Global Dimming Paradox: Are we facing an abrupt temperature spike?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Global Warming is taking a rare back seat in the news right now, as we deal with the more immediate existential crisis afflicting our civilisation and way of life. But as entire countries are getting shut down around the world, with the rapid reduction of emissions that this causes, is the global dimming paradox about to be tested? Will we see an abrupt spike in temperatures that tips our earth systems into an irreversible cascade of warming feedbacks?
Addendum : Drew Shindell is in fact a professor at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, NOT Durham North East England. Apologies for this error.
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveath...
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoff...
Download the Just Have a Think App from the AppStore or Google Play
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos?
Check out the FREE DiveDeeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.
climatechange....
Check out other UA-cam Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karver:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown:
/ @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere:
/ @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
Thanks in particular go to Jon Bruce, one of our Patrons, and Shani Cairns, a climate researcher in Boulder, Colorado writing for www.scientistswarning,org.
Their academic papers and articles provided the motivation to make this video.
Research Links:
www.scientists...
www.ipcc.ch/si...
www.scientific...
sciencing.com/...
earthobservato...
www.esa.int/(ar...
coronavirus.jh...
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
agupubs.online...
www.carbonbrie...
climatetipping...
www.bbc.co.uk/...
I've just discovered your channel and I really find this stuff interesting. Also, you're so pleasant to listen to and so genuine with your well wishes. It is a strange time.
When talking about something so disturbing, it is helpful to hear about it from a pleasant, calm voice. We don't want panic. We want action based on facts and reason.
I'm a long term sojournor in the climate 'debates'. I've also had a lay interest in science of any stripe since I was a wee lad. The articulated fair-mindedness in this video is heartening. Well put, and the science was clearly expressed. Being a public speaker for 30 years, I know that this is a real skill, or a rare natural ability. Well done, mate. Excellent transmission of science and dialogue.
Having just come back to your videos after a little break I am struck by your incredible talent for presenting soooo many complicated details so clearly. Congrats on your excellent important work! Much appreciated!
Depending upon phony studies to assume that any theories are indicative of anything isn't "talent" if you will forgive me. Papers on heating of the atmosphere due to additional CO2 are entirely wrong. The absorption lines are almost off the emission lines of sunlight making the idea of atmospheric warming due to CO2 a fantasy. Rather most of the emissions of the Sun are absorbed by the earth, converted to IR and moved into the upper atmosphere via conduction. CO2 is a superior conductor in this manner and hence is a coolant rather than an atmospheric warming agent.
@@tomkunich9401 Clever
I have a small organic farm here in the finger lakes NY and have been chronicling the changing weather patterns, bird migrations, insect populations, and the general shifts that have made it harder to grow the usual crops here and the ability to grow things that are adapted to more southern regions. Over the past 20yrs the changes were gradual but now have become much more pronounced . Most people that don't depend on the natural weather cycles for their livelyhoods are just annoyed by floods and droughts and don't see what the effect is on the environment until they have to pay more for carrots or peas or corn. 20yrs ago I never had to irrigate anything there was regular rainfall now if I don;t collect rainfall when it comes I will lose crops ....so it goes ....the changes are increasing exponentially as time goes on.
It’s called the McPhearson paradox!! Professor Guy Mchpearson first brought it up here is his video. ua-cam.com/video/8j4Lhl8C9rs/v-deo.html
I bet it is beautiful up there. Thank you for commenting.
Very revealing. Thank you. On a personal level as an amateur gardener for may years I noticed two things in Eastern Pennsylvania where I lived most of my life. One is that spring (last date of frost) seems to have consistently moved up two weeks earlier. To witness that in a lifetime is is provoking when you read that ice cores reveal long, long periods of time for incremental changes in global temperature. Second, storms arriving around Halloween (ice and snow) were not only early, but quite severe. Scientists obviously have much better data points, but if you can sense and observe the world is changing, it probably is.
I grew up in Northeastern Ohio and 40 years ago the Great Lakes had consistent ice cover every winter. That winter ice cover has diminished and in some recent years, been conspicuously absent altogether (polar vortex notwithstanding).
As I have ancestry from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan I can also tell you that in my youth (I'm 54 now) the snow pack was measured in yards, now they report it in feet or inches like the rest of the US.
So yes, the climate has changed. And also in that time, there's been a huge reduction in acid rain which was a common occurrence in my youth as well. Many a car paint job was ruined by it in the 70's but not so much anymore.
The reduction in acid rain has a lot to do with EPA mandates for coal fired power plant scrubbers. I grew up near the Cuyahoga River which its having caught fire for the 13th time was the impetus behind the creation of the EPA in the first place. Since it's inception in 1971 the river has not caught fire yet again. And the water in Lake Erie which the river empties into is much cleaner (it's the shallowest of the Great Lakes).
It's also curious to note that my youth coincided with the last grand solar maximum. Solar cycles have been waning ever since careening towards a grand solar minimum. The effect of solar cycles and their strength has a very strong correlation with global and regional climate and weather patterns including temperature and annual precipitation. Another equally important factor to consider is Earth's changing magnetic field. The poles are racing towards new destinations now as the overall field strength has declined by almost 30% since I was born in 1966. And also, the region of space our solar system is now entering has a much more dense energy field to it. As the sun's strength wanes we are experiencing a maximum of cosmic ray flux which itself changes planetary albedo through cloud nucleation. There are fewer and fewer sunny days each year here in the Midwest now than there were just 35 years ago.
While it is indeed nice to be breathing less tailpipe induced smog these COVID days, I wouldn't attribute too much climate influence to humankind. The bulk of that belongs to larger causes like our sun, our solar system, and the space it currently is traveling through within the Milky Way, and of course the drastic decline of Earth's magnetic field (so drastic that global planned updates to the GPS system had to be made in advance of the regularly scheduled ones every 5 years).
The best science I have seen on solar cycles suggests that a grand solar minimum will begin with solar cycle 26. So we've got one more "normal" albeit subdued cycle beginning right now in solar cycle 25. Cycle 26 won't be anything near normal.
people do not understand this, they think everything will be fine.
I lived near a airport back then. It was so quiet for 3 days. Didn't realize how stressful noise pollution is.
This is what Trump misses to convey when he is talking about "windmills" causing cancer.
Thanks for showing many differing papers and conclusions. I hadn't actually seen opposing data to the global dimming concept, and mistakenly thought it was far more certain than it sounds to be. As a scientist, striving to be open to challenges to my views, I really appreciate getting the incorrect understanding of things knocked out of my head. Thank you for looking into this question! Not only is it interesting to talk about the potential of global dimming--or not--but right now is a real live chance to gain far more data about what happens when an economy slows and aerosol productions are significantly reduced. I look forward to seeing the after-action analysis in a few years!
