in regards to humans
If it had been so well if Tunberg had this positive influence, Wijngaarden reclaims in this video. I think hysteria is more the result. But I understand, Wijngaarden as many with him, have to take their own well-being into consideration, this social climate being as it is. Excellent telling video from a brave man.
There's a lot of relevant information here, but it's disappointing that the hypothesis that mixed and constantly moving atmospheric gases can act like a greenhouse covering is simply presumed to be true. Apparently the idea has been preached so long that even a scientist of Dr. Van Wijngaarden's age has adopted it and doesn't think to question such a remarkable idea. Another sign that he's going along with the alarmist rhetoric is talking about ocean acidification, when, as even his chart shows, the ocean is decidedly alkaline (pH > 7). So overall, this presentation is a mixed bag, discrediting apocalyptic claims but failing to question the role of atmospheric gases in the slight warming since the Little Ice Age.
I've binge watched all of your videos this week. While all of your guests have been top tier, Dr Wijngaarden's presentation is the best thus far. Very clear and easy to understand. Thank you for posting all of these videos.
I could not agree more. I look forward to sharing this. Thank you very much indeed. I consider this the best Christmas present ever.
Dr William Happer
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
Priceless work you’re doing Tom. A series collating all of these people is well needed.
Re: Ice Ages were modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not by CO2
You are correct, CO2 is not the primary control knob - as I have demonstrated in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent modulating ice ages was actually ice-sheet dust-albedo.
Free download of peer-review paper available:
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
The first problem with ice ages is:
When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent.
The second problem with ice ages is:
Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2.
The third problem with ice ages is:
During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response.
Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming.
The fourth problem with ice ages is:
The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly.
Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years.
All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2.
Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting.
See peer-review paper:
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
Ralph Ellis
Image: This is the ‘money-graph’ for ice ages.
CO2 is directly proportional to inv-log dust.
The inference being, that CO2 concentrations control dust,
…by modulating higher altitude vegetation.
.
I'll also add the Grand Solar Minimum, increase of galactic cosmic rays which increases not only cloud nucleation but also volcanic activity increase adding to the albedo and a decrease of UV released by the sun changes Ozone which affect planetary atmospheric waves
CO2: its what Plants crave! But really though.
Thanks for your comment, and more likely than not ill find myself at some point soon looking into the study you've mentioned.
you breifly mentioned, part of the message Iv'e been preaching for years, to absolutely no avail---- hopefully to get the new age hippies, haters of CO2, the man-made climate change activists, to get them to at the very least be open to facts about CO2.
The irony of adopting the tree hugger persona, who protests against any and all human CO2 emission:
Plants need CO2. On average, the saturation point for plant life on a very general scale is anywhere between 750ppm --- 1,500ppm of CO2 levels, avg. atmospheric readings.
Last I checked the daily readings indicate our CO2 levels avg. around 420ppm.
Earth has been "greening" as of recently, as opposed to the dead polluted wasteland the climte experts assure us is the case.
I for one would love to see more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants leafs would increase in size. Who knows: could help protect us from the next radiation attack from our SUN!
Another nutjob ignoring reality Attention seeking much.
Thanks for sharing mate
@@paulmobleyscience I believe that Richard Lindzen would heartily agree!
A superb summary of the evidence, thorough, cadenced and well presented. Should be compulsory viewing in every school.
one of your best podcasts thus far Tom, van Wijngaarden really knows this stuff,
In the 18th century we had 20% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen. We now use 30x the amount of fossil fuels and thus 30x more Oxygen. But we do not have 30x more trees , grass or Algae. Thus we would have about 6-7% less Oxygen in the air.
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
This presentation is one of the most lucid and rational summaries of global warming and climate change that I have seen. Extermely well done and entirely accessible to those who are not scientists or engineers. Those who are scientists and engineers but who are not working in the climate or atmospheric physics areas will get alot of benefit and understanding out of this talk.
Thanks so much for the video and info.
Merry Christmas to all.
Thank you for an outstanding lecture and brilliant presentation.
Eddy Emons
Clear, convincing and broad presentation thank you William.
I'm confused. In the beginning he showed that CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises. Sometimes by hundreds of years. Okay then he went on to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas blah blah blah. He never explained how CO2 raises temperature. I'd like someone to explain how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the mechanism by which it is and the mathematics of it.
@@Kikkan110 I'm not a physicist. He explained everything else in laymen terms. But not this. Didn't give a clue.
@@Kikkan110 molecules of any sort? Why is CO2 the target?
And 400 ppm seems like nothing then!
@deenpac you are exactly correct. As you explain, "He never explained how CO2 raises temperature." Nobody ever does. Once you realize this (and few skeptics ever do, including William here it seems) you will also realize that any further discussion of "greenhouse effect" or "CO2 Forcing," (both of which can be abused to create the pretense that these notions do explicate the thermal impact of CO2 when actually they don't.) is just obfuscation.
@@Kikkan110 Yes, there are. But they are all just obfuscation. Basic analysis of the thermal characteristics of CO2 in comparison to the other constituents of the atmosphere shows NOT MUCH DRAMA AT ALL!!! This is the reason the people pushing this phony emergency shift the argument to inconcise (and convoluted) verbiage like "greenhouse effect" and "CO2 forcing." It's really just an intellecftual bait and switch routine.
Thank you for this wonderful talk, it brings sense and clarity to an issue that is generally characterised by hysteria and ignorance. We need more pure hard science rather than politically biased science. Many thanks for your time professor.
Hard to top this presentation! Thanks 🙏
I am trying to understand the graphic at 18:56 but I can't see how increasing CO2 doesn't affect temperatures at higher altitudes. The more we doubles the saturation, the wider the dip gets, because radiation is also absorbed on both sides of the dip and the emission of more wavelengths in the spectrum moves to higher altitude (to lower temperatures). And if it does, the dip gets wider. That is why the highest saturation line (the red one) is a bit wider. So this means that with increasing CO2 more radiation is emitted from higher altitudes, also making the cooling effect of this part of the atmosphere less efficient.
