0:00 - What CO2 does was confirmed by Air Force atmospheric research. 0:10 - Studying the physics of the upper atmosphere for communications and heat seeking missiles. 1:00 - "The air force hadn't set out to study global warming, they just wanted their missiles to work. But physics is physics. The atmosphere doesn't care if you are studying it for warring or warming. Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat." 1:20 - Works in the other direction also, remove CO2 and planet cools. 1:30 - Glacier studies 3:00 - Glacier cross-section, deposition, accumulation, record of the past. 4:30 - Orbital and rotational variations and their impact on sun's insolation. 5:10 - Ice ages 6:00 - Glaciers as earth mover 6:35 - Time-lapse animation of glacial advance retreat 7:15 - Orbital/rotational driven insolation variations interaction with Earth's many CO2 reservoirs and cycles. 8:00 - {eye witness to a disintegrating glacier} 8:50 - Place thermometers any where on this planet and they show warming. The evidence is clear, the Earth's climate is warming.
I like this video's presenter. He's authentic, clear, informed, and passionate about his subject, human caused global warming. I like the Air Force introduction, too.
3:22 If CO2 is special heat trapping, causes global warming - past present and future, and is trapped in the snowpack, why does it not account for avalanche snowpack instability? It is in the snowpack (at some 10 times the atmosphere concentration). If it really traps heat it would show here and be part of the knowledge: this knowledge lives depends on, and is therefore at the cutting edge of scientific research. I know many mountain guides (many of which have climbed Everest and work with snow as a profession) and have asked if they take into account and measure the CO2 concentrations (at changes at different depths), they don't, and have never heard of it being done. I can find no reference to heat trapping CO2 and snowpack instability. Now, two things are possible here: 1) CO2 causes (or at least is part cause) of all avalanches - and should be measured and I will get my honouree Doctorate ; or 2) it doesn't, and is temperature benign. Please help me (help others); I intend to publish my work.
At 0:10 If it is a thermo-electric detector (AKA 'IR 'detectors that use thermoelectric transducers) you will only measure the what is claimed, just as John Tyndall did in 1859 to begin the greenhouse theory, and that is the said GHGs. The reason is CO2 is a thermoelectric substance. The problem is the detectors. N2 and O2 are not thermoelectric (they have no electric dipole moment), and so therefore are not detected - (at any temperature!) by thermoelectric transducers - as used by the airforce and current greenhouse climate scientists. This does not mean N2 and O2 do not radiate. If you use a Raman detector, the complement to the 'IR' thermoelectric detector, you can, and we do, measure both the temperature of the O2 and N2 (98% of the atmosphere), and also CO2, CH4 and H20 as they all have Raman active modes. This fact is well known and used by NASA with there solar system space probes where they use Raman detectors as an instrument of choice. CO2 has a Raman active mode at 1338cm-1, N2 and O2 at 2338 and 1556 respectively. The Raman modes of N2 and O2 and all the others are predicted by quantum mechanics, they are there. Also, we measure the temperature (and constituent volume) of the atmosphere using Raman devices: Raman laser Lidar. NASA are leaders in this field. And we can measure the temperature of the atmosphere and of N2 at the bottom of the thermosphere with only Raman devices - to a temp of some 2500K. N2 absorbs, it too is a GHG. This is all my own research, my theory; everything I have claimed I am currently writing up and is available standard knowledge of the 21st Century physics and chemistry. GH theory is 19th Century science. N2 and O2 are greenhouse gases; and so I name my theory 'the Fourier Effect' after (and before Tyndall go it wrong) Joseph Fourier. PS. If N2 does not absorb or emit IR (heat) energy, then this is a contradiction to quantum mechanics and thermodynamics as all matter radiates IR heat above absolute 0K. Either 'physics' is wrong, or you and your GH theory is wrong. GH is wrong.
Co2 was not the driver of climate over the last several thousand years. The AGW debate today, centres around the notion that carbon dioxide drives today's climate due to its volume. But according to the ice core record, rising levels of Co2 followed warming by several hundreds of years.
+owen suppes - OK have you every tried to understand why that lag happened? I know climatologist did and continue to. Further data and refinement of resolution, beside helping better understand some of the drivers and mechanism, it has also revealed that the said "lag" wasn't near as long as originally assumed. An example of science always moving forward. You my friend are relying on ignoring new evidence and clinging to whatever notion fits your dogma, with no curiosity about the WHY. Why aren't you curious about understanding those mysteries you take so much stock in? Get up to date: "Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery" - Why do some ice core samples seem to indicate CO2 spikes trailed increases in global temperature? It’s all about the way bubbles move in ice - www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ ~~~ It's the atmospheric insulation silly! ~~~ Grow up face the facts. We really are doing this to ourselves.
We are doing what to ourselves? What catastrophe is imminent? The blob off the West coast is disappearing, and it is evident El Nino is waning. Both of these systems which were not understood south of the satellite record, both existed prior to the sat record, are powerful climatic drivers. The latter drives global temps up by a degree over the course of a year. So what has caused the temp spikes of the last couple of years? We are we doing what to ourselves? As for the lag, new theories are welcome. And the very existence of the lag, of which there is considerable evidence, is problematic for CAGW theory. Also, what is the dogma I subscribe to? You seem very sure that I have dogmatic beliefs; so what are they? As well, you claim that I'm not curious... How can you know that for certain. Isn't it more likely that you're making statements of which you have little evidence to support?