The place to look for the effect in the ultra-short term is the NOAA ORAP5 ocean heat content (OHC) anomaly (i.e. the energy
imbalance) at:
www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
because it's updated quarterly (so you can get the ultra-short term indication). If the TREND over 6 months or more increases then that definitely indicates that the global heater has increased and there's no reason for anything to increase the global heater right now (since Earth isn't coming off an El Nino) except reduced planetary albedo. However, be careful to keep track of ENSO because a large/moderate El Nino event shoves heat in the air for 18 months that's far more overwhelming than "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and anything else except a big volcanic eruption. In the longer term there will more of the more-detailed (I mean more accurate) OHC anomaly analyses such as these in my energy list below:
105% to 235% of the increase in Earth's Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) since 1750 AD has been caused by the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) since 1750 AD. The huge uncertainty is almost
entirely air pollution and black carbon on snow, with significant minorities being how much Arctic Ocean summer sea ice area is now already a Dead Man Walking and the uncertainty (the range) between the 6 temperature proxies at 1750 AD (strangely, the
Mann, Bradley, Hughes "hockey stick" shows the ==least== warming since 1750 AD of the 6 temperature proxies at 1750 AD). The rest is trivially simple to compute. So there's now 70% +/- 60% * 1.36 = +0.95 +/- 0.82 degrees of "climate lag" increase in
GMST now "in the pipeline" to play out mostly the next few decades and entirely unstoppable as the ocean relentlessly warms. But it'll only be at that low end if it turns out that there's been no increase in industrial & transportation air pollution since 1750 AD
which seems a tad unlikely. That +0.95 degrees will be +2.5 degrees of Arctic region warming that's now entirely unstoppable.
----------
The ~0.78 w/m**2 warming imbalance of the last 20 years has been analyzed as follows (4 competing analyses):
w/m**2
----------
+0.85 (13.7 Zettajoules / year) Magdalena Balmaseda's ocean ORAS4 OHC analysis ~2013,
-or-
+0.826 ± 0.012 (13.3 ± 0.20 Zettajoules / year) Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean with errors.
+0.752 ± 0.045 (12.1 ± 0.72 Zettajoules / year) Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean with errors corrected.
Resplandy et al, 2018 ocean. A totally-independent geochemical method based on the changing
solubility of O2 and CO2 in the warming ocean.
It was quickly found after publishing to have a
couple of errors and this is the corrected (lower than before) trend.
The uncertainties in this methodology are too large for this to be a definitive independent
confirmation but further work may well reduce them.
+0.75 Kiehl-Trenberth ocean ,
-or-
+0.73 Ocean Heat Content NOAA ORAP5 2011 - 2019/03 It increased slightly 2011, linear to 2019
(pentadal average)
+0.61 Upper 2000 metres only. , Lijing Cheng et al 2020 (not included in average)
ocean heat content OHC anomaly Lijing Cheng John ABRAHAM Jiang ZHU Trenberth et al
+0.073 below 2000 metres only Purkey and Johnson 2010. (contributed by L Cheng)
+0.68 Upper 2000 metres, Lijing Cheng et al 2020. below 2000 metres Purkey and Johnson 2010
I omitted the 1st 2 analyses above and the last analysis. They appear to over-estimates & an under-estimate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gigawatts portion
379,400 95.8% +0.744 ± 0.008 /0.014 Warming the oceans. Average of the 3 central analyses above and their variation as the uncertainty.
6,100 1.6% +0.012 Antarctica + Greenland + glaciers ice loss of 400 km**3 / year.
4,700 1.2% +0.0093 Arctic Ocean sea ice loss of 310 km**3 / year.
4,200 1.1% +0.0083 Atmospheric heating.
1,800 0.4% +0.0028 Land heating to a depth of 20 feet.
=============
396,200 100.1% +0.7764 w/m**2 Total TOA warming imbalance average for the last 22 years.
It's certain within +/- 3.0%, not actually accurate within the 4 significant digits shown.
I assume my 95.8% exceeds climate scientists "93% goes into the oceans because I'm using a 1995-2017 time line and they likely start much earlier.
Research grand solar Minimum - started this year......
Pole migration - 130 yrs so far - 25 years to go = 2046
Jet streams in half
Lots going on
Co2 is. Hoax. It always goes up during pole rotations - it is not us like they say
Wow, we're loving your classy graphics and virtual studio (to accompany your already calm manner and reasoned arguments).
One thought that came to mind is that the 9/11 contrail case was a poor experiment in that it was limited days and limited location, involving only aeroplanes. The effect may have been statistically insignificant given the noisy spatio-temporal nature of atmospheric and temperature variations. This coronavirus crisis effect on industry shutdowns will be nearer to a global phenomenon affecting all aspects of emissions, and there may me much more to learn regarding net temperature effects of "release" from global dimming by human emissions.
While I agree with what you are saying here, it is the only such experiment we have. At no other time in modern history were so many flights canceled. Today is likely approaching that on a global scale.
Hi Keryn. Thanks for your kind feedback. Much appreciated. I agree with you about the virus - a very important (although completely unwelcome) atmospheric experiment which no doubt all the major monitoring agencies are crawling all over right now. I'll be fascinated to see what results come out at the other end.
Unless you are suggesting that the release of the COVID-19 was deliberate, our current situation is not a “experiment”. It is merely a situation that may supply some useful data.
Heinrich Svensmark cloud mystery documentary. If you're not going to include this information there's no point even doing a presentation. No mention of the solar minimum or
waning magnetosphere.
A follow up video will be appreciated examining the observed temperatures for January through June compared with ten or twenty year global and regional averages. Perhaps also separating out land and ocean temperatures.
I really love the format of this one and the enormous effort you’ve put in. The content too is level, balanced and evidence based and I really appreciate it.
There are SO many simple/cheap ways to address climate change that NO ONE is talking about. Two examples:
1. Tax employers for the mileage their employees must commute - to encourage them to "hire local" and save on the exhaust emissions.
2. Put lanterns on the gas humps in Siberia, to ignite the methane when it escapes, as methane is MUCH worse than CO2.
Seeing NO action on such simple and effective measures, it is REALLY hard for me to take the politics of climate change seriously.
Having watched these videos I can't help having a sneaking suspicion that we really don't have any way of knowing with certainty what will happen as a consequence of anything we do.
stenka rasin
Totally agree with your statement.
It seems that the vast majority of all the modelling done around global warming to date has not been anywhere near accurate.
The earth is too complex and finally balanced to assume that changing one part of an equation (eg CO2) will not have a cause and effect on another!
Until such time that these models are developed to encompass every aspect to cause and effect, we will never be able to model anything accurately.
Sadly too much emphasis and reliance has been put into taking current modelling as 100% accurate (which is so far from the truth)!
stenka rasin And thus the latest Heartland Institute’s meme of too much complexity to ever know comes a winner.
When everything the american people believe is false, then we know we have done our Job .. We lie, we cheat, we steal.We have entire training courses on it.... quotes from directors of the CIA .
stenka rasin:
the video at the beginning showing yellow dots for aircraft is absurdly exaggerated.
From space you wouldn't notice any difference.
We are nano-scopic & invisible compared to the earth.