William is well worth listening too. One thing that confuses me though, is that William also says that the historical ice core data shows about a 500 year CO2 lag following temperature changes. Given that, why does William also say that increasing CO2 causes warming (albeit not much)?
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
Excellent presentation!
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
I am a geologist. I believe there is sound geological reasoning to conclude the so-called sealevel rise in Netherlands is incorrect. It is that Holland is sinking, not the sea rising. “Rising sea level” in Holland, and coastal erosion in Norfolk, East Anglia, is not a result of sea rise, but is from land sinking. Perfectly normal for any recent basin of sedimentary rocks. Residents in North Norfolk can attest that serious coastal erosion has been going on for centuries.
I wish to reply that a 15% to 20% compaction of a sedimentary basin can be expected. A 3,000m deep basin results in a lot of compaction. If the estuary of the Rhine had not been built upon, with dykes and levees constraining the floods of the Rhine, all of what is now called Holland would receive new sediments annually and so topping up the pile where cities like Amsterdam now sit. It would look today pretty well what the Romans saw, but Dutch engineering prevents this from happening, and so Holland sinks. Sediment compaction is what turns sediments into rocks, and organic trash in these sediments gets turned into hydrocarbons. That’s why there is an awful lot of gas offshore Holland and East Anglia
The decrease in the number of collection stations correpsonds to the temp increase recently
Thank you Professor van Wijngaarden.
A great presentation. Thank you.
@TomNelson: I found the paper mentioned on minute 6: the correct page is 429. I could not find the plot of temperature Wijingaarden shows in blue at minute 6 of his presentation. Actually, his blue plot seems to be a plot of deuterium profile (Fi2a in the paper, but mirrored along y; maybe he took it as a proxy for temp). His green plot appears in the original paper as CO2 on fig3a., but slightly different. Maybe Wijingaarden has the raw data to get those different plots. Pls help us with this apparent inconsistency.
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
First class sane report. Thank you
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
Excellent, reasoned, balanced, dispassionate...all things that the forces of sensationalism abhor, unfortunately. Just be faithful to the message and hope it eventually prevails over the course of time.
Brilliant presentation. One of the best.
Excellent interview.
Excellent video. Very clearly presented.
Exellent and brilliant lecture. Dutch lawmakers should listen to him.
Excellent presentation! Thank you!
Thanks for the thorough presentation! Are the slides presented in this video compiled somewhere? I'd like to study them carefully. Some have journal citations, some don't. I don't have easy access to these journals anyway.
7:21 “So a water molecule with O18 will tend to evaporate more easily at a higher temperature than a water molecule with O16.”
Surely that’s a verbal typo, in that it’s the other way around?
Hartelijk dank William voor het delen van jouw kennis en onderzoek op zo’n duidelijke en directe wijze and thank you Tom for giving the floor.
The booklet “Is Global Warming Hot Air”, which is thankfully available for free, can only be warmly recommended for anyone who has any form of concern about the climate (although often weather is meant). It is a splendid addition to the easily readable “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone, and vice versa!
Science is debate, is discussion, is reasoned challenging ideas/proposals and therefore science is elevated if scientists exchange reasoned arguments about anything that could be amended, improved or more clarified. In Tom’s podcast #113 Yong Zhong raises questions in view of the publications “Atmosphere and Greenhouse Gas Primer” (3 March 2023) and “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gasses” (22 December 2020); both downloadable for free. It would be wonderful if, one or both of the “Williams” (if I may humbly address them so) would respond.
One remark having regard the climate computer modellers or the “holy brotherhood of climate model experts” (as Freeman Dyson defined them, see ua-cam.com/video/8xFLjUt2leM/v-deo.html). It appears to me that all those working on computer climate models are trying the best they can. It also appears to me that they are merely trying to keep their chimneys smoking, i.e. living a common consensus “if you cannot beat them, join them”. Basically, that is fine, since who am I to challenge someone who merely wants to (economically) survive in this world? Nevertheless, the question remains: what about professional pride, let alone personal pride? These scientists/modellers know that any climate model may be suitable to describe a certain situation but are not suited to predict anything. Moreover, so many (like John Christy, Freeman Dyson, Murry Salby, Tim Palmer, William Happer and others) have shown that the climate models do not agree with the observations. In addition, Syukuro Manabe indicated in an interview (ua-cam.com/video/yt246lKVhr4/v-deo.html) that he is of the opinion “…that most important thing is understanding climate change. The prediction of climate change without accompanying understanding of it is no better than the prediction of a fortune teller” which opinion is basically repeated in the booklet “Is Global Warming Hot Air” on pages 129-130. According to the IPCC’s AR6, nobody of the climate modelling society is challenging the overall pursuit of the CO2 narrative. Indeed, a careful reader would find multiple proposed improvements of the computer climate models, however, they always concern additional (local) elements, never the overall idea. The most striking element can be found in AR6-WGI, paragraph 1.5.4.6, 1st paragraph where it is stated: “The most widely used technique is to compare climatologies (long-term averages of specific climate variables) or time series of simulated (process-based) model output with observations, considering the observational uncertainty”. Here it is suggested that if the calculated values/output do not agree with the observations, it is due to the observational uncertainties.
It is not comprehensible that apparently the whole climate computer modelling society is collectively silent, even though individuals, organisations and politicians are using (abusing, hijacking or whatever one wants to call it) the incorrect, unreliable predicting results of the models to fuel global fear in order to pursuit results/effects that are neither feasible nor sustainable in terms of finance, available materials/minerals, achievability or even linked to the CO2 narrative.
Great lecture!
Brilliant discussion. 👏
The Glacier Bay aspect is very fascinating. It begs to questions what happened.
When banks stop given mortgages for property near the sea or rivers then you can worry.
Beautiful job Thank you. Made a complex picture relatively simple and convincing.
