The Math of Climate Change
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 07. 2024
- Climate change is controversial and the subject of huge debate. Complex climate models based on math helps us understand. How do these models work?
A lecture by Chris Budd OBE, Gresham Professor of Geometry 13 November 2018
www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-an...
Climate change is important, controversial, and the subject of huge debate. Much of our understanding of the future climate comes from the use of complex climate models based on mathematical and physical ideas.
In this talk, Professor Budd will describe how these models work and the assumptions that go into them. He will discuss how reliable our predictions of climate change are, and show how mathematicians can give us insights into both past and future.
Website: www.gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
As both a mathematician & earth scientist I would not be quick to apply standard concepts of math series or sequences as a prediction tool of temperature. I.e. one can't just choose a time range observe a temp increase & then isolate some causation & assume that doubling or tripling will happen. The earth's behavior arises from many feedback loops not from some geometric sequence of numbers.
The bell curve graph he used to show a 1.5 degree shift (15:49) isn’t tied to any data. It is simply an example. The true difference between the two peeks would be much closer together and therefore show a much less dramatic increase in possible extreme hot weather. It does however show the phenomenon he is trying to explain more clearly. It is just over exemplified and therefore appears more alarming. Anybody else catch that?
18:10 map is quite misleading. It says it shows areas vulnerable to 170m sea level rise, but predictions tell that if all ice will melt, sea level will rise only 80m.
I am very skeptical about the graph of 6:48. The medieval warm period being less hot than 2000? This is the usual Mann con job.
Also, the graph of 9:12 seems to be the graph "re adjusted" By NOAA to decrease the temperatures before 1980 and increase them after 1980.
thats right
I agree 100% with your comments. This presentation repeats many IPCC misrepresentations and a bias towards the AGW hypothesis. The UK MET office has a long history of politization. The extreme climatic events argument is highly debatable with many periods of of frequent and severe events correlated with periods of low atmospheric CO2. This presentation has so many debatable assertions that it comes across as primarily as propaganda dressed up in scientific garb.
The Medieval warm period was not warm in all areas of the earth. Some were actually quite cool, by comparison. It's just one more reason why some geographic regions did quite well during the time, while some were having a pretty crap time. One has to be careful with lumping the entire planet in with what are not always global effects.
There's a paper covering a bit of the regional differences in temperatures here: advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806
@@gregggoodnight9889 One of the main points of contention is the late Ordovician period which originally demonstrated an ice age even though the CO2 was one of the highest ever on record. However, that theory has largely been debunked as it was demonstrated that the GEOCARB data sets within the model were in 10 million year intervals however the period only lasted approx 0.5 million years.There's quite alot of literature on that period as well:
1. A major drop in seawater 87Sr/86Sr during the Middle Ordovician (Darriwilian): Links to volcanism and climate? (Young et al, 2009)
2. Did changes in atmospheric CO2coincide with latest Ordovicianglacial-interglacial cycles? (Young et al, 2009)
3. The impact of paleogeography, pCO2, poleward ocean heat transport and sea level change on global cooling during the Late Ordovician (Hermann et al, 2004)
Definitely agree though that CO2 is not the only driver of climate change, but it certainly plays a role.
What is the cause of the extreme drop in global temperature every 100k years? I have never heard an explanation for that, only that it happens predictably.
Are you serious?
There are cycles. Scientists study them. No one has found one that explains global warming. 100k timeframe for cycle claim vs 200 years of emissions and global arming. They aren't a match.
"What is the cause ... every 100 years" - Nigel the Moron.
Oh, that is easy to answer.
There isn't one.
We are going into a Grand Solar Minimum. It will be really cold for at least thirty years.
Yes, it's the Milankovich cycles that have to do with the Earth's axial tilt and its orbital path, both of them changing in a cyclical pattern. (Picture a spinning top, with its tilt drifting back and forth.) Dr Budd mentioned them, but didn't spend a lot of time on it.
20:50 the “hockey stick” referes to temperature NOT CO2 levels in the climate world
Michael Watson does it? Is there a “hockey stick” increase of global temp?
But both graphs are very similar.
The hockey stick NEVER HAPPENED!!!
@@48Ballen doesn't exist and here's proof
I haven’t found the explanation of the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law (I cannot see the earth as a black object).
Explanation of atmospheric greenhouse theory according to the second law of thermodynamics. How can radiation heat the earth, if it was cooled while it rises and then reflected (back to earth).
Why shows data from partridge et al (2009) that the temperature of the stratosphere did not increase over 40 years?
"Explanation of atmospheric greenhouse theory according to the second law of thermodynamics. How can radiation heat the earth, if it was cooled while it rises and then reflected (back to earth). "
How? I dont even understand the question. Do you? Its like asking: How can the light of a light source hit a mirror and be reflected back onto the light source... It has nothing to do with the second law...
Graph @27:10 Min>Max=5>8.5m km^2 @27:22 Min>Max=14>17m km^2 ??? first two graphs unclear as to Max,Min,Avg etc, but the third labeled Maximun Sea Ice Extent.... just an observation..
No evidence that mans co2 drives temp. Which is question#1.
thanks for the lecture, good stuff, except for all those experts in the discussion, some of them did not even watch this before commenting.
I am curious about the enthalpy of melted ice and increased water vapor. Seems a lot of latent heat remains unaccounted for.
Enthalpy of melted ice is not negligible but is small compared with heat being pushed into the oceans (it's ~3.5%). I'm not bothering to check the accurate values for this little comment so suppose it was 400 Gt / year melted average for both ice sheets the last 20 years so 8,000 Gt melted plus, say, 14,000 Gt of Arctic Ocean sea ice always gone on average now compared with the 1900 AD - 1970 AD period. To melt the 22,000 Gt of ice requires 7.3 Zettajoules total for the 20 years. Over the last 20 years 200 Zettajoules has been pushed into the oceans by the TOA radiative imbalance caused by the +GHGs forcings and their feedbacks so far. So oceans extra heat the last 20 years has been 27x the heat used to melt the lost ice. If it interests you enough to bother finding the actual ice loss the last 30-40 years say and the oceans extra heat from NOAA ORAP5 then do that calculation accurate, reply and I'll add that to my copious notes.
Water vapour is too tricky for me to assess (it's time to relax before bed right now). 7% increase of the 80 w/m**2 = 5.6 w/m**2 increased latent heat oceans--->atmosphere. Radiation surface--->atmosphere = 396 w/m**2, sensible heat flux surface--->atmosphere = 17 w/m**2 so the 5.6 w/m**2 increase is a 1.14% increase in energy surface--->atmosphere. The energy atmosphere's energy is radiated to space and back to surface in the ratio 38%-->space 62%-->surface. You take it from there if it interests you enough. I might follow through to the final effect some other time.
@@grindupBaker or obviously, the entire globe is warming, huh.
The 1930s were warmer than 2016. Did he say proxy or poxy data?
Assumption 1: Things are getting warmer.