I was referring to the North Atlantic, not the Pacific ocean. ~ Ocean currents and oscillations do not warm the global system, they merely move heat around. ~ It's the Global Atmospheric Insolation increasing because of greenhouse gases that are causing the entire system to warm (remember the oceans hold 90% of our climate systems heat) ~ 'problematic'? - You know scientists have been looking at those "problematics" for a long time and they have learned an amazing amount of things about the system - keeping yourself trapped in decades old limitations is your fraud. ~ You need to look at the full spectrum of available evidence! As for the various oddities, Antarctic seasonal ice growth, etc. - you just got to look a little deeper and you will learn why such things are happening. It's not that complicated, you just need to be honest with the evidence.
Oh as for the CAGW - denying that reality seems another crescendo of human disconnect from reality. Do you have any conception of working of our complex society? Where do you get off imagining it's invulnerable?? Ever hear of compounding interest? You should know the principle holds true for physical systems too. And how the f'n huge do you want the disaster to be?... before you take it seriously?... and we get to call it a catastrophe… have you been paying any attention to global news??? google "climate hot map" sometime. Get to know the world you're living in.
c02 is good for humans, low c02 is very bad and can lead to an ice age. c02 during the cretaceous was 11,000 ppm today in 2023 is 4000. so yes, c02 is good and means warmth. warmth means growth, health and food.
Actually CO2 is only 0.04% which is about 400 parts per million. I agree with you that CO2 is very good for life in general. In fact plants require at least 0.02% or they die and so would we without that food source. I believe that the long term average of CO2 is 10x higher than it is today. I wish that people would not buy the panic that the likes of Al Gore has been predicting and yet water front property is still at a premium price and the same doom predictors are buying the same properties that they say will be flooded in the next 5 years! Agenda 2030 deems Intensive Farming as unsustainable so mass hunger is their plan. I hope we refuse the Digital money that will restrict our Carbon footprint as it is bad science which will cause mass poverty and hunger whilst the Sovereigns will continue to have abundance.
0:00 - What CO2 does was confirmed by Air Force atmospheric research.
0:10 - Studying the physics of the upper atmosphere for communications and heat seeking missiles.
1:00 - "The air force hadn't set out to study global warming, they just wanted their missiles to work. But physics is physics. The atmosphere doesn't care if you are studying it for warring or warming. Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat."
1:20 - Works in the other direction also, remove CO2 and planet cools.
1:30 - Glacier studies
3:00 - Glacier cross-section, deposition, accumulation, record of the past.
4:30 - Orbital and rotational variations and their impact on sun's insolation.
5:10 - Ice ages
6:00 - Glaciers as earth mover
6:35 - Time-lapse animation of glacial advance retreat
7:15 - Orbital/rotational driven insolation variations interaction with Earth's many CO2 reservoirs and cycles.
8:00 - {eye witness to a disintegrating glacier}
8:50 - Place thermometers any where on this planet and they show warming.
The evidence is clear, the Earth's climate is warming.
you are an angel! thank you! needed this to better understand something a college class of mine
I like this video's presenter. He's authentic, clear, informed, and passionate about his subject, human caused global warming. I like the Air Force introduction, too.
That's Professor Richard B. Alley from Penn State.
How come Greenland had record ice formation in 2022 yet co2 still rising????????😢
Data trumps ideology! Go Science.
3:22 If CO2 is special heat trapping, causes global warming - past present and future, and is trapped in the snowpack, why does it not account for avalanche snowpack instability? It is in the snowpack (at some 10 times the atmosphere concentration). If it really traps heat it would show here and be part of the knowledge: this knowledge lives depends on, and is therefore at the cutting edge of scientific research. I know many mountain guides (many of which have climbed Everest and work with snow as a profession) and have asked if they take into account and measure the CO2 concentrations (at changes at different depths), they don't, and have never heard of it being done. I can find no reference to heat trapping CO2 and snowpack instability. Now, two things are possible here: 1) CO2 causes (or at least is part cause) of all avalanches - and should be measured and I will get my honouree Doctorate ; or 2) it doesn't, and is temperature benign.
Please help me (help others); I intend to publish my work.
CO2 traps infrared radiation rather than "heat" generally. How deeply into the snowpack does IR penetrate? That probably answers your question.
At 0:10 If it is a thermo-electric detector (AKA 'IR 'detectors that use thermoelectric transducers) you will only measure the what is claimed, just as John Tyndall did in 1859 to begin the greenhouse theory, and that is the said GHGs. The reason is CO2 is a thermoelectric substance. The problem is the detectors. N2 and O2 are not thermoelectric (they have no electric dipole moment), and so therefore are not detected - (at any temperature!) by thermoelectric transducers - as used by the airforce and current greenhouse climate scientists. This does not mean N2 and O2 do not radiate.