Whenever you hear a phoney whiney fake-news brit voice accompanied by "modelling" charts, and ESPECIALLY if you hear reference to ANYTHING from the u.n. IPCC CarbonTaxFraudScam alarmist terrorist fake-news lying propagandists (and their parroting puppets like neurotic threat-a doomberg & fiberal feltcher jihadstin maggot castro tru-grope turdface) seeking to subjugate enslave & dysfunctionalize the world...
when you hear & see this duplicitous delusional pseudoscience then remember these irrefutable FACTS:
co2 is the primary driver of all life on earth,
co2 was 10-100x higher for 99% of the past,
co2 x 10 will eliminate deserts & icecaps,
BOOST the co2,
MELT the ice,
MODERATE our climate,
RESTORE the BIOSPHERE..!!!
duh.
Our planet was a WorldWide Year-Round Jungle for 99% of the history of plants & animals on earth, with 100x the present living biomass on land and at sea, and NO desolate icecaps/winters, and NO barren deserts.
Ice & deserts are the real "climate catastrophe extremes" and they are caused by the CARBON DROUGHT of the geologically recent last few million years.
I have presented the FACTS whereas nothing the parroting puppets say is in any way factual beyond question, it's just alarmist pseudoscience propaganda.
bought & paid shills for the globalist u.n. IPCC new-world-order CarbonTaxFraudScam.
And as for the phoney "sea level rise" LIES....
floating ice DOES NOT raise the level of water it melts into... basic physics, duh.
THE FACTS of the past ARE UNDENIABLE.
Anyone that tries to "model" our future climate as "fact" is a BAREFACED LIAR.
Deforestation & toxic pollution are bad, no question, but...
co2 IS NOT A TOXIN.
and
co2 increase support's reforestation.
That's already happening worldwide.
We are likely headed to a great new age of
CARBON PROSPERITY as ice & deserts give way to farms forests & jungles.
@@andymacdonald821 That's quite the fine babbling gish gallop you got going there. I admire its Production Values.
Just found your site. very impressed. Your ability to unravel the complexity involved in the discussion is flawless. Wish I’d had a teacher as interesting as you when I was at school.
It's like wondering whether pulling the arrow from a wound would not send the victim into shock.
Sometimes such an operation can cause deadly bleeding.
Well, does its presence not allow warming? So, some narrow view assumes that its absence also allows warming. Pish!
ua-cam.com/video/gR3s8VUYT9g/v-deo.html
@@richard_d_bird Thanks for the clip, relevant and hilarious.
We should not pull an arrow from a wound. It is better to pack the area around the wound with a wet cloth and take the person to a hospital where they can have
an operation. This is more like worrying that a person removed from a smoke-filled room will get high on oxygen!
Thanks.
You did a great presentation with stunning video editing skills.
I am sure there must be more than a few TV stations in awe at the video quality that a few UA-cam channels like yours have achieved.
This is great thanks, badly needed in the battle to have a rational discourse on the entire subject.
The McPherson Paradox goes mainstream. It's about time.
I'm in "Silicon Valley" in California and it's gotten cooler, back to how it was 15 or 20 years ago, and a lot colder at night - there was even a bit of snow in South San Jose a week ago. And during the day when the sun's out it feels like the sun in Hawaii where I grew up - strong.
thank you for adding your two cents on 'dimming'.... I love the presentation style you've developed, ever more refined and always pleasant... and while you may be going only so deep in your research, I think you help us grasp the essentials and thats hugely important... I'll help spread the word... and thanks again for your work!!!
Thanks Jyre. I appreciate that! I did only skim the surface on this one, but I wanted it to be something that most folks could get their minds around as a basic overview. I'm delighted to hear you like the new set up.It gives me a lot more flexibility with the various graphics and visual aids. All the best. Dave
@@JustHaveaThink "local temperatures peak near the arctic circle" releasing the ESAS methane bomb! (Oh am I going off topic or are you not able to connect the dots?) arctic-news.blogspot.com
jyre Heffron ua-cam.com/video/8j4Lhl8C9rs/v-deo.html
jyre Heffron Florin Adrian watch Professor Guy Mchpearson exploration and human extinction ua-cam.com/video/8j4Lhl8C9rs/v-deo.html
jyre Heffron It’s called the McPhearson paradox!! Professor Guy Mchpearson first brought it up here is his video. ua-cam.com/video/8j4Lhl8C9rs/v-deo.html
Please do a follow up on this subject in a couple months .. to evaluate the effect of so much reduced industrial out put plus the reduction in the airline industry. This could be a real time test of the Global Dimming Paradox.
I didn't see that this was such an old video. I was hoping for some new data.
exactly
There have been massive flooding and extreme weather systems worldwide or is that just me focussing on this subject, China has had it very bad...
@@lynnattwood1716 It is not you focussing on the subject. The predicted weather extremes are
certainly happening all over the world (some areas worse than others). We are entering an
era of potentially very fast and large changes .. as the Arctic ocean becomes mostly melted
and open, permafrost continues to thaw at an unprecedented scale, methane is being released more and more, forest everywhere are burning and releasing huge amounts of carbon .. all adding to it self as a positive reinforcing mechanism. We are living in unprecedented times.
@@jimlamet134 - I'm somewhat new to researching climate change and it's effects. I'm a little confused though on if global dimming will have a real long term negative effect or not? This video here was well done, but seems to not give any solid answers to the question of what would happen if we slowed down manufacturing and flying, driving etc.....and if that would result in less dimming and therefore more heat coming in long term. Guy McPherson says we're screwed no matter what, saying if we stop industrial activity then we'll heat up faster than now, and if we keep going with industrial activity we'll still heat up due to trapped in gases, but maybe a bit more slowly. But it seems mainstream scientists are not concerned about what effect global dimming may or may not have. Color me confused.
Your approach is very thoughtful and inviting. Marshall McLuhan adopted a great Ray Bradbury quote and adopted it into his work: "Violence is the quest for individual or group identity". The solution, McLuhan felt, was dialogue. The staging of your show/persona definitely invites that - it's very commendable and I hope this type of thing really catches on. I hadn't checked in on Global Dimming for about 10 years, so it was compelling to see where we are now!
Unfortunately the food production world wide is slowing. The locusts are now decimating East African farmlands, having halved Pakistan's crops. France and Spain are in deep trouble and produce much of Europe's food. Check out the situation with agricultural workers in USA.The insect collapse has happened and is worsening. The global dimming/aerosol masking debate is academic....although local regional temperatures are showing increases.Coral reefs continue to collapse. The arctic ice is declining very rapidly as I write. Anyone who thinks we are not in grave, immediate danger right now is not looking at the overall system, natural and man-made. I don't want this to be so. We won't help each other by avoiding the facts. Continually we hear 'faster than expected'. Good luck everyone.
Constructive dialogue...the first step to solving problems
I gived you thumbuppy for your tongue in cheek, are you related to me ? "Constructive dialogue" hiding in there amongst a torrent of the usual eclectic mix of pointless stupid coal/oil shill-fuckwitted drivel that relentlessly pours like wet excrement down the comments section of this video & all climate videos I've ever seen/heard in unending vast imbecilic quantities. You have exactly the dry humour that I adore. Never lose that.
Most certainly the current scenario will lead to many studies in many disciplines. Lets pay attention to the real science and not the conspiracies that arise. Be skeptical, follow data, allow for alternate arguments. All of us can learn to use a 'science-mind' , even if we are not scientists.