Based on the hockey stick. Not true. From there the whole business of fossil fuel CO2 causing warming (now the nebulous "climate change") is questionable at best.
I'm glad we have a PhD here who with deep mathematical arguments ("not true") has wholly convinced me, a humble physicist, I have been wrong for the last 10 years. Thank you from the bottom of my stupid heart. /sarcasm off
@@luisarean m8 there all over the comment section. All the hobby climate scientists that have evidence to the contrary have shown up here. Yet they all dont want to show any proof. Sad.
Fact 1: Things are getting warmer.
Based on actual measurements.
Luis Arean So i guess you're the only scientist whos opinion matters. Warming has been happening since the last ice age, as you know, however,mans impact is not "settled science".
@@user-dq7ms8ir4c The predominant consensus among climate scientists is that climate change is happening and that it's human induced. The evidence that substantiates their consensus has been strengthening robustly decade over decade. Yes, there are dissenters, but they are not in any way in parity with those who've long concluded by very educated assessment that humanity has precipitated the current ascent in global average temperature... which is happening (as the lecture stated) virtually 'instantaneously' in the span of planetary time.... the instantaneous blip of years since the commencement of the industrial revolution.
If you leave out the "most important tree in the world", then the Medieval warm period is again the warmest time on the record and everything makes sense. In the sense of Nothing going on here, move along.
The idea about extreme events is incorrect. If you look not on the average but minimum (winter) vs maximum (summer) temperature trends in the same area and the difference between tropical vs arctic weather - you'll see that both deltas are *decreasing*. Meaning its getting warmer in winter rafher than summer and warmer in the cold places rather hot places. Look at NASA data - the warming is concentrated near Arctic.
Extreme weather is about these deltas. For e.g. in Chicago the weather is more extreme than Florida.
So even if global warming is real - its going to be more comfortable and tropical (rainforest) climate with rare extreme events.
Where can a species extinction model be found?
Are there any people making comments who have credential similar to the speakers?
none.
Nick Armstrong ...regarding commenting. Do you have a degree to evaluate the speaker's degree? Just curious if you have double standards toward others while you yourself acting as a genuine asshole in the mean time. People do not need a degree to have an opinion regardless they are on the side or opposing any particular speaker.
No one likes to face such painful truths...especially the totally ignorant of mankind. More: upon further reflection, we've all been lied to throughout our lives, it's a wonder that there is any trust at all in this crazy world of ours. Half the battle is to figure out whom to trust! And that takes self trust, first of all.
That takes education and scientific thought. Trust is developed through educating yourself. And trust in scientific topics is built through eliminating a priori beliefs and bias. There is an abundance of information and the only obstacles are laziness and adherence to science by consensus.
@Homo Quantum Sapiens I guess you are saying this in a sarcastic way... NOBODY trusts scientific sources "blindly", since science is constantly changing (and in most cases, improving, i might add) its methods, approaches and quite often, its conclusions. That said, when it comes to strictly scientific matters, it seems wise to pay more attention to scientists who are widely respected by OTHER scientists (i.e. when they are speaking the field(s) of science they are actively researching - as opposed to when they are speaking about areas they are NOT actively involved in...), than to people whose qualifications are "suspect" or worse. Climate science goes back 150+ years, and even in the 19th century the basic premises of the green-house effect were understood. Trust NOBODY "blindly", but DO put more trust in those who deserve it.
@Homo Quantum Sapiens peer review often supports falsehoods and falsifies corrections, the resistance to having ones PHD disproved is a powerful motivator, never forget scientists are human too and prone to all the fallibilities of humans, the very fact many climate scientists claim the science is settled is all you need to know, never in human history was any field in science or education considered settled, the idea that a 40 year old field of discovery has nothing else to learn is as wrong as humans have ever been about anything, naysayers are now losing their jobs and positions on faculties for challenging the climate models, its a return to the inquisition, the likes of Tycho, Copernicus and Galileo would recognize the dogma of today's climate science as their own experiences 400 years ago.
@@altareggo Yes, you trust the information you are told is true.
There are many scientists who disagree with climate alarmists, but you won't hear that because 'they' don't tell you about it.
You can only now what you are told.
Emissivity is the fraction absorbed and the fraction emitted. Using it as only fraction emitted is NOT supported by theory.
As temperature rises, does emmisivity increase?
You can find materials' surface emissivity tables on the internet easily, like engineeringtoolbox maybe. They don't indicate any variation of the e with temperature, it's just F = e * 5.6703 * (t/100)**4
Great lecture...As average (mean) temp increases, how does the variance (S^2) change ? How does this effect accuracy of prediction ?
Did he mension Milankovic laws of climate change ? Seems important to me.
If you have 10,000s of years to wait, that would be important. This is what is happening now, with a 100-year scale and not a 10,000 year scale.
35:52 Yes he did mention it. It's in the model.
Yes, the Milankovic Cycles …… the last desperate argument of a Dinosaur. You need to read up to date information.
The Milankovic Cycles, we know work on aprox 100.000 years so of course not an issue on these 100 year timescales.
Then you have the Solar cycle argument in 11 year cycles (yes I know there are more) but the core is both solar cycles and Milankovic Cycles is about more warming from the sun.
Since we do measure solar irradiance we know this is declining (and have for 30+ years) we do know this is not the cause of the warming.
This of course also kills the "mini ice age is coming maunder minimum" morons.
It's worth stating that Earth, in it's natural cycle, should be cooling at the moment as we slowly slide into an ice age about 25,000 years from now. Scientists don't correct for this (far as I'm aware) so human caused warming is more significant than we can show.
Also, they don't account for the carbon released from wild fires, industrial accidents, methane clathrate releases, and many other factors they can't account for so its very safe to say that the climate science is off, too far conservative. This shit is bad.
I know the 'hockey stick' term is being used widely now for any graph that has a steep rise at one end but wan't the original Michael E Mann et al on temperature, not CO2? Also aren't there significant differences between local and global measurements (apart from sea level) and he doesn't make clear which he's talking about. Seems he may be interchanging to suit his point? Nice to be so sure of everything!
Interesting, but the model does not seem to work throughout history, if the CO2 % in the atmosphere and emissivity are linear (and I am not sure that they are - because water and methane, per the professor, are actually the major greenhouse gases) then the temperature growth at times when CO2 was far far higher would have run away with itself. It did not.
Could I ask that the professor plugs in historical long term (very, very high CO2) numbers and sees what the model predicts and what the actual results were.
This would be testing the Hypothesis (model) against actual long term data.
The model does not seem to work.
I've seen most of these graphs before... by people debunking them for cherry-picking data...
@Andri Ksenofontov It IS a statement and a complete sentence. It's not a complete argument.
Problem with the temperature chart. It's showing it warmer than the 1930s when the US had record highs close to 100 nationwide.