What no one ever mentions when talking about the 500-800 year offset from temperature to CO2 in the Vostok cores @8:52, which nullifies the GW argument, BUT each of these excursions is a planet sized experiment of the CO2 argument. If CO2 were to work as postulated then the temperature spikes would not be so narrow given the now nearly doubled CO2 but would instead persist at a higher temperature for as long as the CO2 was elevated
i think the argument is that some kind of forced cooling overcame the warming of the CO2 to start the next phase of the cycle
So what I am seeing is that Dr. van Wijngaarden has developed a model that is correct as opposed to the RCP models used by others. At current ambient CO2 plants are starved for CO2 and stomata are wide open subjecting the plants to water loss. Additional CO2 stomata reduce size of opening thus less water loss.
I would like to see the current warming trend compared to the increase of concrete surface area, I'm thinking heat retention over night.
awsome presentation with data to back it up
Question: if CO2 absorbs in the stratosphere at a wave number of 660 or about 15 microns, why would CO2 absorb radiance from the Earth emitted at 10 microns even if considering the Plank distribution?
A photon relies for energy on its emitting surface and the Sun is high but moon and earth a great deal lower. It's not radiation at night causing climate change. Convection under cloud cover gives frost protection however not seen on a clear night.
Did I just miss it, or was there an explanation of Hunga Tonga? It would seem that any review should cover the atmospheric efftects.
How can anybody call a pH of 7.5 acidic?
I think he meant getting "getting more" acidic
@@plinnytheother6107 Something has to be acidic before it can become 'more acidic'. The oceans are extremely alkaline. They use the term 'acificication' to describe a totally unproven movement towards neutral as acidification simply because it's alarmist and frightening to the uninformed (ie. to 90% of the population)
1:00:29 Very interesting question, yet I'm quite surprised by the answer. William did state in his presentation that CO2 increase typically trails the global warming by 500 years and there was a small ice age in de middle ages. So logically this would dictate that most of the CO2 increase is due to the warming of the climate and humans impact is rather small.
Especially when you consider how few percentage points human production is compared to natural processes. Keep in mind that 2/3rd of the surface of the earth is covered by water. Humans don't live on water, we only live on the parts of the earth that has a suitable climate and such. So you might think that your area is crowded, until you zoom out and realize that we live in concentration islands, surrounded by vast emptiness.
And I live in Flanders, Belgium, where we have really tried hard to build housing everywhere.
the delay in the increase of co2 after atmospheric warming refers to the end of glacial periods, on a timescale of 100k years. large changes in temperature 10 to 12 degrees result in a small increase in co2. from 180 to 280 parts per million. This is the natural process over with. co2 has remained level at around 280 for the last 10k years as temperatures have only fluctuated 1 or 2 degrees in that time. so all of the increase in co2 since the begining of the industrial period are man made. 280 to 420ppm. The question then is how sensitive the climate is to co2 forcing and whether the resulting warming is benificial/desirable.
One way to check if current CO2 increase may be due to the Medieval Warm period is to see if a similar increase occurred at the relevant time after the Roman Warm and Minoan Warm Periods. The charts do not suggest such a rise.
Very interesting - thank you
Taking your atmospheric readings at the site of one of the worlds most active volcanos?
Thank you
That was very clear and easy to understand. I just totally missed the part where it explained just how the greenhouse gasses are the cause of global warming. Just all a sudden it was presented as a given fact.
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
graphs are misleading by not starting the axis at zero... In fact they are unreadable.
No, they can be read and understood, but you have to understand how graphs work. Cutting off the boring lower part where nothing is happening is normal, and those familiar with graphs can see from the figures on the y axis what is going on.
@@fredneecher1746 No. It's lazy graphics and that you "are familiar with how graphs work and that you have to understand graphs" is of no consequence. You are making an explanatory talk and flashing, unclear, manipulated axes do not inform but barage...
don't forget there used to be large forests in Northern Canada, long before humans and long before teh industrial revolution. Explain that. Proves that periodically receding glaciers is normal.
And of course the Vostok ice cores, as he explained well, temporarily "trap" air between the snow flakes. But snowflakes partially melt under higher pressure, whereby gases such as CO2 can travel by capillary action to dilute their ultimate concentration when they are eventually raised to the surface hundreds, thousands, or millions of years later by researchers who cannot monitor that dilution in ancient times past. This issue of course has been explicated by other competent scientists, such as Jaworowski.
Was it Jaworowski that said there was about an 80 year lag in the cores? As in a core from 1980 didn't really provide accurate readings after 1900. Sorry, but it's been a while since I read up on this.
Actual data is like kryptonite to climate cultists.
Dear William, thanks for a very thorough and informative presentation. I have to disagree with one minor point however, something that I think that every author on the topic has gotten wrong. Early in the presentation you stated that “Infrared radiation is in other words heat”. I put it to you that this is not the case but the true position is that “Infrared radiation is POTENTIAL heat”.
I will give you two examples that display the phenomenon.
1) BATHROOM HEATER: In days gone bye, bathrooms were very cold places. They were not heated as part of a household warming system and so an alternative had to be derived. Infrared globes were used that when turned on made the naked towelling off human feel warm. What was happening is that the infrared emission from the IR globe passed through the chilly bathroom air and struck the skin of the naked human towelling off with wet skin. This skin warming made the recipient feel warm. If you took temperature readings of the air before, during and after the passage of IR radiation, then there would be no difference, ie the air did not get heated by the passage of IR radiation. Only the skin where is struck was warmed.
2) HEAT FROM THE SUN: That phrase “Heat from the sun” if firmly stuck in our vernacular, but I believe is incorrect. What we receive from the sun is a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including about 40% IR radiation which when it strikes surfaces on Earth warms them to result in heat {the vibration of molecules}. Molecules in the atmosphere are also interacted with IR radiation and increase their vibration which is another way of saying “heat”. But what of the transition from the Sun to Earth? Because this is a vacuum, no transference of potential energy is possible but instead, IR radiation passes through unaltered from the Sun to Earth’s atmosphere where is does interact with molecules there. That is why the temperature of the space between the Sun and Earth is nearly absolute zero, 4˚K. Therefore, we do not receive heat from the sun but instead receive POTENTIAL heat from the Sun.