So lets 'Just Have a Think'
I’m a skeptic but and avid supporter and Patreon of this fellow. Why? because he is a thinker. Btw when I say skeptic I am however a fierce supporter of renewables and limiting human impact
@2:08 he says a 1C temperature variation is common over that particular area. There's just one problem with that; the DTR spike wasn't just over that particular area but the whole country.
@Barry Foster what makes you qualified to stomp on scientists?
I read nothing measured in your comment. simple ideology, just hate, bad morning?
If you are skeptical of the overwhelming scientific consensus, then you are anti-science. There's no other way to put it.
If you think the currently accepted climate model in climatology is wrong, then I have great news for skeptics like you! Science provides you a mechanism to prove that you're right and that the prevailing opinion of science is wrong!
All you have to do is produce a climate model that makes more accurate predictions than the model you're so certain is wrong.
Once you have that, you need to plug actual data into it to prove that your model generates more accurate predictions.
Then publish your findings in a reputable journal, and make sure you include enough information so that your fellow science experts in the relevant field can duplicate your results.
Then present your paper at the appropriate science conference so that you can be cross-examined by an auditorium full of your fellow climatology experts.
Then wait for your fellow climatology experts to duplicate your results/calculations.
Does this sound like too high of a bar for you to pass?
Because the climate model you're so certain is wrong went through all of these steps many times as it was developed and then refined into what we have today.
Don't you find it curious that out of all those millions of science-deniers, some of whom have fancy educations and tons of funding from oil companies are somehow totally unable to do the one thing that would actually prove their claims about climatology?
It must be a conspiracy! There must be a sinister international conspiracy that is preventing all the anti-science quacks from actually proving their ridiculous anti-science claims about climatology! How else do you explain why all those so-called experts keep saying you are wrong! Don't those so-called experts know you **you** are?
@@tofu_golem to whom are you directing this?
The problem with this, as loosely admitted, is that the views still rely on models. You can’t, as suggested, aggregate many models to arrive at a solid mid ground consensus. That simply doesn’t work. I do like your presentation style though, comes across very calm and thoughtful.
I believe the idea was somewhat proven as studies suggested a significant rise in global averages post Covid.
Wacha gonna do. Without a model, you have instead a much simpler model.
You are the best UA-cam Science communicator. Your videos are phenomenal! Thank you
Trying to base definitive conclusions on 3 days of data was always going to be a ludicrous endeavour
As a scientist for over 30 years, regard this topic with the complexity in which it has been presented. The topic of "dimming" is still under discussion, again, after Covid 19 groundings of aircraft. I would pay more attention to the permafrost issue myself -fyi.
I’d say this last year of weather speaks volumes about this specific topic.
especially if you disregard the last 10 years entirely it does.
@@dmtc6913 right!! I've been saying for damn near 20 years; "seems like the seasons are shifting".
@@crayoncer yeah maybe, I think he's referring to hurricanes fires and floods, but same holds true.
I appreciate your comments on the comments section. I would like to add that I think opinions are considered with more care when the commenter is treating others with respect.
Disagree..most deniers deal in lies and bad faith arguments. They need to be called out not coddled.
Here in California the air is clearer than it has been in decades. Usually there is an orange-brown haze in the low-atmosphere over Monterey Bay-- it has been absent for over a week. So it would appear we are involuntarily conducting the global dimming experiment in real time, right now.
Any warmer than usual?
Jacob Zondag .. wow thanks. I check the blogs on Accuweather often. Didn’t know they had that feature. Michigan is +9 over average today.
Southeast is on fire having gone from 40s to 90s this month. That is way, waaaaaay the hell out there. Not just above normal but phantasmagorical and catastrophic. We don't get that until the heart of summer, and it's sustained.
I have to admit: after watching one of your videos I usually end up spending a huge amount of time researching the subject. So I can blame you for not getting the things on my list done.
A good, nuanced, informative presentation. I gave it a like, which I don't always do on this channel TBH. But I always keep a supply of cold water on hand for these occasions, and true to form, I'm going to throw some right NOW…
There are a few important elements missing from the presentation. First, it does not distinguish the different types of aerosols and particulates. The clear skies after 9/11 removed mainly aircraft contrails. That is a very localized phenomenon; the continental US is only a small portion of the planet's surface. Of course, there were effects beyond the US, but most of the reduction would be in that area. The contrails are also very limited in time, to hours. But then you veer right into talking about Pinatubo and Mt St Helens, whose emissions stayed in the air much longer, and got to spread far more widely. Therefore, when you talk about global dimming, I have to ask which type you're talking about. If you want to talk about heating up the whole Globe, you need to be talking about things that will persist in the atmosphere and be spread around, and the 9/11 example is not relevant.
Also: If you want to talk about what effect the removal of aerosols and particulates would have, then we should be looking at what specific emissions there have been over the last few decades. Industrial countries have been reducing those kinds of emissions for a long time now-less reliance on coal, more scrubbers on coal power plants, and nearly all cars have cats. China, and somewhat less some other places, have been growing their use of coal, using more cars, and so on, offsetting those trends. I'd love to see some stats on those kinds of emissions from various places, over time. I don't know when I've ever seen those. I'd definitely give you major kudos if you come up with that. And to have any clear conclusions, that's what we need.
I'm definitely a global DIMMING skeptic at this point. Of course, I'm willing to consider new information if it arrives, but for now I'm thinking of three reasons to blow it off: (1) the geographical non-uniformity of these emissions, (2) the fact that different types of particulates and aerosols have different warming properties (some reflecting light back to space, some absorbing it, and all with different lifetimes and altitudes, just for starters), and (3) the fact that these pollutants, while they may block some sunlight, can also block escape of IR, especially at night, so they may not be holding down temperatures as much as you might guess.
So there. I just had a real think. I hope you're pleased. But I'm sure tired now.
@Brin Jenkins Read this, please: www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf
Don't believe the one guy speaking about a field he isn't schooled in, when thousands who are talk against him and lots of his points have been rebuked completely.
@Brin Jenkins The reality of heat releasing from chemical energy conversion ( for example pC6H12O6 + O2 > CO2 + H2O + Energy) exists next to the reality of atmospheric CO2 and H2O absorbing infrared radiation at different wavelengths.
@Brin Jenkins One thing can be two things at the same time, a forcing agent and a positive feedback.
@Brin Jenkins It might appear illogical to you, but the physical facts are that CO2 becomes less soluble in water as water warms and, when in the atmosphere, CO2 also absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths which atmospheric water vapor does not. Therefore atmospheric CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of an increased amount of energy in the earth system.
@Brin Jenkins Life also appears to contradict logic, but it exists nonetheless.
This year just keeps getting better! Thanks for the video.
You have no idea. We had a serious earthquake here in Zagreb last week. :o(
I had wondered about the answer to this for some time. That you have verifiably navigated a route to a most likely answer is excellent.
I feel happy now that a rapid decarbonisation is not likely to be a jump from the frying pan to the fire. I can and will now be far more robust in the face of such speculation. Thank you.
Thanks David. Good to hear the presentation came over OK. Hope you're staying well so far?