They altered the data to fit the narrative. They didn't expect anyone to go behind their charts and find earlier data that conflicts with their paradigm.
well, that might be because the local extreme temperatures in the US was not part of a global high... much of the record extremes observed historically, that might exceed todays records, was more local phenomena. when discussing global climate change you need to look at the global means.
The global means show cooling. We are in solar minimum.
Climate change happens but there is nothing much happening right now and humans didnt cause it.
US temperatures not global
promised to "discuss later" whether temperature lags or leads carbon dioxide in the ice core data ... but didn't!
video moment 27:58. How the amount of ice can be negative in 2100 ?
Ибрагим Иванов That’s not what the graph is saying. It’s saying that if current trends continue all the ice will be gone before 2100. But, it is understood that present trends will not continue linearly. It’s an indicator. Seasons, random effects, non-linearities, feedback effects, changing patterns of human behaviour will all influence what actually happens. One key point is that the shape of the graph shows that a similar projection made a few decades ago would have put the “ice free” date as 2200. That worries me, even though I won't live that long.
It should concern you enough to take some action.
42:00 un-testable models are useless (*honest). & mixing data sets is a risky business. you can magnify confounds and get alarmist sounding results.
The big problem is that they assume that rising co2 level result in rising temperature, correlation is not causation. The ice core samples show an 800 year lag temperatures rise, plants grow, oceans warm releasing more co2. Temperatures drop, vegetation recedes, oceans cool, co2 follows after the temp. Co2 is therefore not the cause of warming, but the effect
That is from old samples where there wasnt as much co2 in the atmosphere. In the last century humans released alot of CO2 that could have never been released by burning fossil fuels.
If you think that doesnt have an effect on the environment youre just ignorant.
But greenhouse effect is well understood thing.
Scott Borah - Which ice core samples ? - please reference your source.
He shows exactly how starting at 45:48
scientists has already teased out the variations when it comes to the issue if CO2 is the cause or effect of warming. and it can be both, under certain circumstances. Skeptical Science has a very good data base where they have debunked much of the climate change deniers arguments. check it out.
At 47.51 the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is used to get a mean earth temperature of 288 K. It is then argued that increased CO2 will decrease the emissivity, e, and raise the temperature. Perfectly reasonable. This point is developed at 50.22 where emissivities for various CO2 concentrations are given. However, e = 0.605 gives T = 288 K whereas the CO2 e-values are much lower; e.g. at 400 ppm CO2 e = 0.140 and this gives T = 415 K. So how are the original e = 0.605 and e(CO2) values related?
You look at the 1st graph, and it looks really really scary....until you suddenly realize it shows 6/10th of a degree over the last 100 years.
And in the past its taken about 5000 years to rise 5 degrees C. earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
Just to put things into perspective, average temperatures in the last ice age were "only" 3 degrees cooler.
@@KilgoreTroutAsf I didn't think it was even that much.
Well it's wrong then because it's definitely +1.06 degrees GMST since the 1880-1900 baseline.
To be clear mathematical analysis is all statistical and all of these models have margin of error and when using multiple models you have to multiply that margin of errors and remember they are just models . “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
They are better than anything else we have and they say that climate warming in man-made. There is no doubt about that
@@Neilhuny How do you know they are better than nothing? A wrong result could be worse than no result. If there is no doubt about something, that is only your opinion....
It seems that the problem to solve is to keep a CO2-level that can save us from the recurring ice ages.
That means increasing CO2 and planting trees and plants more aggressively. CO2 is a requirement to grow plants. Plants produce oxygen. It all works together with moisture in the air. The more moisture and more CO2 the greater plant life and food growing capability. This is the opposite of Global Warming, Climate Change, Ozone Holes, Acid Rain, Global Cooling, Nuclear Winter...blah blah blah. Give it up leftists. You can't control climate and your desire is to control people.
@@stevebrown6477 Exactly. Wanna help the world? Start by not using cellphones which are equipped with toxic batteries.
@@stevebrown6477 Fossil energies are responsible each years of hundreds of Tchernobyl. We assess that Tchernobyl will have killed ten to twenty thousands people. Oil and coal pollution kill hundreds of thousands human beings each year. I don't understand skeptical : even in you don't believe in anthropic global warming, how can you ignore this fact ?
Just look at the pollution by carbon energies, it's letal. Oil and coal emit various toxic particles, and a coal plant produces 50x more radioactivity than a nuclear plant.
Don't tell yourself fairy tales to run away from facts.
Except every living thing on Earth is made of Carbon. Which can only be made by plants breathing in Co2 from the atmosphere and other animals eat those plants to reproduce and populate. All Fossil Fuels came from living plants and animals. But it is criminal to return the carbon back to the atmosphere to keep our little terrarium alive 🤣
@@stevebrown6477 Looks like someone remembered the basic explanation in their 6th grade science class. However it's not as simple as you think it is. More CO2 alone will not make a plant grow more. It will also need more nutrients and water. If CO2 causes the Earth to warm more on average, the more water is going to turn into water vapor. Water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. You would create a feedback loop. Also, some plants don't even use CO2 as plant food. Some plants use CO3 instead. Your idea is like saying eating more food will help you grow. Again, that's not how it works. You need water and nutrients to grow as well.
What's 3% of .04
+++ 52:00 "bc if they showed the same time; then we would not need 2 clocks"
Excellent presentation, very informative... and I especially appreciate the parts where Prof. Budd spoke about the uncertainties involved.
I agree, he did a good job. Then again he is making an academic presentation. In an academic presentation you are expected to present anything that contradicts your conclusion as well as confirms it. That's one of the reasons that science is so successful in finding truth.
What uncertainty? "Climate change" due to fossil fuel is "settled".
I would be careful with that word truth but we know what you mean?
🎯Good stuff to learn again ! 📈This is why I'm a big fan of 👉"Gresham College Super-Lectures"👈 thank you very much for all. I salute you all from Quebec Canada.
Please don't stop producing oil, wood and meat. You are helping to fuel our world and also getting people out of poverty and starvation. Cheers Canada!
@@IanAlderige what about a reduction?
I would be a big fan of reducing plastics
www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=34&t=6
it would be interesting to look into.
to Mr Chris Budd OBE, I would have a question, if you are reading this, it looks to me as if you have divided the solar constant by four, zero-dimensional climate model, and used a different formula without factor four in the 'energy out' term, is that right? below is my short note on zero-dimensional climate model, you can see some predictions of mine, such as estimated average temperatures in years 2030 and 2100, using NASA data least-square parabolic fit to extrapolate for emissivity, thanks
www.jurjevic.org.uk/climate/model/zero.pdf
🜨 'temperature diff °C 1951-80 14°C zero-climate NASA T lspf/lslf 2019a 2000-2018/5 e' graph, zero-dimensional climate model, least-square parabolic fit, light blue line, and least-square linear fit, dark blue line, emissivity extrapolation based on, years 200 to 2018, 5 samples, from NASA data for average temperature, constant albedo of 0.3, and constant solar constant of 1367 W/m², assumed throughout, temperature differences given from the mean for 1951-80, which is about 14 °C, calculation by M&R
www.jurjevic.org.uk/climate/model/zero.html
details of Mathematica calculation
www.jurjevic.org.uk/climate/model/zero.txt
zero-dimensional climate model, least-square linear fit, dark blue line, gives temperature raise in 2100 of around 2.8 °C, which is, a bit below modern English climate model, which gives temperature raise in 2100 of around 3.4 °C, a bit above modern American climate model, which gives temperature raise in 2100 of around 2.2 °C, and considerably below modern Japanese climate model, which gives temperature raise in 2100 of around 4.8 °C, zero-dimensional climate model, least-square parabolic fit, dark blue line, gives temperature raise in 2100 of around 13 °C, which is way above any modern climate model today, zero-dimensional climate model graphs in the above comment
It seems to be getting warmer, what if anything can practically be done about it remains to be seen.