Now that little textual change makes a huge difference to our understanding about how sunlight, greenhouse gases, clouds and everything we do on Earth can alter out heat balance. It goes from an inevitable consequence from solar radiation to an exciting spectrum of alterations that we can make to help engineer a more ideal set of living quarters here on planet Earth. Thanks again for your excellent presentation.
You will have to define what 'heat' is before you can discuss what it is not. If you are correct we will have to quit calling electric heaters electric heaters and start calling them potential electric heaters--when they are turned on. And when they are turned off we will have to call them potentially potential electric heaters. I have heard the argument put forward in discussions of energy transfer that the word 'heat' should be eliminated from the thermodynamic vocabulary, but I like to remind the putters forward that "thermo" is Greek for heat, and that 2000 years from now the English word 'heat' could possibly be resurrected to name what we call thermodynamics: dehotmakeworks or sumpin. --AGF
Is the sun irrelevant for heating the earth?
It's our source of energy which we never make or destroy. Energy just is.
Wel, if the sun is causing climate change, lets turn it off for a couple of days.
No need to thank me, im sure fame and furtune will follow.
A Nobel prize might be nice as I can add it to my collection!
5:20 how can CO2 ppm be at 400 if much of the year, much of the planet is below 300ppm?
The levelling of temperature at the tropopause layer is not consistent with what Ronan and Michael Connoly have discovered lately.
The bigger problem would be a lack of CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is the stuff of life, as important as O2. At present, looking at history in Millions of years, not hundreds, it seems that we are act in a CO2 drought at 400ppm. If CO2 was to drop to 200ppm plant life would be in a severe state of distress..At 150ppm all plant life dies..and so does everything else. In commercial greenhouses there are CO2 generators to boost the growing environment to 1000ppm, as this is the level most suited to plant growth. Also, a rise in global temperature of circa 2C we could adapt to, a reduction of global temperature by circa 2C would be very much more serious. Somehow some clarity needs to be given on the subject, as currently, nothing may be said against the climate orthodoxy.. which could well be leading us all down a very dangerous path.
Can you give a link to website as I get a warning when trying to access with website stated near end of presentation… thanks
That link is in the show description
Any graphs going back thousands of years and not smoothed over ?
But my question is: why you take Co2 as reference?
Sorry, but Hawaii is one of the most volcanically active regions on the planet, hardly the place to get an accurate and representative measurement for global CO2 concentrations! What am I missing?
@@hosnimubarak8869 yet you just wasted some of yours to say nothing…
You are missing the people. Or better the lack of people
@@seesharp81321 and they are missing the volcanic activity? There are many places on the planet without people and without volcanic activity, why Hawaii?
I'm not a climate expert, just like most of the other commenters here, but I would suggest that steady~ish trade-winds at those altitudes would blow the volcanic CO2 away pretty quickly. Prove me wrong... Only in still air can you see woodsmoke from a fire staying concentrated - in even a light breeze the visible smoke disappears very fast. Did the scientists who set up the CO2 measuring system locate it generally up-wind & downhill from the volcano's vent{s} to minimize this effect? Seems pretty obvious to me. Has anyone done the obvious experiments & published their results?
@@jrb_sland5066 My explanation is more simple: even though there are many more places to choose that don't have the confounding factor of next-door volcanic activity, Hawaii is the most pleasant American location the involved scientists could reside. In addition to the fact that it is nice to live in Hawaii, it also gives them the leeway to "play", "tweak", whatever you want to call it, with the measurements. Let's watch what will happen when the volcanoes there become more active and whether they'll immediately start shouting "wolf" again because of supposedly rapidly rising CO2 levels in their measurements. I don't trust anyone involved in this ordeal.
P.S. When there are billions of places to choose from you don't go next to a volcano to set a measurement for atmospheric CO2 that represents the whole planet's atmosphere, no matter the stability of air currents in the region. There must be much more suitable locations that tick all the necessary boxes. Moreover, why not a multi-sensor approach by averaging a LOT more locations than just Hawaii. This doesn't seem right to me.
Is the presentation available for download?
Sorry, this one isn't available.
The biggest difference, maybe the number of airplanes in the sky daily, the removable of trees and replacing them with cement or blacktop. The total population increase world wide. The temperature changes as it has for thousands of years.
Tom, the answer to your question about the warming of .7c from the added co2 doesn't really line up with your idea that co2 has never caused warming.
CO2 is one of many many factors that influence Earth's climate, but CO2 is *not* the climate control knob.
I can totally agree with you on that.
@@tomnelson2080
Could the CO2 saturation be measured by putting some CO2 in a tube, with a bright light at one end, and measure the light spectrum at the other end?
if the tube is long enough
There is a UA-cam video but it's stupid- introduce compressed CO2 into tube holding a candle at one end and watch the candle image disappear in the IR camera at the other end. BBC CO2 absorbs heat experiment. Yuk. Trying to see increasing back scattered IR from more CO2 might be the right experiment. Haven't seen that done on a bench top experiment.
This is the sort of lessons that should be taught in schools and collages all over the world, as as counter balance to the rubbish that is being used as propaganda by the zealots of Global warming! Along with the books on climate by Dr Patrick Moore and many other Scientists such as Borne Lomborg & Joel Kotkin!
I'd love to hear a discussion about historical records of long-term temperature vs. carbondioxide over time as the climate cycles from glacial maximums to minimums.
How much of the energy received by atmospheric gases is converted in velocity vs re-emitted as radiation?
It is possible to listen on UA-cam to Freeman Dyson, William Happer of Patrick Moore for some addicional intelligent comments on the physics.