@@JustHaveaThink Yes we are all well so far. The challenge is that with a doubling every 3 days it's getting much harder to have zero chance of contact when essential tasks are undertaken, like buying fresh food. We have resolved not even to do that going forward which is quiet a dietary challenge! Let's all
L about U nder C orrect K nowledge.
Be well.
It will be interesting to see what effect the sharp reductions in pollution has on April global temperature. We are in a global brightening experiment.
Monthly cloud variations pretty much match the entire "global dimming" amount so it's impossible to get any worthwhile information at all for 1 month. It's just an absolute silly short time. It's beyond stupid to expect to get anything useful from 1 month and the only reason people do it a lot is if they find a nice cherry pick just by luck. It's fucking pathetic junk science is what it is.
Thank you for talking about this. Very few people seem to know about it.
I know of someone in China bordering hubei province that said its been unusually warm in their area since February and clear air meant they have been able to see the stars in their city like never before.
Tim A. Fits the expectations of reduced aerosol masking aka global dimming.
I'll place the above links on my blog for future reference. The narrative was a bit too fast for me at this hour, 3:30 a.m. Normally I follow the narratives closely. We need many analogies, even though we can intuit the effects of removing aerosols. Where I live in Orange County, California, most people seem to remain stuck by the terms "weather" and "climate." They cannot make the leap from today's cold to global warming. Thanks for your hard work and content.
I've been waiting for someone to address this! I wish I could figure it out but I have chemo brain and can't understand reading anymore. You explained things so I can understand .
Bless you Tigger. I take it that means you are 'mid-therapy'? If so, then I wish you every positive vibe for a speedy recovery. All the best. Dave
Nope I'm done with losing body parts so I let them radiate and went on my merry way to see the world and live a full life.
Very nicely done. Best discussion of something I've been looking at for over a year.
In 2018, sulphur was removed from marine fuels. It would not cause harm to land based people, if sulphur was allowed in Marine Fuel, as an experiment to see if it has an effect on global temperature increase
Yes, good point.
Even if acid rain would come back than it's possible we could not too costly, protect life and buildings . The present droughts and wildfires do probably more damage now.
I think they want it in the stratosphere, I don't know why. I think it's unlikely that any worthwhile amount of sulphur dioxide sprayed at the surface would make it to the stratosphere where they want it for cooling, the rain would quickly wash it out (acid rain). Actually, perhaps that's why they want it sprayed in the stratosphere, so it isn't just immediately washed out again as acid rain.
Dave, As always, “AWSOME JOB!!!”
The Gore/Gretta Effect on Global Stupidity, all bent to say we are all going to die in 12 years, yet again! Send Money!
its called the McPherson paradox.
"Integrity" typed "its called the McPherson paradox". Yes I recall Jim Hansen talking about his scientific document about it 20 or 30 years ago and saying that it's called "the McPherson paradox" as you say. My memory on that one is a tad hazy though.
GJ as always Dave, keep up the good work. Making the world smarter one vid at a time :P.
Thank you for your constructive dialogue on this important matter.
thanks Mr Paul
I’ve been waiting for this video. Thank you!
The temperature sky rocketed in England during covid when there were fewer cars and planes.
Thanks for covering this subject. My respect just went up for you.
Just curious, why did it take this long?
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Dave, superb graphics on a very deep subject. I'm sure there is enough material for two or more videos on this subject. Keep going!
I find myself believing much of what both sides of the climate change debate say. However, it seems to me that the gradual removal of fossil fuels from the energy cycle is by far the safer option.
The big downside is it may make foliage and crops less lush. Always a downside to deal with.
You should see what they do in the Netherlands. How they capture their own co2 output and pump it directly into what are basically food bioreactors. The Dutch as so brilliant these days! Probably one of the most advanced civilisations atmo.
Gradual, or rapid, because rapid is still going to take a few decades. Also we should not be trying for zero carbon, but a reasonable goal like 20% of 2000 levels.
How on earth can you believe much of both sides? Jeezo 😳🤦♀️
@@christinavuyk2026 Because much of what both sides say is convincing, and because whatever the final outcome I'm sure that it will be unlike what either side has predicted. Oh, and my name isn't Jesus.
So the good news is that declining aerosol saturation won't wreak too much havoc...the bad news is that no attempt whatsoever is being made to implement mitigation strategies to keep temp rise below even 2 degrees, and the current crisis is likely to lead to a further sidelining of environmental priorities as economies ramp up their production lines to stave off depression. Feels like we're born to lose on this one.
Great story ! Thank you and my opinion is the transition to clean renewable energy and having an increasing amount of respect for nature and our natural world is so important for humanity in a positive sense :)
I believe that instead of fighting amongst ourselves we should be together fighting against the dark cold vacuum of space ! We live on this beautiful planet that seems smaller and smaller and more vulnerable every day and we have entire economies built on killing our fellow human . It’s not so good tho many things may have been learned I think we can stop now ! Let us together expand into the solar system and the universe ! All of that effort and money directed away from war into space exploration and resource acquisition :) wow we would be amazing then !
Keep going with this amazing content, youth is watching your work as well ❤️
Thank you! Will do!
The Gore/Gretta Effect on Global Stupidity, all bent to say we are all going to die in 12 years, yet again! Send Money!
"We have no idea, but we are going to go with the theory that gets us the most funding."
The human gestalt is a narcissist.
It’s called the McPhearson paradox!! Professor Guy Mchpearson first brought it up here is his video. ua-cam.com/video/8j4Lhl8C9rs/v-deo.html
Scientists don’t go into their field to get rich as a general rule. But the scientists who do want to make serious money pick up a MBA to go with their PhD and sometimes make millions running a company. I know several scientists (and many engineers) who have done that. If you are smart enough you become a billionaire (Jacobs and Viterbi come to mind). Climate scientists instead stay in their jobs trying to save humanity from dying while idiots hurl insults as them and the world moves towards a Dark Age lead by fascists. No one model of climate change seems perfectly correct, but they are improving. As for climate change happening, 121 F in the Los Angeles are over the weekend, 2 million acres of fires burning in California, 2 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico at the same time, 10 years of record world temperatures, etc. It seems like like things are different to me. Or have the deniers admitted it is getting warmer?
Another excellent video and presentation. I really hope your channel keeps on growing, so that you can reach more and more people, and lead them to "Just Have A Think".
This is dichotomy that definitely needs to be addressed, but we also need to plow forward with efforts to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and of CO2 and NOX emissions. This may have to be done more slowly than many people think, but it needs to be done at a faster pace than it is being done now.
Nuclear energy is probably the fastest way to address this, especially if we manage to work with Thorium, which reduces the risks associated with nuclear energy dramatically.
Please keep up your fantastic contributions.
Nuclear power of any sort can't compete with the falling costs of wind and solar power. It's all about money with utilities and they're choosing the low cost energy, and that's wind and and solar.
Al Gore and David Suzuki( a geneticist) have made a lot of money on this issue. Al Gore has four children, all of them were educated at Harvard. That has never happened to any other family, no matter how wealthy they were.
No other family has been fathered by Al Gore? I find that hard to not believe.
We all want answers straight away. Have patience and all questions will be answered. Sit back, watch, take readings if you want, but love and respect for our only home has to be recognized, mobilized and realised.