Wear less clothing.
I live in Canada. Over the last 3 years we have had the shortest growing seasons in memory. Due to cold. Model that.
It sounds like you didn't watch the video... Although not dealing with Canada's 'growing season' directly, the underlying point from 25:18 (discussing sea ice) might help.
Short answer: climate change is global and long-term. Canada isn't the globe. 3 years isn't long term.
That's 100% bullshit
@@Englishdosser86 The first organisms on Earth: were they Autotrophs or Heterotrophs?
Englishdosser86 - excuses and logical Fallacies - wow climate change now - 70’s it was global cooling - then global warming - now climate change - and trying to link .5% (CO2) of all global warming gas is totally ridiculous - hey science - getting rid of CO2 is going to fix the oxygen issue now isn’t it - lol - damn people are gullible and can’t even think for themselves been drinking to much fluoride and injecting to much mercury - lol
@@Englishdosser86 RE: "climate change is global and long-term."
So this means that everyplace on Earth must have a new (it's global) climate, so then no human that ever lived on Earth has ever witnessed the "climate change" have they?
The North American Indians may have seen ten thousand foot walls of glacial ice creep up on them only to retreat a short 25,000 years later but that's just short term local "weather" cause it didn't affect the Antarctica at all (cold and icy then, cold and icy now)
The Hot Dry Sahara desert (its far larger than the USA) formed about 3 million years ago and it hasn't changed to this very day (I was in it just a few days ago). I'm not sure the modern humans species are as old as the Sahara and its climate has been the same for 3 million years.
This means that since "the globe" (not just parts of it like The USA, Canada, Europe etc) has not yet seen "climate change in at least 3 million years.
Wake me in another 3 million years if "the globes" climate has begun to change, will ya?
The mathematics of extrapolation.......bad mathematics. " Climate modelling is really hard, is really uncertain, and we lack much of the data we need." And then we go on to construct a mathematical model anyway.........never heard such mathematical rubbish in all my life.
Precisely. He contradicted himself from the very beginning, and then used mathematics to prove what he said it couldn't prove!
Hindcasting is interpolation, sigh. Mathematics is Mathematics, did you not see the simple heat balance equation. Honestly, it's like CZcams showed you an entirely different video, lol. Just because a lecture is open and nuanced doesn't make it wrong.
Well the climate is, by its very nature, a chaotic system. Chaotic systems can't be predicted with any accuracy. That part is definitely correct. It's even where we get the term "Butterfly Effect" from. No change in any variable related to the climate can have any predictable effect on the overall climate. It simply can't be done. Why do you think every single predictive model used by the AGW alarmists has been completely wrong? You can't even get an accurate weather forecast 2 weeks into the future, let alone decades or centuries.
"Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get." - Mark Twain
So stop panicking over what some lunatic politicians are spoon feeding you on their prediction of the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 from 0.005% to 0.006%, when that prediction is about as accurate as flipping a coin or consulting a magic 8-Ball.
Here is my 100% accurate prediction for the climate: It will continue to change in an unpredictable manner, just as it has done for the last 4 billion years or so, and nothing humans can do will make that climate change predictable.
Sure you can. You can't predict the exact values but statistic values. Turbulent flow is chaotic too but you can make good predictions. For example, you can't tell me the exact temperature in Houston Texas on July 1 but you can tell me the average temperature and that it certainly will not snow.
"never heard such mathematical rubbish in all my life." You have obviously been deprived of an education. Physics, engineering and many other fields that we prosper from are the result of mathematics predictive modeling powers.
how do we know how accurate long term climate models are when the ones we use are less than 20 years old?
Well actually the models are closer to 40 years old, and we have a mountain of hard geological information collected over centuries that allows us to see the past climate states for 800,000 years. We run the models we have in thousands of scenarios, those that line up with past climate are the most accurate models which are used and new data is improving them every day. We drill a little deeper every day, and can see a little further back every day.
What has become apparent, is that our models have been too conservative, not overblown.
Real world observations Vs models.
czcams.com/video/-T-_Os7A4_A/video.html
Results:
czcams.com/video/exXBGHxA4BE/video.html
image.ibb.co/nMjyNK/extreme-weather-events.jpg
p.s. For an example of how our understanding of complexity improves over time, this can be seen in software & hardware. 40 years ago people were playing pac man.
Can't predict the weather more than a week ahead, yet simple models suggest trends over decades, (when funds are given to indicate them)?
Because climate isn't about the weather on a single day .... but then you'd know that if you had watched and paid attention to the video.
I feel like a model planet demonstration using CGI of the predicted effects of climate change would be critical to helping people understand. Like CGI renderings of the sinking of the Titanic it just becomes very real when you see them.
i feel a model demonstration of our climate in a lab would silence "deniers"...... if they know the mechanism and the science is settled then it should be no problem to demonstrate how the greenhouse effect works , with experiments that are repeatable with matching results
for me they know nothing about how the climate works , not even close , if so then given unlimited resources could anyone end a drought or stop a hurricane from forming ?
perhaps Al Gore could detail , step by step , how this would be done and the mechanism behind it
until these questions are answered I say they know shit
At 52:24 and generally. These climate scientists never mention that there are also 18 paleo climate proxy analyses that have pegged climate sensitivity (warming for CO2 doubling) at 2.4 to 4.8 degrees, so most likely around 3.6 degrees, but that's after centuries to get squeeze out that final tiny bit of warming (because they are paleo climate proxies so long time scale) so will be a bit less than 3.6 degrees over 100 years. This does match well the 3.3 degrees climate sensitivity that WG1 climate scientists are settling on.
51:00 it will always recover. does anyone really say that?
Roy Spencer says:
Quote
The Five Big Questions
1) Is warming and associated climate change mostly human-caused?
2) Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging?
3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change?
4) Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage?
5) Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity?
End quote
This presentation answers none of the questions, gives only the alarmist point of view, and is not grounded in data.