@@rogerphelps9939 Climatologists should limit themselves to do the weather forecast like meteorologists. Physics is another level. And everything is about the big picture. Which is exactly what the above mentioned people do. But there are more.....easy to find with a little effort. (Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. and Martin Durkin on updating The Great Global Warming Swindle, and fighting the “new class”. Do not forget to listen to " How the sun affects temperatures on Earth "(w/ Valentina Zharkova, Northumbria University)
Champion series Tom. It's all seems academic now. A friend working on compiling for a second tier green hydro plant in Queensland, Australia stated that regardless of what scientists think and even say, the science is settled as far as commercialising the nonsense is concerned with renewable energy replacements for our beloved FFs as the former is now regarded in the 2050 net zero scheme of things as by far the cheapest energy and so the most optimum to invest in whilst divesting from t'other.
Funny how people keep claiming renewables are "cheaper" when the nations with the most renewables have the highest electricity prices, isn't it?
We should be using the lowest cost energy, regardless of what form it is. Not to "save the planet", but simply because it makes economic sense. There are a lot of websites claiming that solar is now the lowest cost. I don't know if that takes into account subsidies.
Spring this year in New Zealand is not as hot as the past few years, sun less intense and massive cloud cover keeping the heat out and deluges of rain.
One question concerning the lag in CO2 rise following temperature rise: down to what scale can that effect be detected? The onset of interglacials is obvious, but how about mini-ice and mini-warm periods? Is there a detectable CO2 rise associated with that? How about even smaller temperature shifts such as those that occurred in the 20th century?
I have always struggled with this also - particularly the "800 year lag"
Any increase in temperature should cause an increase in CO2 emission from the oceans.
And there would be no perceptible delay in that.
Basic molecular physics tells us that recent CO2 increases could largely be the result of increased
global temperatures.
Except that historically, equivalent increases in CO2 didn't occur during previous temperature increases.
Confusing isn't it !
@@burgesspark685 even the “800 year lag” looks like an attempt to minimize what the Vostok chart actually showed: that at the major inflection points, CO2 consistently didn’t turn around, itself, for 8,000 to 10,000 years.
But whether it’s 800 or 8,000 years, CO2 has always lagged temperature change. When has anyone seen a presumed forcing function in nature lead from behind in the time domain? Never.
One word - BRILLIANT
1:04:00 Suggestion to the Professor::: Start out by stating your conclusions at the very beginnigs of your presentations, by saying something like this::: ("In this seminar I am going to conclude.... through a one hour presentation"). This way, listeners know quickly what you want to prove, then pay good attention to how you actuall do it, throughout your speech!!
We are one or two large volcanoes away from extremely cold (death) winters and colder summers with rising CO2 happily doing nothing to help mankind (animals) stay warm and alive
@@hosnimubarak8869 solar minimum induces it so models have no idea what’s coming
@@rogerphelps9939 a lot “hasn’t happened”…..meanwhile the human species thrives all over the planet due to the access to energy we have in oils. Many areas will become uninhabitable as has been the case of cyclical climate. Hence we are migratory animals.
Gee! No discussion about sea levels constantly rising due to fossil fuel combustion and due to metabolic water production both of which affect the ocean acidity and heat absorption.
Plants need more carbon dioxide than current levels for optimum growth. We should be campaigning for higher carbon dioxide levels, more in line with the historical mean. Imagine being a chuffing great dinosaur now? Elephants, (where they still barely exist), struggle to find enough food in the wild.
We eat plants and most of us also eat animals that eat plants so less carbon dioxide than current levels exponentially equals less food as we're only at three times required parts per million for plant life to survive, let alone flourish like it did millions of years ago, allowing unlimited animal growth in size and appetite. The planet was tropical everywhere, even at the poles, hence Greenland not being called Whiteland as it might be today if not for the political 'incorrectness' of such a 'racist' name, despite no connection or relevance to the skin colour of the presumed human population unless they were all little green men and 'blacks' apparently never being native to the country but hey, since when did facts matter when you have an obvious agenda to silence your opposition?
Inevitably less food caused directly and indirectly by further reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to below the optimum level equals fewer animals and fewer people, (that means fewer black people as well by the way - a LOT fewer since they aren't currently being allowed to even have household electricity).
Massive global depopulation is literally the publicly stated goal or end game of those pushing for Net Zero and such misguided, fear based policies. Let's hope that the potentially incoming child prodigy that cures Bill Gates' terminal brain cancer, for example, isn't starved to death, brain damaged or paralysed by his experimental 'vaccines' or environmental 'philanthropy'.
I'm sure he thinks he means well though and he does have access to the world's largest data gathering tool called Windows, each room having a window into it, so to speak, like every room having a surveillance camera per Orwell's 1984. Wasn't it someone at Google or whoever that said that they know us better or soon will know us better than we know ourselves? Shop online? Watch UA-cam? What more do they need to game you? Watch the classic movie, Network, for an early example of this concept in use. The idea is that the planet is just a corporate business and we're all consumers at the end of the day and money makes the world go round so stop complaining and watch television, drink Coke and shut up but I think it's about more than that.
Killing the Human Spirit itself ranks high on the list. There have been a couple of notable attempts in recent history when unbelievable acts of atrocity have been committed in the name of political division over the simple argument as to who gets to tell us all what to do; A very small group of people called, 'The State' that always gets and stays in power whichever way you vote or us as individuals running our own lives and realising that we don't need them except in their capacity to organize national infrastructure and military protection from others who still believe their corrupt leaders and try to invade us or place trade sanctions upon us, both effectively acts of war.
Hypothetically though, assuming that all of these petty differences could be solved by simply electing more intelligent, less corrupt leaders, if they weren't too busy running their highly successful businesses to increase our standards of living, if you wanted to take over an entire planet for its resources but were outnumbered by the native population, how better to do it than what we are doing to each other now?
Some blame the love of money, others blame The Devil, Aliens or Angels and Demons, both interdimensional beings of probable otherworldly origin and opposing views but seen in the context of some unknown outside force or occult, (hidden), entity, dimensionally shifted slightly from ours, it all makes perfect sense, not only in pounds, shillings and pence, as Roger Waters put it, as money is only the carrot and stick needed to force exponentially increasing competition with each other due to unpayable interest on debt by design and make us an absolute doddle to manipulate en masse with a simple interest rate hike.