Finally somebody is talking about reality.
I watch a lot of his videos and I dont understand how he get away with it. Most people would get disappeared. Lots of people talked about this but they are gone now.
Matt Horrocks Dave doesn’t care what others think. Kinda like Trump is. If just ignore it and don’t let it bother you and live in a bubble by yourself everything seems cool.
Ah. Well cool keep up the good work. You really do great stuff. Gotta watch out for the good ones because others will think then they sometimes act and then... Goodluck
You mean finally someone agrees with me, don't you? Lol
@@claudermiller i dont think so dude. Check this guys work and concerns. They are far more grounded then what you see on the news. This guy talks about real stuff that is real really.
If I understand correctly this study points out transition to clean energy won't have that big impact as proponents of "McPherson paradox" see. What can happen if the whole emissions would be shot down due to a pandemic (for example)? For this answer we need to wait but something is telling me data is collected and paper is written.
I think the same Mariusz
@Primal Magic Clean energy does exist and you know what I mean. I won't argue about your private definition. Keep your own but this doesn't change reality we share. Energy density of gasoline is nowhere near of nuclear fission, so again you are absolutely wrong. Energy efficiency was address by Just Hava A Think before but nothing will change the simple fact that solar panels, windmills and small scale water turbines can be solution for climate change, can coexist with ecosystem we need to survive and don't affect air quality or climate on other side of the globe. Fossil fuel energy does.
@Primal Magic Where did I say anything about cars with nuclear reactors? I did not say nuclear power cannot be seen as a clean one but I'm pretty sure you'd agree "it can affect air quality on other side of the globe". And now any comment to what I WROTE BEFORE?
@Primal Magic: Right. We need to shrink our per capita consumption and the size of our population and especially the fossil fuel consumption per capita. The economy is too large.
Thank you for presenting this. Admittedly it does not clear anything up, but even the fact that you've reminded people that aerosol masking effect is important is vital to general understanding, and to reduction of surprise in case it does in fact cause a near future spike from something like the present Covid-19 shutdowns. Thank you for your work, man. We watch you almost every week.
Why do you say it doesn't clear anything up? Watch it again, particularly 12:00
... understanding Milankovitch cycles, Solar cycles and Ice ages is important
Thanks for another smasher, Dave.
All the best to you and yours at this uncertain time :)
Thanks Andrew. Same to you!
One thing for sure, where I live it's pretty evident that cloud coverage has a big impact on minimum night temperature. By analogy contrails must have an effect, but the impact may be much lower that a 100% cloud covered night versus a dry clear night.
Absolutely yes.
Brin Jenkins those are probably chemtrails. Contrails disappear almost completely. If they leave an x shaped grid or parallel lines that thins out into clouds that dims the sun, that’s chemtrails. Look up geoengineering. Pisses me off.
The ice, the canary, in the Arctic speaks volumes and is plunging since about march 20!
@NEAR TERM EXTINCTION - HUMAN Alarming??? I'll say, think 100% - not long now
Thank you for bringing up the subject of global dimming the paradox make no difference as to what we should do at least from an ethical perspective . We still have the obligation to reduce pollutants and carbon no matter what the outcome , the damned if we do damned if we don't scenario shouldn't stop us from taking the green path .
Seems like regardless, the Earth is sick of our crap........
We wont t take care of our children, what is the chance we care about the earth ?
Multiple mass extinctions over millions of years but, yeah, our "crap" is over the top.
Agreed Morgan P, the tendency of people to project their miserable attitude at being the most pampered, cosseted and spoiled generation in history is perplexing.
Hey, watch it. Crap (including our crap) is the life blood of the Earth you not-a-gardender. I'll stick you in my impressive compost heap if you don't watch it.
@@donkanis6141 Well I gave one of my children a Yertle The Turtle and the other one my gold ring & watch, but only because she kept shouting "A ring ! A ring ! A watch ! A watch !" endlessly in my face while I was trying to read on the sofa. Am I supposed to give blood ?
On the other hand living in the East of Austria (already the Pannonian lowlands) we are facing an exceptional cold time just now after January through to early March have been much too warm.
Since last week and presumably the next week we are having up to -4°C during the nights, with one ore two nights in between having +2-4°C. Up and down.
But during the daytime - yes mostly blue sky and cold winds, despite common early spring temperatures.
That's very unusual for that time of the year. Early blossoms at the trees (we are are vineyard and fruit farming area) will not like that.
Whole video is great. That being said, I can’t thank you enough for the last couple minutes. Cheers!
The officials still haven’t announced more on this, yet. I’ve seen nasty temperature jumps in plenty of places this year since the decline in aerosols. Good work.
And not in others - here in Central Kansas, we only had 5 100F days this summer - quite a few in the 90s, but this was not a super hot summer for sure. We haven't hit first freeze yet, but it looks like it'll be about on time (mid October).
Observationally, from the 1970s til now here, we have had slightly milder spikes in temperature (I recall several days when I was a teenager in the late 70s/early 80s where we had 110F air temp, and also had -15F winter temps) we haven't had either of those in several years.
The thing that keeps getting lost in all the carbon discussion is this: we are significantly more "green" and "forested" here in Kansas than we used to be - when Kansas was settled, there were only a few trees along rivers, that was all... now there are trees everywhere (thanks to initial planting in the 1930s/40s to alleviate the dust bowl) and those have now moved through a 2nd and now 3rd generational growth... and with no 50,000,000 head wild bison herds running to trample or eat the trees down, nothing has kept them from propagating. So now Kansas has woodlands that it never had... funny thing is, I hear about the "cow farts" but no one seems to remember the vast herds that used to be here.
I think the honest answer is, the scientists still don't have much clue about what's driving everything, and there are some bad actors with an agenda they want to press into a mold of "science" - without considering that too many of us casual and not-so-causual observers are paying attention to them - your aerosol example is a perfect one. The amazing thing to me is how well Canada has controlled the climate this year - all the forest/range fires in the Pacific Northwest seem to stop at the Canadian border... it's almost like there is something else making those fires happen...
The one climate change option for humanity that represents the highest net danger is the Business as Usual option.
And that's the option we are on now, Business-As-Usual. Naomi Klein said all we have to do to destroy a habitable planet is nothing.