This lecture must be several years old,atmospheric CO2 concentrations hit some
412.60 ppm....... on May 14 2018
No, the lecture is from November 2018, but the last record on that graph is Jan 8, 2018, when it was "only" 408 ppm. But there are considerable essentially periodic seasonal oscillations within each year (as he says), so a jump from 408 to 412 is not the issue- it's the overall continued (inexorable?) climb....
it needs to be 600ppm for optimal plant growth at current levels
@@markdamen730 Which is.. irrelevant.
The graph he shows at 9 mins is not Met office data, as stated - it is NASA GISS data, (it says so on the Graph!!!)
Indeed it does, you are right.
I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the Met Office data has been combined with NASA data, GISS data, Australian data, Japanese data etc and that all of them agree the adjustments that have been made to create that graph.
if you fill a class with co2 and leave it in the sun how hot wil it get do the math
Getting interesting at 40:00
Great video. Why does this not have more likes
climate change deniers
@@mateuszp2038 indeed, they seem to be really sensitive to this video, I guess all those numbers and stats made their heads hurt
Funny how there was never a correlation between CO2 and temperature all the way through the nineties up to the noughties and now suddenly there is thanks to Schmitt and Karl. Tony Heller has shown an interesting straight line correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature data tampering sorry adjustments.
Heller is not a scientist. The period for which reliable instrumental records of near-surface temperature exist with global coverage is generally considered to begin around 1850. The consensus among scientists is that the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases since industrialization began are the main cause of rising temperatures.
"straight line correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature data tampering". That's quite an amusing scam by Heller / Goddard. I'm very showoffy about nobody seems to have realized Heller / Goddard's scam except me.
Why would the MET office be working in Fahrenheit?
Because it’s the only scale that matters
30:00 and you want pairing of predictions w/the weather we actually got the WHOLE way through. Every location measured. & look at the irrelevant insignificant changes, that run along side more and more alarming predictions. It would help frame the hysteria.
Also if the IPCC would change their models to match the actual observed data instead of changing the data to match their models, maybe they wouldn’t be 98% wrong!
Figures never lie but liars always figure. Where is the math you promised. I've seen enough charts explain why yours are superior to others please. Half in and I'm out.
39:55
...and FOOLS that will never understand quote misplaced cliché's. Go away and read your horoscope.
Chip's willful ignorance on full display.
md Well there you have it. Math found. However these are just ordinare physics formulas most of which even I have seen before. We’ve had some of them for > 100 ys. The trick is not to _find_ formulas for fluid mechanics, but to find starting conditions and weighting on these differential equations. To be absolutely blunt they could all be replaced by the wave function that is underlying all other equations if we go that route. But that’s not constructive ...either.
md oh and sorry for the “lecture”. You did, after all, rightly point to the stamp with the equations :)
One incorrect thing he said is that “until recently, climate change wasn’t called climate change at all. It was called global warming.” “Climactic change” terminology actually predates the term “global warming.” It’s just that for a while there the latter term was more popular, and then it switched.
Actually both are incorrect.
To the rest of the worlds scientists global warming is what gives you climate change, and the rate of global warming dictates how severe and fast the climate changes. And to to deny that is to deny the fact that a pot boils quicker when the gas is turned up.
In 1988 the UN panel was created. It was called the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)
Global Warming is the cause and Climate Change is the Effect.
Chris misspoke at 47:04 "the amount getting into space is about 30% of the amount radiated by the Earth". Nothing that's getting into space is about 30% of any radiation from anywhere so Chris just said it wrong and meant to say the 60.5% (termed "Earth's bulk emissivity") you see at 47:38 is the amount getting into space as a percentage of the amount radiated by the Earth's surface.
Good catch, no one is perfect.
He was talking about Earth's albedo which is simply the amount of the Sun's visible light that is reflected into space. I don't think is is directly related to the "heat" reflected.
Great talk, with much needed proper mathematical/statistical analysis of the climate. If you break your leg you see a medical expert. If you want to know about climate you consult accredited climate scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals. PS watch out for Big Oil lobbyists who like Big Tobacco lobbyists will spread disinformation wherever they can.
czcams.com/video/eiPIvH49X-E/video.html “Global Warming; 31,487 Scientists say NO to Alarm"
Bob E: debunked! Some time ago, actually: czcams.com/video/Py2XVILHUjQ/video.html Something of a zombie this one.
Statistics show that 97% of statatitions are full of $-it.
@@bobelschlager6906 Troll - for everyone of those BS videos there are 10 debunking them -mostly with inconvenient peer-reviewed science. I'd probably start with this one czcams.com/video/D99qI42KGB0/video.html
We would be foolish to trust scientists funded by big oil without checking their work. We would be equally foolish to trust scientists funded by big government without checking their work.
27:23 Yeah, its very clear that you only use 40 years of data. Why at 1979? Data for arctic sea ice extent go way back than just 1979. Oh, yeah, because it wouldn't show declining trend, but a cycle of up and down.
No mention of irresponsible geo engineering or reckless population growth without which his lecture is incomplete.
Sea level has been rising since records started. its about 1.5 mm per year. The only data set that says 3 mm per year is the satellite record ... and so there is discussion on whether the calibration is correct.
Satellite "records" are pure imagination, I want to see a satellite tell me how many playing cards I have stacked up on the seat of my rubber dinghy (is it three or four?) as it pitches in 60 foot wind driven swells.
We are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; who cares?
Science means "show me" or shut up.
If someone tells you they can measure mean sea level with a satellite to mm accuracy and you believe them, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Geoengineering the earth to make it colder huh?
By taxing co2?
No I am sorry but this is not science
Reuben Handel it’s pretty simple. You tax the abusers
Kind of like when governments increase taxes in tobacco to deal with all of the cancers they have to take care of. (Unless you live in the US...then the government says fuck you)
What is the cause of our present climate change?
Robert Turner Most probably natural variations and of course human activity, but blaiming 99,9% of climate change on humans is not credible. The temperature graph in this video is also most probably manipulated. He talks about what would happen if the innland ice sheet on Greenland was to melt, what he does NOT tell you, is it would thake between 12-17000 years for that to happen.
The Truth About Climate Change - Dr. Patrick Moore - Greenpeace Co-Founder
His background is biology. Irrelevant, as is the fact that he co-founded an activist group that's also not a scientific authority.
Climate change alarmism is the worst thing that has happened to science since the trial of Galileo. czcams.com/video/UWahKIG4BE4/video.html
So one guy whose background isn't even in the field decided to cash in, and that somehow disproves established facts?
@@petitio_principii I met him, his research is on environmental and ecologic systems. Mathematics on the other hand and their prediction models about climate are most of the times wrong.
czcams.com/video/ovKw6YjqSfM/video.html
That's all you need to know about the 'honesty' of Patrick Moore, he is a fraud paid by corporations.
Nuclear energy is extremely powerful and long lasting. The
sun keeps the Earth warm through nuclear energy.
For more than 75 years humans have experimented with nuclear
power and distributed radioactive material into the environment; have you or
someone else calculated what effect such energy might have on the climate?