The world economy now teeters on the brink of collapse and holds its collective breath every month in eager anticipation of Jerome Powell's next FED rate announcement, making him de facto the most powerful man in the world, at least on the face of it and obviously figureheads come and go but equally obvious is that the same anti-human policies move ever forward regardless of which side 'wins'.
The obvious use of false flag terrorism like 9/11, 7/7 etc., bioterrorism such as Ebola and Corona, (Bill Gates allegedly being a central figure in both outbreaks, though ironically, hardly any Africans have died of COVID or the boosters since they so tragically couldn't get enough of them, if you watch the evening news who call it a racist, humanitarian crisis).
Many other forms of psychological warfare are used to divide and rule, even down to family members disowning each other over non-compliant mask wearing or 'vaccine' status if regular left/right politics isn't enough.
It's easy when you know how to trip the amygdala, ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala ), into fight or flight mode when critical thinking becomes secondary to survival at ALL costs, including even close family relationships upon which we have been tribally dependent since literally day one. We are so backed into a corner now that we will even forsake our own relatives and skilled, loyal employees, especially 'essential workers' if unjabbed, to be seen to be doing the 'right' thing, as we have been instructed to perceive it through a narrow lense.
Where tenure, career or their goal of simply having more money than month are involved, even otherwise honest individuals will unconsciously suspend disbelief, (like when you're watching a well crafted movie, essentially becoming hypnotized and forgetting that it's not real, a skill we develop as playful children), believing their own lies for convenience and profit.
Today, money equals basic survival, since we have adopted or rather been handed down central banking and most of us have never known any other monetary system. Central banking equals lies and universal deceit as it is based upon a scam or lie, that money or rather currency created as intrinsic debt, (i.e. borrowed into existence), cannot therefore ever be paid off by definition when interest is attached, except with supply inflation and therefore dilution of each unit's value, requiring ever more theft through taxation and now bank bail-ins or direct theft from our bank accounts in 'emergency circumstances', that is, when they can't borrow enough, become insolvent, bankrupt and collapse so we get to bail them out instead of government agents who will also tax us more anyway as if they did.
CBDC's or Central Bank Digital Currencies are now being implemented globally, giving governments, (wholly owned and run by central banks as their agents of force), the power to censor transactions according to algorithmic social credit score and vaccine status through Digital I.D.'s, the intention being to have a subscription based immune system, reliant upon regular injections to stay alive, in the face of increasingly virulent manufactured diseases, to be blamed on nature or Gaia, (the Earth Spirit), taking revenge on us humans for irresponsibly overpopulating the planet by uncontrolled, "Wild breeding".
Dr. Steven M. Greer has stated that aliens are all friendly because they would have attacked us by now if they were hostile and assuming that they behaved like us, this may seem logical enough but logic is based upon certain presumptions being factually valid. If any input data is invalid or the circuit is built with inherent flaws, such as assuming that aliens or wealthy, Elitist earthbound humans for that matter are as crude as we are in their warfare tactics, such a logic circuit will return logically consistent, (with the hypothesis), but factually incorrect results.
Logic is still only reason based upon assumption and is capable of bias like blind faith. All science is capable of bias if conducted by pseudoscientists or those with a paid agenda. Science is typically very expensive and does not return an immediate profit, if any.
What if 'they' were somewhat smarter than us, (which one might presume), if indeed they are here in any number atall?
If one alien is here from another planet or dimension, we are but monkeys to them. Throw us a banana and we'll do anything you want. Bananas are banknotes or digits in a computer now but it's the same principle.
Would they slowly infiltrate undiscovered through a network of Secret Societies, using the target population as useful idiots, (who conveniently know where all the gold etc. is buried), or just annihilate them? Who would mine the planet's resources to build their spaceships or biospheres? They may not even have opposing thumbs for all we know!
Either way, something or someone is openly attacking us now on all fronts and division is the last thing we need.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Where we go one, we go all.
🌎
I look out my window in NH on Jan 1st and there is zero snow on the ground the outside temp was 51*. I say NO it isn't hot air.
Lovely zincs: weather is not climate.
@@terryharris3393 Yes I know that. But the weather we have been having doesn't fit with the normal climate of the area.
@@lonelyp1 Normal climate of the area? Weather is what it is today. Climate is what is for decades on average. So your telling me that no snow and 51* is the normal for past few decades but say 100 years ago there was snow? Of course not! Your saying that you are used to snow in the ground at that time of year and this year on that day it’s warmer. That’s weather not climate. For you to think that it’s 20* warmer on average due to a 1.5* increase in the last 100 years is, well wrong.
The politicization of climate change happened after the conclusions of climate change were already reached and predictions were made. There was no politics involved. Politics happened when people didn't like the conclusions and predictions and attempted to disprove the science. Science terms are not 'fancy words' for common concepts, they are precise words scientists use to understand the concepts. Without any rebuttal from any of the majority of climate scientists who support climate change, what is presented here doesn't mean much.
The vomited words of a brain-dead moron
Sorry if that seems harsh, but I have lost patience with this type of imbecilic thinking from people who have not researched
the subject and just repeat alarmists propaganda nonsense.
Climate changes. After 20ppm CO2 has very little effect.
This is important information for people who don't know any better. The issue is that putting out the "house on fire" is not the goal, the goal is to evict the occupants.
For the people who attend Davos every year, you're the problem. So, unless you’re okay with 2000 psychopaths deciding your fate, I suggest you get of your collective arses and spread the news, hassle your local Politian, do something or your kids don't have a future.
Great way of putting it!
ua-cam.com/video/GxUm3cOA7Ow/v-deo.htmlsi=LA55URG70Cx6V6w2
18:15 - never saw saturation that clear, nice.
BUT: "you expect T of the surface of the earth to go up by ...". (when infrared FROM the earth is absorbed)
I totally miss a plausible explanation for the assertion, that absorbed + "mirrored back" IR from a radiator, the earth, can heat that radiator up. Sounds to me like a violation of 1. Energy conservation, 2. Second law thermodyn. (Heat flow from cool to warm no possible) and also Stefan Boltzmann: Heat flow from a radiator is NOT dependent on emissivity of environment.