Watch "The Lack of Science in the Scientific Consensus: The Case of the National Climate Assessment" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/hzAuHzcexcM/v-deo.html
Watch "The In-depth Story Behind a Climate Fraud" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/ewJ6TI8ccAw/v-deo.html
Watch "Are We Doomed?" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/b8JZo6PzpCU/v-deo.html
Watch "Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/1zrejG-WI3U/v-deo.html
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!
www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
Watch "The Global Warming Hoax" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/7opCtL8Rcdw/v-deo.html
Watch "Greenpeace Founder speaks about Climate Hoax" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/ggr1vEdS830/v-deo.html
Watch "TEDxVancouver - Patrick Moore - 11/21/09" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/kHZKo13HV2A/v-deo.html
Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA | The Daily Caller
dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/
Tracking Climate Fraud | Real Science
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
Climate during the Carboniferous Period
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Watch "2015 Annual GWPF Lecture - Patrick Moore - Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/d0Z5FdwWw_c/v-deo.html
Watch "The Myth of the 97% Consensus" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/hJujb-VnaCM/v-deo.html
Watch "What if higher CO2 concentrations are actually good for plant growth?" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/jODIYw_5A40/v-deo.html
Watch "IPCC pressure tactics exposed: A Climategate Backgrounder" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/K_8xd0LCeRQ/v-deo.html
Watch "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: there is no consensus" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/NZq6zc0G018/v-deo.html
Watch "Climate Change Reconsidered: Science the U.N. Will Exclude from Its Next Climate Report" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/jaVL1Ham-4A/v-deo.html
Climate Change Reconsidered - Climate Change Reconsidered
climatechangereconsidered.org/
Watch "Climate I: Is The Debate Over?" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/gJwayalLpYY/v-deo.html
Watch "Dr. Tim Ball on victory over Michael Mann" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/e92U5HzBuLI/v-deo.html
Watch "2018 Annual GWPF Lecture - Prof Richard Lindzen - Global Warming For The Two Cultures" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/X2q9BT2LIUA/v-deo.html
Watch "Dr. Patrick Moore: 12 Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/Vu0pzZWD25Y/v-deo.html
Watch "Dr. Patrick Moore: 12 Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/Vu0pzZWD25Y/v-deo.html
Watch "How Bad is CO2?" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/rN7YHsokRV4/v-deo.html
Watch "The Sun Also Warms: Dr. Willie Soon Shows the Sun-Climate Connection" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/KazGXAqgkds/v-deo.html
Watch "Carbon Dioxide is Making The World Greener (w/ Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies)" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/BQHhDxRuTkI/v-deo.html
@@adamthompson9286 nobody reading this site will bother to watch all those UA-cam vids from right-wingers and climate-change denialists. The game is always to inject doubt every time there is a new consideration, such as the aerosol masking effect.
@@barbarasmith6005 I watch both sides, do you? If not, your the denier, not me. Science is not, & never will be about consensus. That's the problem with climate change zealots, you don't even realize it's a religion to you. Watch the videos, read the links & learn about your false religion. Or don't, it's a free country.
@@adamthompson9286 not on global warming. There are not "two sides". There is the scientific truth and bullshit. If you want to consume fecal matter for the brain, that's your business. I won't stop you.
Additional research is required. For example, the effect of CO2 is way, way smaller than any of these graphs indicate. It is also worth looking at global temperature data over the last 50 years, which seems to indicate that global warming is a much smaller phenomenon than mostly touted by institutions like the IPCC. Lastly, a lot of these predictions rest on existing climate models, which, it appears, are all but useless in most respects and most especially prediction of almost anything at all.
Here's just one example of this. All existing climate models "predict" that we are in an el nino phase of ENSO, whereas in actual fact we are now in the strongest la nina phase since measurement of this phenomenon began.
What I conclude from all the climate data and theory that I have seen over the last 30 years (which is a lot) is that any predictions of climate into the future - even 10 years from now - is pretty much pure speculation. We simply do not have enough knowledge of this highly complex system to be able to predict much, if anything, 40 or 60 years from now.
" the effect of CO2 is way, way smaller than any of these graphs indicate". Stupid liar you are just making things up.
" All existing climate models "predict" that we are in an el nino phase of ENSO". Stupid absurd liar you are. climate models cannot predict an El Nino, it's statistical and that's why spaghetti graphs of climate models show them all going up and down at different times. Even multiple runs of the same model show that irrelevant natural fluctuation at varying times. Scientists NEED THEM to have random variability in the natural fluctuations like ENSO so's they can be sure that it doesn't affect the long-term trend (I've written computer simulations, I know). You are a right old, liar, Troll & Moron you are.
A good summary of the real research. I don't think I've ever heard a serious professional atmospheric or climate scientist pushing the hypothesis of global dimming catastrophe. And for very good reasons which jump straight out of two of the plots highlighted here.
Water vapor is the #1 GHG. According to GHG Theory it does 3/4s of the heating. If you go by prevalence it does about 98%. It gets no attention.
You have probably realized this already but just in case: you got the wrong Durham! Dr Drew S. is at Duke University in North Carolina, USA (part of the "research triangle").
I stumbled across this channel recently, and I have to say, you have a really professional presentation style, it's good thought provoking content, not overly sensationalised and I appreciate the way you always seem to clearly reference what sources you're using. There's only one thing that puzzles me though - why are the comments to your videos always filled with doomsday conspiracy-theorists, the "all science is bad" idiots, and contrarians that say you're wrong about literally everything and think that them saying "Nuh-uh!" is an insightful response?
alt accounts purposefully brigading this video funded by energy companies threatened by what this video said
Good video Dave. I was hoping there was going to be some solid final answer at the end, but it sounds like it's all still up in the air :-) Anyway, you did show studies that said their would be regional impacts. I expect there will be more studies in the future based on current industrial reductions.
12:00 sounded pretty solid to me. The Arctic effects are a concern, though.
Hi David.I think the regional variation is something the world will need to be very mindful of, but the overall average global atmospheric increase as a result of rapid aerosol reduction (that's to say, over a period of 10 years) looks to be projected as somewhere between the 0.2C in IPCC AR5, through the 0.3C in the Shendell paper and then anything between 0.5 and as much as 1.1C in the AGU paper. Hope you and yours are keeping OK so far? I haven't seen much about Thailand - what are your infection rates like?
I really like your style of speaking. It is thoughtful and such relief to hear. It also helps catch my interest. We will argue for a long time about man’s affect on our climate, so it is best for all to just clean it up and see what happens. I think we will be surprised pleasantly.
I've been tracking the population clock (U.S Census Bureau). U.S population is growing 3850 people a day and world wide 218,000 per day. If we don't get that under control (and we wont) it's all for not.
It seems like that statement by Dr. Smith was only saying that a transition away from fossil fuels, thus removing aerosols from the atmosphere, wouldn't cause a spike because it would be too slow. That doesn't address the question of what would happen in a situation like now, with a lot of them actually be removed almost instantaneously.
But I guess we can just wait and see...
Hopefully there will some analysis released on the results of the chinese shut down before too long which will contribute to understanding this.
"But I guess we can just wait and see...". You can always just wait and see of course. But for those other tiny few who have at least a slight interest in the science if they liked fun they could first look at the "surface climate response" plot that James Hansen shows & discusses at 9:55 at ua-cam.com/video/JP-cRqCQRc8/v-deo.html and compare that a year from now with reality of the prior 12 months and get a pretty good idea about whether these hundreds of educated specialized WG1 climate science scientists have the foggiest clue what it's all about or whether they just guess like you & everybody else does in order to create the "surface climate response" and all the other climate science. Probably they just guess like you & everybody else does because you clearly think that that's what they do and you're probably pretty good at guessing stuff.
grindupBaker You’re mistaken, I don’t think the climate scientists are guessing. I have as much trust in their capabilities as I have in those of scientists in any other field, since I don’t see why I shouldn’t. My comment was genuine.