You can do that yourself. Just open a physics textbook and read about what energy actually is and how it works.
This should clear things up for you.
It's sub sub sub sub sub sub negligible.
Are you asking about the effect on climate of the radioactivity released or the energy released by nuclear fission (sun is powered by fusion which we cannot control - only make bombs with). The radioactivity has no effect on climate. I don't think the the amount of energy released by fission reactors is on a scale that can warm the planet, I think it is very small in comparison to the amount of heat we get from the sun warming the surface and atmosphere. And on topic: increased C02 acts like a blanket on the earth, keeping in more heat that would otherwise be radiated away. I don't think the heat released from nuclear power or fossil fuels for that matter is sufficient to make a difference in comparison to the amount of heat coming in from the sun.
Mathematics is God. I am honored to have lived on this earth & done something relatively very few (out of all humans who have existed) have done: prove mathematical theorems, search for new solutions to differential equations, invert/solve transcendental equations, devote my life to differential algebra.
But what did you actually do? I fixed a leaky toilet today. I also built a vehicle that went pretty fast (about 30 MPH) from washing machine parts, lumber, wagon wheels, and a broken lawnmower when I was 12 in 1956. My folks thought I could never do it but I fooled them. I made some babies too with a little help from my wife.
Why don't you list the important stuff you have honored yourself with for us?
It is not controversial. Climate change is scientific fact. The sad thing is that unless we are in an uncontrolled positive feedback situation, we have the science to roll the carbon dioxide levels back and we can greatly improve our quality of life at the same time. The problem does not lie in our physical scientists but in the politicians who do not understand science. And worst of all they fail to understand the science of government. They have lost control and nowhere is this more characterised than in the kindergarten behaviour in the parliaments. We need more real scientists in government and less lawyers and merchant bankers. Our science should be developed in laboratories and in universities, not in restaurants and on golf courses.
Climate change IS a fact. I have seen evidence with my own eyes. You should never mix politics and wishes with science. How do you even know that the climate is "always" changing? It might surprise you to learn it was scientist that discovered the climate changes of the past through geology, dating methods, ice cores, tree rings etc.
What is going on now is totally different and been linked to humans reintroduction of sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Climate is always changing. This meaningless phrase is used by politicians. Tim is totally wrong.
WHAT IS THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?
Geez, can't you FOCUS?
@@luisarean if you LISTENED to this lecture carefully, you should observe that nothing has been said about the impact of MIC (military industrial complex).
I am not asking you but I only want to bring your attention to this problematic...
The medias are not covering it and knowing the ties between the Pentagon and them, it can be easily understood why ...
BIG BROTHER IS PENTAGON/Wall Street....
And that is scary as hell
Ps. The Mathematics of Climate Change is a very clear, unbiased and honest lecture. Thank you Chris
No mentions of metrics problems. Past proxies are all e^t normalize - NO data set is coherent for more than twenty years*. The stitching of these sets is a source of non-aknowleged error. *metrication and calibration problems.
Very nice talk! I have a question regarding the more complex models which are based on the "weather equations". If one adds an equation that takes into account the effects of C02, how is it done? Is it done by using the CO2+gamma cross section as function of photon energy? Thanks
This guy is not talking about climate, he´s talking about the weather.
Mark Twain defined the difference between the two more succinctly than a crusading army of "climatologists" singing "Onward -Christian Soldiers- climate scientists, marching as to war."
*_Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get._*
Thanks a lot for this video. Much appreciated.
Thanks a lot for what? Spreading lies, or is he just that stupid to be still in his kindergarten world, so what's his motive, as if we didn't know! like you, it's theft from the public purse.
@@climateclimateclimate-kend2017 "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde ;)
Saw the temperature 'hockey stick' graph on CZcams somewhere else. 'Northern Hemisphere' was printed as a heading. What about the 'Southern Hemisphere'? The readings should be revealing since the north is mostly land while the south is mostly water which differ vastly in absorption and reflection of sun's rays. Also how could the huge effect of water vapour - the most powerful greenhouse gas - not get a mention?
Priscilla Allen - it's a global system and the temperature graph is a global mean. The two hemispheres aren't separated by a magic wall - the air, the water moves constantly between them. This is why the weather is so hard to predict. The Southern hemisphere is at exactly the same risk as the Northern hemisphere.
the El Nino weather pattern causes spikes in global temperature like in 1998 & 2016.
this weather pattern happens in the southern pacific ocean between Chile and Australia.
So the southern hemisphere has huge impact on global temperature.
scientists have known about for decades and factor it in.
water vapour accounts for about 2 thirds of current global warming, but with out the 1 third from co2, the water vapour with precipitate out and have no effect. this is why historically when co2 levels dropped low, we had ice ball earth. co2 doesn't precipitate out and is thus seen as a driver of climate change.
The problem I noticed in the comments is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics as some kind of hacky-ball that predicts the future. Many statistics shown in this video that are based on "uncertain" data are the effects of multiple complicated huge models that all test the data that is put in through a multitude of variables and predict a PROBABILITY not a certainty. A trend if you will.
A good example to grasp what that means is to look at normal distribution graphs. They do not represent the data that is put in but the probability of certain points of data to occur as a mean therefor showing trends and probabilities for different variables and events to happen. THESE ARE NOT DESCRIPTIVE STATISTCS!!!
People often seem to confuse the descriptive statistic with Probability and coefficient statistic.
I highly recommend catching a video about regression analysis and probability statistics.
"confuse the descriptive statistic with Probability and coefficient statistic." -- That doesn't even make since. Do you even know what a Probability or a Coefficient is?
Bad At Pseudoscience do you actually have a degree in higher mathematics, Calculus & Stats?
True but as far as Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) goes the increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) since 1750 AD and the present commitment to warm is within 10% of the forcing theory though.
@@badatpseudoscience I know what you mean, I put both in a definition of statistics for the sake of a short comment. You are right though, these are factors within statistical analysis not "standalone" statistical models themselves.
The coefficient is a good trend indicator as it is the sum of the discrepancies of the norm value thus it gives a good overview on the data available.
Probability in this case means the divination between odds and probability. It describes a probable mean (probability) which has a relevant potential to occur (odds).
This is a basic description but I hope it clarified what I meant to express.
Edit: Search for "game-theory", there're lots of great tutorials or courses online!
@@mgkos computer science and physics
First, I don't view this presentation as thorough as there is no uncertainty, which is also a characteristic of legitimate science, in the stated "data". As the accuracy of most thermometers is +/- 1 degree, the "data" has to be treated as uncertain and indeterminate.
No matter which side you hear, none seems to consider the size of the human fire. The energy content of everything we burn, including uranium and the food we eat, ends up as heat. How much heat are we pumping into the system ? How much closer to the sun does this effectively make us ? How much energy are we pushing into the environment by replacing energy capturing plant life with the asphalt, concrete, and glass of our cities and suburbs ? Any takers ? Would make a heck of a graduate thesis.