Is there any interview addressing THAT? It's the good old Gerlich + Tscheuschner paper in general...
Or maybe somebody knows of an experiment demonstrating that the radiator warms when CO2 is doubled? I just find falsifying experiments, e.g. Ohlsen et al.
Wigngarrden and Happer authored a highly readable primer free online titled _Atmosphere and Greenhouse Gas Primer._
I have spent some time researching the Vostok ice core CO2 and oxygen isotope proxy temperature data as it relates to whether CO2 leads temperature or temperature leads CO2 and have found no published analysis worthy of the conclusion of which is causal. Some analysis claim the data support that CO2 leads temperature and therefore is causal while others conclude that temperature leads CO2 and therefore is causal. I say that neither position is justified because the data sets DO NOT contain sufficient information. There are only two ways to infer cause and effect from correlated data produced by a dynamic systems WITH feedback: one must stimulate the system with a Gaussian forcing function or have knowledge of the system design. Since neither is true the ‘apparent’ leading or lagging factor is not proof of cause and effect. Applying entropy transfer concepts to the data shows that if the theory is appropriately applied there, that there are many periods where CO2 is causal and reversals to where temperature is causal. In the 600,000 year data record this happens maybe 100 times!
very interesting
Excellent video! Great to see all the snippets I have seen collected in one spot. I saw a lot of this in William Happer's presentation. It is sad that most could watch this and not believe that their AGW religion is false. Cognitive dissonance. At minute 32, as an agronomist, I would contest a few details. We could go to zero synthetic N and still maintain reasonable yieds, not a 70% decrease. Growing hairy vetch before corn is one example. Of greater concern is the huge destruction of ozone from NO2.
I think the question would be more as to whether the ozone is being damaged faster than the planet makes it. Shine UV light on O2 and you get O3, that's why there's more of it between the tropics. ( Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen an estimate of how much O3 gets made every year.)
Great science thanks
Does the IPCC even do comparisons too satellite observations for their models? Gonna be hard for alarmists to argue with this given the agreement with observations.
Maybe i missed it but if the level of Co2 has risen, how much of that can be attributed to the oceans releasing Co2 from temperature rises? Also, it seems that more information is at hand lately which shows the various ways Co2 levels are measured. Taking the ice core data from older samples and more recent data from other sources. This discrepancy seems important. It is in another video on this channel. I recall the conclusion stated that Co2 levels were not much different in the last 200 years. I am likely wrong about the time frame. Anyway, it seems that it has been quite steady yet mr van Wijngaarden says the Co2 elevation is definately mainly from industrial processes.
Can anybody help me out?
Two glasses tap water place one in a warm place and the other a refrigerator. Soon the warmer shows dissolved CO2 being ejected as bubbles and the cold one has no bubbles does this help understanding water breathes co2 and the colder the greater CO2. Try refilling cold water soda stream bottles and save CO2 wastage,
Here's a question... let's say I am an infrared photon at the surface of the earth. I am making a beeline for outer space. What are the odds that I get through without being absorbed by a GHG?
It will be absorbed or not absorbed depending on a multitude of factors unrelated to "GHG"
@plinny theother well I think that's my hypothesis, the odds of my photonic self interacting with, say a CO2 molecule, is pretty low. Also, according to the good doctor absorption spectra, the photon might not be the right wavelength to be absorbed by co2
@@plinnytheother6107 also tell your older brother I said hello. Clever handle, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
Excellent unless you meet a resonant molecule to vibrate with no energy can be transferred. As you were emitted the planet cooled by one photon immediately what ever you do? Radiation is energy leaving an object. Transference is only by vibration with a suitable molecule.
Photons rely on energy level from the emitting Surface. The Sun photons diversify but we can focus these burnin paper or even melting steel. No lens can burn with moon beams.
In the 18th century we had 20% Oxygen and 79% Nitrogen. We now use 30x the amount of fossil fuels and thus 30x more Oxygen. But we do not have 30x more trees , grass or Algae. Thus we would have about 6-7% less Oxygen in the air.
I agree with everything, but I would like to add two missing information. The first concerns the productivity generated by the use of nitrogen fertilizers. The brutal increment of productivity means greater carbon capture transforming it into a plant physical structure. Thus beyond the small impact on methane generation it is necessary to consider the positive balance of CO2 capture. The other point to clarify is that although it does not make sense to prevent farmers from planting in the Netherlands, the argument that Brazilian agriculture is less efficient is not correct. Brazil breaks productivity records per hectare in most crops due to high -tech use and the vast majority of production does not occur in Amazonia. The Brazilian Forest Code only allows the agricultural exploitation of 20% of the area of private properties in the Amazon and in addition to 90% of the Amazon territory is an indigenous or forest reserve area. Brazil only cultivates 7% of all its territory.
Too bad that Dr van Wijngaarden is not aware of the study from a few years ago that corrected the 800 year lag between CO2 concentration and temperature, turned out people forgot to correct for the fact that airbubbles rise in ice over time. After taking that into account the lag completely disappears.
That has been proven to be as unreliable as the tree rings. One confirming measurement is the stomata of leaves, they number of stoma on the leaves is indicative of the C02 content, the age of the leaf is confirmed by carbon dating.
@@jackwesselman6281 maybe that works for living plants, we are talking about the ice core measurements from Greenland/Antarctica, there are no stomata in the ice.
@@DavidvanDeijk I thought this was a Global problem, C02 for the most part is fairly evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. I would suggest then what ever measurement made through ice cores could well be confirmed through all other means of evidence to support it's numbers. This could include stomata from other regions but similar time frames, could also include the dead zone up mountsides where C02 has thinned below viable levels, as well the tree line near Arctic circle can confirm temperature.
@@jackwesselman6281 Yes it is a global problem. And there are many historical proxy data we can compare. We like to get as many as possible and compare all of them. That does not invalidate your stomata method, it just is not related to what I was discussing.