A couple of things I noticed in the presentation. Modeling has seemed to consistently underestimate changes and effects. There are regular stories of how the real effects of climate change are more often larger and faster than our models predict. The chart depicting the sensitivities of different areas to aerosol removal does highlight that the poles are more sensitive to it. So one might expect an increase in the speed and quantity of melting in those areas, which will have its impact on water levels and the nature of our oceans. Those changes may also accelerate change in other dimensions of our climate.
John Benson Exactly
@John Benson
"Modeling has seemed to consistently underestimate changes and effects". Well that's one of those classic incorrect "seemedings" you have there. There's no doubt that the Earth's Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) anomaly has NOT been underestimated and persons only have to find one of many CMIP outputs versus GISTEMP/HADCRU/RSS to immediately see that so with no effort at all I've just proved your "consistently" to be wildly incorrect ? Are you referring to Arctic Sea Ice & the big ice sheets ? If you're referring to Arctic Sea Ice & the big ice sheets then why not consider stating that, preferably with references, rather than lazy worthless babbling. If you have other large items of discrepancy then in future consider massively inconveniencing yourself by stating those also. What have you got ?
------
We all know that the physics into climate models for ice is very poor and they are working on it. Eric Rignot says it's simply because nobody's studied ice dynamics much until recently so they have little/nothing for ocean effects at various depths and likely other items.
------
Weirdly, the worthless trope of the coal/oil shills is precisely the same as yours and delivered with precisely the same lazy lack of information as yours so what's your view of taxes, "Al Gore", secret organizations & big-head-style space aliens so's I can figure out which team you're on.
The air quality is fantastic...this sounds more like the “dumming paradox”.
I remember how ‘dirty’ our world was in the 70s. Pollution was out of control.
I now feel that our world is much improved.
However I think it is grandiose of humans to think we control or contribute much to a climate that has developed over billions of years and will continue through its cycles with or without human activity.
We have 60-100 years of topsoil left and lots of that gets chucked up into the atmosphere. That didn't stop for Covid-19
im sure the planet would like it very much if we stopped acidifying our oceans and blanketing the atmosphere
Or just get all the damn plastic out of the oceans.
Acidifying nothing. How did anything survive millions of years ago with even higher CO2
@@sammyd7857 in case you haven't noticed the earth is inhabited by more than extremophiles and bacteria now...
@@Slippergypsy what are you talking about. Were the dinosaurs extermophiles. Lol I guess you could call them that in some sense
Thank you, Dave
Just like a long term, heavy alcoholic quiting drinking.
From Archer: The accumulated hangover would kill you.
I went back to review this article today, in 2024. It’s becoming clear that your assessment is accurate.
Need Sulphur to raise crops ...otherwise it will have to be substituted back into agriculture processes anyways to produce enough food.
"Some... more _robust_ communication methods" - :o))
I _love_ British understatements!
Perhaps you could react to such exchanges not by banning the practitioners of free expression, but by something in the line of "Gentlemen, if you don't mind! There are women, children, and horses out there!"
Didn't you mean mules, donkeys ... and what's that last one?
He made a request not a ban.
That's like my mom trying to get my dad to clean up his language. It didn't work, despite decades of admonishment. The women and children already know or can guess what's not being said directly in their presence, so no need for language policing.
Lack of testing?
Covering up their numbers?
Fast response?
They are responsible for the virus?
🤔 t.co/RyKOeqqVfC in their presence, so no need for any language policing.
@@philbrown5661 Not even a request, more of a suggestion, in a proper British way. I meant that others would probably ban some of the commenters; heck, some banned _me_ ...
@@barbarasmith6005 Come on, Barbara, wasn't it obvious that my comment was tongue-in-cheek? I was teasing our host for his politeness.
And what does it have to do with Russian COVID-19 case reporting?
Thanks for this video and your others -- very useful. Data from the current period of dramatically reduced emissions will certainly improve our understanding. I hope the conclusions will be consistent with your optimistic take-home message. However, I suspect that in the end it won't matter: the slow pace of de-carbonization will render any global de-dimming effect moot.
(If America can't even realize that COVID is no hoax, what hope is there for aggressive climate policy? And if America lags, what hope for the world?)
a human Precisely. We have scientists prevented from publishing papers on climate change. Florida even deducted points from high school students talking about it in essays. Maybe if they called it a hoax they’d get bonus points.
If climate research is funded by governments, who are only interested in results which show human induced climate change, can we really expect the research to provide unbiased results? These people don't want to upset the money cow.
Most of the time they aren't though
Excellent Presentation...AGAIN.
Cheers to the Facts you bring UNSPUN.
Thanks for making this video
Me in South Texas: yup, this is the summer when I'm actually gonna die.
Well it comes to all of us so join the club.
grindupBaker
Gee, thanks Mr. Obvious.
@@kaijsadragonborn119 Your welly velcum.
7:40 ... "irreversible catastrophic runaway feedback loops" ... you want understatement, i'm calling that an understatement
It's an overstatement. Listen again: 12:00
@@incognitotorpedo42 yes i know what he said at 12:00, because i listened to the entire thing before i posted that. i'm calling it an understatement because it characterizes the hypothetical situation being referred to in some relatively formal terms, instead of calling it, for example, the most god damn awful thing that could ever possibly happen ever, or whatever, which is probably what i would call it personally. that supposed runaway scenario, as unlikely as i'm sure that it is, is one sexy catastrophe setup just aching to be turned into some kind of sci fi book or movie. probably a really crappy one, but what the hell.
95% of the greenhouse gases is H2O; which seems to be missing on the IPCC chart.
William Munro so what? How long that gas can stay in the atmosphere compared to CO2 and what’s the relation between them? This is your home work. IPCC also skipped that Earth is round... why would you state the obvious?
Because it can't force because boiling & freezing points are much too high to force on Earth.
Thanks so much for this well-researched, well-presented, balanced and informative video. Excellent work, as usual! Your subtle sense of humour is also very much appreciated.
I thought his subtle sense of humour was bordering on inadequately-hand-sanitized.
sulfur dioxide SO2 and water H2O gives sulfurous acid H2SO3. This is a weak acid and have a rather low dewpoint. For sulphuric acid H2SO4 and suphates to form, there has to be sulfur trioxide SO3. Theres a conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide but this reaction is relatively slow
It seems that with a sufficiently powerful and long lasting application of sophistry we may be able to convince those in positions of power that pollution is a good thing? ;)
Eloquent and rational science-based presentation, as usual! Keep up the great work! 👍
The Gore/Gretta Effect on Global Stupidity, all bent to say we are all going to die in 12 years, yet again! Send Money!
Projection modeling of the Earths “climate systems” is the prime example of irreducibly complex. It is hubris to posit a projection based on modeling 10 variables, or 20, or 200 or 2000, as none are independent of the others or of the measuring entity for that matter. But,...flail away. Even court jesters have some value.
Is hubris that stuff like peat moss you put in the compost to bulk it up ? Apart from that I probably understood you.
I totally agree with your gentle reminder for us all to make an effort to keep discourse civil. Honey usually works better than vinegar anyway.
The damned if you do and damned if you don't paradox also known as the McPherson paradox after Guy McPherson. Or the Aerosol masking effect.