The amount is nearly neglectable compared to the amount of energy the earth system receives by the sun. Even if we heat up some areas this extra heat would normally dissipate into space. The problem is that we are toying around with the greenhouse effect and that is changing things on a much larger scale.
ah yes, don't bother questioning the raw data...
The thermometer makers are the ones behind the Conspiracy. I just knowed it.
His temperatures at 6:20 sure as hell aren't raw data. They look more like a Mann made hockeyschtick.
@@Test4Echos That is because they are descriptive multi-variable data scales that have been made presentable through a logarithm and a(or more) specific model(s). The raw data would be unusable, this is its culmination. They also do something called regression analysis which measures the correlation between variables and data. Look it up on youtube it is very interesting.
The problem I noticed in the comments is a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics as somekind of hacky-ball that predicts the future. Many statistics shown in this video that were based on "uncertain" data are the effects of multiple complicated huge models that all test the data that is put in through a multitude of variables and predict a *PROBABILITY* not a certainty. A trend if you will.
A good example to grasp what that means is to look at normal distribution graphs. They do not represent the data that is put in but the probability of certain points of data to occur as a mean therefor showing trends and probabilities for different variables and events to happen. *THESE ARE NOT DESCRIPTIVE STATISTCS!!!*
People often seem to confuse the descriptive statistic with Probability and coefficient statistic.
Pudding however, if we look BACK at a multitude of models and they are ALL off the measured results IN THE SAME DIRECTION (climascam models predicting far more heating than observed) ... then it is reasonable to question the fundamental predispositions that causes the failed models to be in error. When doing so elicits a flaming rebuke for daring to question the doctrines, one rightly concludes we are hardly in a discussion of facts and logic but instead embroiled in a religious cauldron
You are confusing what the actual scientific models predicted with the always distorted projections made by media and some politicians that ALWAYS run with the most dire possibilities and ascribed the shortest time frames. Media sensationalizes almost everything. (for sales and ratings.) Politicians... Well they pander to their base, the more apocalyptic, the better.
This pisses me off. We should all probably stop driving our cars. No argument there. But why is a video produced in 2018 using storm data that stops in 2007? Do we not have the storm frequency data yet for the most recent 10 years? I'm guessing any weather service would have that data.
26:00 Ice changes: all over the road. No one expects perfect data. Just dont lie or switch sources mid explanation, or leave out statistical jiggering or additional measurements weighting from sites that are too clustered. Just mention it. On every slide.
I like how he added the sun to the equation. Especially pleased with his opinion on the influence of the oceans estimated 3 million volcanoes. Nothing like a real indepth analysis. Math is great, but it's only 3% of the possible causes.
I am a little out of touch, but hasn't the sun been getting warmer over time. It would be interesting to get some information on the changes.
a minute and a half in and the dude shows a 'model of everything' which doesn't include the sun. lol, some "scientist". I'm out.
@@ricktd6891 dumbass im tired of you thinking your smarter then scientist. Go away any point you bring ill destroy
Solar irradience has been reletivly stable over tha past few centuries and is declining yet heat retention is up
It's hard for me to take this cat seriously. He sounds just like the guy who played the part of General Montgomery in the movie Patton.
If we had listened to Patton to begin with, 50000 American lives would have been spared. Remember when M sketched out his plan on the condensation on a bathroom mirror? He should take some elocution lessons from Al Gore.
Wat
Of course it is hard, you don't have a PhD. Try looking job the Dunning Kruger effect. It explains your stance.
Extraordinary lecture. I just disagree with the Irish Railway Station. I think they should have 5 clocks.
"Climate modelling is hard, uncertain, and lacks good data" explains why the models don't match observed data. Garbage in delivers garbage out. If you don't understand the problem, you will have difficulty solving it, and computers just do what they are told to do.
His temperature graph of the last two thousand years shows the medieval warm as being much colder than present. This is simply not true, take it from a geologist. So what else in this mass of mathematics has he gotten wrong. Climate change is real and natural and a small contribution may come from man now but it is not a catastrophe. CO2 is not the control knob of climate change only a small contributor.
Do you have references to back up your claim, beyond just saying "This is simply not true, take it from a geologist"?
Second, clearly, the warming that we currently see is ENTIRELY man-made. Without our emissions, there would not have been no significant temperature change over the last century. Since the 1960s, solar activity has been stagnant, yet the earth has been warming. The ONLY explanation we have that matches our observations is that this is caused by the greenhouse effect. And lastly, no climate scientist says that C02 is ALONE responsible for the climate. The most important driver is the sun. But when we see the climate changing without a change in insolation, there is obviously something else going on.
According to the periodic table the compound CO2 is too heavy to be a greenhouse gas that causes global warming.
The periodic table shows only elements, not compounds. Thanks for playing
@@darkphoenix7225 I swear I had discussion with flat earthers who understand more about science than some if these "sceptics"...
Actually, the math in Climatology is sound. The accuracy of data and how it applies is in question. Here is why: czcams.com/video/GujLcfdovE8/video.html
Even the fastest runner can't win a race when running in the wrong direction. czcams.com/video/tlnwhcO5NC0/video.html Until we fully understand the data and its application with certainty we can't convince people what should be done. Today, we aren't even sure about all the interacting causes, not to mention the percentage of each. I DO know no one responds well when told to hand over their time, money, and resources or their loved ones will suffer.
Understandable and very easy to follow. A very interesting lecture.
43:43 complexity levels and models. even the most simple models, where the physics can be tested, can not predict well.
That was a stupid statement you posted. No citations. No examples. Just pure armchair conjecture. Nice.
The first ship that went through the Canadian North West Passage was the Saint Roche, a tug boat like vessel crewed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, c. 1956 - since then - many times -No News here - Canada's concern is pretty much our Prime Minister's desire to look "Cool" on the world stage. Its all about money.
The Sun transmits at an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K, with an emission spectrum, peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the visible spectrum. Entering Earth's atmosphere, about 55% of the incoming sunlight is infrared photons. They strike the Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere in the black body temperature range of 255K. The other 45% is white light and of that, about 30% of that is reflected back into outer space, which is what you would see from outer space looking back at the Earth. That should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike the Earth and be reradiated back into the atmosphere as infrared photons. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5% total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing infrared photons than reflect incoming photons. That being said, all things being equal, on the mean, the planet must heat.
Now let's talk about secondary greenhouses. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is it both absorbs and releases infrared photons. Once released, there is one chance in 41,253 that infrared photon will continue within one degree in the same direction. This basically gives that photon a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. Since the oceans cover about 71% of the Earth's surface, this gives that photon about a 35% chance of hitting a body of water. Infrared photons will not penetrate a body of water's surface, but will instead excite an H2O molecule causing evaporation. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas which prevents the Earth from having a climate like our moon. Consequently, the more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the more H2O gets into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets. This is how a 46% increase in CO2 caused a 7% increase in absolute humidity. The present increase in temperature due to this combination of additional H2O and CO2 with over a doubling of CH4, in the atmosphere is approximately .9C at present. Because it takes a tremendous amount of time for the oceans to heat, it will take centuries for the Earth to reach temperature equilibrium. If we continue to inject 37 gigatonnes annually of CO2 into the atmosphere, that heating process will continue to accelerate with .6C of additional heat already baked into the system.