If you use a Raman detector, the complement to the 'IR' thermoelectric detector, you can, and we do, measure both the temperature of the O2 and N2 (98% of the atmosphere), and also CO2, CH4 and H20 as they all have Raman active modes. This fact is well known and used by NASA with there solar system space probes where they use Raman detectors as an instrument of choice. CO2 has a Raman active mode at 1338cm-1, N2 and O2 at 2338 and 1556 respectively.
The Raman modes of N2 and O2 and all the others are predicted by quantum mechanics, they are there.
Also, we measure the temperature (and constituent volume) of the atmosphere using Raman devices: Raman laser Lidar. NASA are leaders in this field. And we can measure the temperature of the atmosphere and of N2 at the bottom of the thermosphere with only Raman devices - to a temp of some 2500K. N2 absorbs, it too is a GHG.
This is all my own research, my theory; everything I have claimed I am currently writing up and is available standard knowledge of the 21st Century physics and chemistry. GH theory is 19th Century science. N2 and O2 are greenhouse gases; and so I name my theory 'the Fourier Effect' after (and before Tyndall go it wrong) Joseph Fourier.
PS.
If N2 does not absorb or emit IR (heat) energy, then this is a contradiction to quantum mechanics and thermodynamics as all matter radiates IR heat above absolute 0K. Either 'physics' is wrong, or you and your GH theory is wrong. GH is wrong.
Co2 was not the driver of climate over the last several thousand years. The AGW debate today, centres around the notion that carbon dioxide drives today's climate due to its volume. But according to the ice core record, rising levels of Co2 followed warming by several hundreds of years.
+owen suppes - OK have you every tried to understand why that lag happened? I know climatologist did and continue to. Further data and refinement of resolution, beside helping better understand some of the drivers and mechanism, it has also revealed that the said "lag" wasn't near as long as originally assumed. An example of science always moving forward.
You my friend are relying on ignoring new evidence and clinging to whatever notion fits your dogma, with no curiosity about the WHY. Why aren't you curious about understanding those mysteries you take so much stock in? Get up to date: "Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery" - Why do some ice core samples seem to indicate CO2 spikes trailed increases in global temperature? It’s all about the way bubbles move in ice - www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
~~~ It's the atmospheric insulation silly! ~~~ Grow up face the facts. We really are doing this to ourselves.
We are doing what to ourselves? What catastrophe is imminent? The blob off the West coast is disappearing, and it is evident El Nino is waning. Both of these systems which were not understood south of the satellite record, both existed prior to the sat record, are powerful climatic drivers. The latter drives global temps up by a degree over the course of a year. So what has caused the temp spikes of the last couple of years? We are we doing what to ourselves?
As for the lag, new theories are welcome. And the very existence of the lag, of which there is considerable evidence, is problematic for CAGW theory.
Also, what is the dogma I subscribe to? You seem very sure that I have dogmatic beliefs; so what are they? As well, you claim that I'm not curious... How can you know that for certain. Isn't it more likely that you're making statements of which you have little evidence to support?
I was referring to the North Atlantic, not the Pacific ocean. ~ Ocean currents and oscillations do not warm the global system, they merely move heat around. ~ It's the Global Atmospheric Insolation increasing because of greenhouse gases that are causing the entire system to warm (remember the oceans hold 90% of our climate systems heat) ~ 'problematic'? - You know scientists have been looking at those "problematics" for a long time and they have learned an amazing amount of things about the system - keeping yourself trapped in decades old limitations is your fraud. ~ You need to look at the full spectrum of available evidence! As for the various oddities, Antarctic seasonal ice growth, etc. - you just got to look a little deeper and you will learn why such things are happening. It's not that complicated, you just need to be honest with the evidence.
owen suppes fyi - whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/7-global-heat-moisture-distribution.html
Oh as for the CAGW - denying that reality seems another crescendo of human disconnect from reality. Do you have any conception of working of our complex society? Where do you get off imagining it's invulnerable?? Ever hear of compounding interest? You should know the principle holds true for physical systems too. And how the f'n huge do you want the disaster to be?... before you take it seriously?... and we get to call it a catastrophe… have you been paying any attention to global news??? google "climate hot map" sometime. Get to know the world you're living in.
c02 is good for humans, low c02 is very bad and can lead to an ice age. c02 during the cretaceous was 11,000 ppm today in 2023 is 4000. so yes, c02 is good and means warmth. warmth means growth, health and food.
Actually CO2 is only 0.04% which is about 400 parts per million. I agree with you that CO2 is very good for life in general. In fact plants require at least 0.02% or they die and so would we without that food source. I believe that the long term average of CO2 is 10x higher than it is today. I wish that people would not buy the panic that the likes of Al Gore has been predicting and yet water front property is still at a premium price and the same doom predictors are buying the same properties that they say will be flooded in the next 5 years!
Agenda 2030 deems Intensive Farming as unsustainable so mass hunger is their plan. I hope we refuse the Digital money that will restrict our Carbon footprint as it is bad science which will cause mass poverty and hunger whilst the Sovereigns will continue to have abundance.
Again BS as proven lately
Gibbertyflibberfloop
uh huh? how's it going "lately?"