Heat water and CO2 is ejected. A cause and its effect. more CO2 causing heat reverses this cause and effect, illogical.
Mauna Lao not polluted? It is one of Earth's most active volcanoes, spewing carbon dioxide from the earth constantly, also being surrounded by an ocean which is a CO2 sink, and varies CO2 release constantly according to Henry's law determined by the temperature of the water because of solubility.
It is certainly not a good site for objective measures of average CO2 values on Earth, and it would not be surprising if its selection as a site for CO2 measurements was politically biased, because when ocean waters warm, CO2 concentration in the air goes up immediately, and we have been in a solar maximum recently.
The same holds for all the other "greenhouse gases", a misnomer, whose solubility fall in ocean water when the water's temperature rises, and volcanoes are also significant methane emitters.
To be frank, Mauna Lao could not be a worse site to represent the planet for trace gas monitoring.
There is no such thing as a global average CO2 level
There is no such thing as a global average temperature
In truth, we have very little idea what they might actually be
@@burgesspark685 , that's true. When do we measure the average? 2pm local? 10am local? Every location has its bias towards plankton, plant life, swamp methane production (which becomes CO2 with oxygen), etc.
Every location is always changing, even the smallest area can have wildly different measures than the one next to it.
@@climatesciencejournal
Practical physics has real difficulty in determining the accurate temperature within your living room at any one time,
never the mind the "global average"
Sicily has Etna and CO2 falling gives great fruit and vegetation not seen in Malta just 75 miles away.
Very informative on info we already know. Good to see the saturation curves because I always believe saturation occurs.
It also counters the lie that co2 forces vapour warming. Where in actual tge cloud vapour reduces the forcing of co2.
Merry Christmas 22.
@@Leitwolf22
sorry but "saturation" does not give the wrong idea since it is the measure of the degree of absorption possible on the *logarithmic scale* of CO2 absorption. It is the critical factor in disproving the alarmists hypothesis of CO2 forcing.
Overlaps are also very important - but overlaps on their own would not dispel the alarmists claim that increased CO2
would cause further warming.
@@Leitwolf22 no co2 forcing in the north and South Pole for 6 months every year. Co2 doesn’t hold heat.
Overlap, saturation and the fact that co2 only radiation is a few bands. But of course co2 has a warming contribution because it’s a greenhouse gas.
But ocean oscillation and the earth ocean play a far bigger part in climate than co2. Co2 provides warming so we don’t freeze.
@@Leitwolf22 it’s a shame many of the models don’t use the log scale of co2.
I’ve looked for this consensus and it simply is stated as political fact. But many scientists don’t agree. Now whilst co2 is a warming gas, whilst humans contribute to co2 levels, there are other mechanisms at play within the earth biosphere which control climate.
B-A and D-O have been triggered many times without control from co2. Ice pulse melts have produced rapid sea level rise without co2. They produced rapid temperature drop and rise. But now all these tipping points only due to rise in co2 and temp. Strange how all these previous tipping point have no connection to co2 but probably a disruption in the earth heat engine.
What about the Acrim v pmod assessment pushed by people with agenda. Or the discrepancy in tree ring data.
Now I don’t doubt co2 is warming but to pretend that co2 is the main mechanism in climate when we can’t even understand the reason for pulse melts, or even know adequately all the mechanisms of the planet, than the alarmist take a very arrogant position.
Of course we shouldn’t pollute the planet and and of course we should use resources sustainably. But the climate change agenda has now been highjacked using rogue science, politicised and pushed for the power of the political class.
Because of climate alarmist, we now get to see the real agenda of the political class. It’s called Degrowth agenda. It is social ecological economics. Ie anti capitalist. Climate change has become a simple anti capitalist agenda vehicle for planetary change.
@@Leitwolf22
you criticise others for obfuscation and lack of understanding
and yet you fail to explain your position with any clarity - claiming that it must be wrong because it is the "consensus"
I may be more willing to consider your argument if you gave any substance to it - but you havent.
@@burgesspark685 You point is well stated and perhaps another way to support the term saturation to explain the logarithmic relationship between the concentration of CO2 and its forcing effect of temperature is to liken it to the diminishing returns of stepping half the remaining distance between your present position and your destination. One never arrives and each new step has little effect.
For me it is simply about albedo.
An albedo if 1.0 mean that all light is reflected off the earth ie a snowball planet.
An albedo of 0 implies a water planet. Nearly with variation due to angle of light on the water.
The albedo of earth is about 0.31.
Would be interesting to know the albedo of oceanic water.
Excellent presentation. Just one concern: why do you use the term "Greenhouse gas" when the warming of a greenhouse has nothing to do with a back and forth of heat radiation but occurs due to convective heat exchange within a CLOSED system (which the atmosphere is not)?
I would agree that putting sewage into the sea is wrong, however how much sea life dyes and delicates in the sea every day 365 days a year, now that is sewage. What is one blue wale worth in regards to humans
What?
If it had been so well if Tunberg had this positive influence, Wijngaarden reclaims in this video. I think hysteria is more the result. But I understand, Wijngaarden as many with him, have to take their own well-being into consideration, this social climate being as it is.
Excellent telling video from a brave man.
There's a lot of relevant information here, but it's disappointing that the hypothesis that mixed and constantly moving atmospheric gases can act like a greenhouse covering is simply presumed to be true. Apparently the idea has been preached so long that even a scientist of Dr. Van Wijngaarden's age has adopted it and doesn't think to question such a remarkable idea. Another sign that he's going along with the alarmist rhetoric is talking about ocean acidification, when, as even his chart shows, the ocean is decidedly alkaline (pH > 7).
So overall, this presentation is a mixed bag, discrediting apocalyptic claims but failing to question the role of atmospheric gases in the slight warming since the Little Ice Age.
Tge sun by some is said to be on an elliptical path and heat and passively cools earth .. another factor to consider in the warming and cooling . 🌻✌️
The Hunga Tonga eruption will have had a big influence on the current climate 😊
I am not Dutch, but I can pronounce my own Dutch surname quite well.
Great