As the atmosphere warms, the differential temperature decreases between the ocean's surface and the atmosphere, blocking the ocean from releasing its heat. In addition, about half of the 37 gigatonnes of CO2 is going into the oceans, also blocking the infrared heat from escaping the oceans and preventing the atmosphere from warming as much as expected. This is where 93% of the additional heat is being stored. This additional heat in the oceans will not only melt the ice caps but will allow vastly larger hurricanes to form and travel at much greater distances. The imminent threat isn't sea level rise but a future of massive storm surges. This website gives a more detailed explanation.
www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
The Hadley cell will increase in size, pushing the Mexican Desert and the Sahara Desert north. This will turn Europe and the central US into desert regions. The Sahara becomes a wetland again.
Due to the increase in Arctic temperature, the Thermohaline circulation will slow down allowing the Equatorial region to heat even further, increasing cyclones the size of the last interglacial period when massive chunks of the reef were thrown on top of cliffs.
These websites give more detailed explanations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/30/why-climate-scientists-are-so-obsessed-with-two-mysterious-boulders-in-the-bahamas/?.f2d0b8923baf
Since there seems to be an issue with fossil fuels, the question is what to do about it. This is my answer. If anyone has a different solution, I'd like to hear it. Let's begin with BTUs out vs BTU in by the energy source.
Corn 1.3
Solar PV 9
Natural gas 10
Windmills 18
Light Water Reactors 80
Coal 80
Hydropower 100
LFTR and TWR 2,000
Now, consider deaths per terawatt.
Coal 161
Oil 36
Biomass 12
Peat 12
Natural gas 4
Solar PV .44
Hydropower .10
Light water reactors .04
LFTR and TWR .003
As you can see LFTRs and TWRs are the most cost efficient and safest energy supply possible at this time. We should easily be able to reach $0.02 to $0.03 per kilowatt-hour. That brings the price of everything down substantially. Building small mass-produced modular breeder reactors would also make windmills and solar panels exceptionally cost-effective. We could have the population producing the majority of their own energy leaving nuclear energy for industry. Or we can continue with this absurd global warming debate.
Let us now talk about the multiplier effect. If we build breeder reactors first and use that electricity to produce solar panels, the BTU multiplier effect would be 2000*9=18,000 to 1. Considering a coal-fired power plant has a ratio of about 80 to 1, that figures out to be about 18,000/80=225 times the increase in efficiency. Doing so would flatten out the hierarchies of the world, creating vastly greater independence worldwide. This would accomplish exactly what the murderous communists attempted but badly failed at.
Byproducts of fossil fuels: arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, chromium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, radon, selenium, soot, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with very small concentrations of dioxins and PAH compounds.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/30/air-pollution-93-percent-worlds-children-breath-polluted-air/1811587002/ www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/29/air-pollution-worlds-children-breathing-toxic-air-who-study-finds phys.org/news/2018-10-air-pollution-children-year.html
news.yahoo.com/air-pollution-deaths-double-earlier-estimates-study-100230089.html
www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+administration+7+degree+increase+by+2100&oq=donald+trump&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i61j69i59l2j0l2.11942j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
In 1827 Jean_Baptiste Fourier first recognized the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
In 1859, John Tyndall did the original research on the physical properties of CO2.
The first quantitative estimate of the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 on the mean surface temperature of the Earth was made by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
"Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a given Distribution of Relative Humidity." May, 1967
Manabe and Wetherald were the first to include all the main physical processes relevant to the problem, using a model that was no more complicated than necessary to achieve this. This led to much more realistic simulations and enabled the results to be explained in terms of processes which could be observed in the real world.
Manabe and Wetherald made a number of other discoveries. First, that the temperature of the stratosphere cooled markedly when carbon dioxide was doubled. This is the characteristic “fingerprint” of increasing carbon dioxide: the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools, as we have observed over the last 50 years.
0469%281967%29024%3C0241%3ATEOTAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2 journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-
Is there a solution to the global warming issue? "Well yes. Safe and cheap nuclear is the solution. See "LFTR in 5 minutes" and “TerraPower” on CZcams. Why pay $0.11 per kilowatt hour for electricity when we could be paying between $0.02 to $0.03 per kilowatt hour?
But why listen to me. How about the richest man on earth?www.youtube.com/
The economics of cliamte change are easy to *understand* The temperature of the World goes up, i make money, the temperature goes down, I make Money…Pope Al Gore.
Al Gore is doing this to get rich? This disgusting concept was strictly a politically partisan motive period. Our environment is more important than partisan politics.
There is far more motive to protect hydro carbon industries than to make money promoting global warming. People who are in denial point at this as a scam to get rich. Really ! Compared to what the Petro & Industrial military complex stand to loose trillions more than a poor scientist.
When I see presentations that attempt to debunk climate change I Just follow the money right back to this scource “petrol & military contractors” (the power that steels the resources)
They are always the sponsors of these suedo science frauds.
LOL Yep Big Bad AL making tons of money unlike the oil, gas, drilling and shipping Corporations that now own congress. Can you REALLY be that damn STUPID?!
Also, his data on extreme weather events is completely wrong. There is no sign that there are an anomalous number of extreme weather events happening this decade.
*"his data on extreme weather events is completely wrong"*
please present your evidence
@@TheGodlessGuitarist www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.php?aid=69558
14:30 just marking my location for next time.
There is a river in Egypt.
Interesting to see that Euler worked out equations (@40mts) for climate change as well!
I'm assuming sarcasm, but I believe that was intended to mean "using the Euler method..."
Your failure to address the warming 1910-1940 vs the 1970-2000 warming, as others, is noted. Do you think we are so stupid that we are unfamiliar with the talking points?
I think you are so stupid as to be unfamiliar with the talking points
Can someone please explain. If Earth is a Black Body, i.e. The heat it receives it then radiates, yet C02 and other green house gases i.e water vapour trap heat, then surely its not a black body? How is this in conjunction with the conservation of energy , e in = e out, and thermodynamics, i.e heat moves from a hot body to a cold body. Why is orbital variation over time not a variable in the equations? Also why is the changing magnitude of solar energy not taken into account? Lastly, if there is a correlation with C02 and rising temperatures, that doesn't mean it is the only cause? I have more questions than answers after watching this. Add the politicization to the topic, and there is definitely something else going on here. V=IR is settled science. This all seems very equivicol.
Very interesting presentation. There seems to be a slight disconnect between climate science relying on unreliable weather science, but assuming it's correct over a long period. Might the errors not be compounded over a long period? Also assuming that all other factors are as constant as they have been in the past.