Demystifying Three Climate Lies - The Road to Decarbonisation | Thomas Stocker | TEDxBern 

97% ;-)

If only science were a matter of opinion, eh?

@@Globovoyeur and ill-formed one's at that lol.

It's a world economic forum elite agenda just read what Klaus Schwab has planned for the world!

Like a wise one said it’s not important the beauty of the thing, the intelligence of the one who made it, the laps of time they used to do it, if it doesn’t match the reality, the terrible facts, it’s not working,it’s not good. 30 years of really wrong predictions but all those brainwashed still looking everywhere else to not see the elephant in the place.

CO2 at 0.04% is a 2,500th of the atmosphere. That means to warm the climate by just 1"C carbon dioxide molecules must capture 2500"C of heat energy. That is bonkers. It also breaks the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Methane at 0.00017% is a 600,000th of the atmosphere so it's even more bonkers. However, the climate is changing. This is because of deliberate geoengineering programmes, in particular ozone thinning away from the poles. Though largely unreported ozone thinning effect is directly observable, this summer you can see a unnaturally bright sun just as we did last year. Under these conditions the pain felt when looking at the sun is not only from the increase in visible light but the much larger increase in infrared. (Look up at the sky and you will see a range of geoengineering operations in progress, these include chemtrail induced cloud or hazing, ripple patterns caused by HAARP installations, bizarre and unnatural cloud formations). Climate change is a programme to force change in accordance with the implementation of Agenda 21 /2030. Current events demonstrate this transition is well underway and will involve massive population cull through injected nanotech (re transhumanist programme). Agenda 21 also sees the permanent loss of all property rights with the introduction of universal basic income (ref NESARA/GESARA) and has/is being promoted by The World Economic Forum. 'You will own nothing and you will be happy' WEF In a depopulated world the surviving brainwashed and controlled population will be confined to mega cities. Carbon limits will be used to restrict consumption and liberty. Meanwhile the re-greened wilderness will be the exclusive playground of the ultra rich elite posing as conservationists. The CO2 hoax amounts to the theft of the world and the enslavement of humanity by a parasitic few. Welcome to the future! _________ I have included a debunking of 'accumulated heat' as it is so often used to explain how trace elements, so called 'greenhouse gasses', can warm the planet. Accumulated heat whilst sounding a reasonable explanation of how heat can build up is rather nothing more than gobbledygook. In fact it shows those using such arguments do not even understand what heat is. When we measure temperature we are measuring the heat energy a thing is losing. In short heat is a measurement of flow, the transfer of heat energy and this will always be in the direction towards the colder. For this reason a thing can never 'accumulate heat' in the way those advocating CO2 climate change describe. The temperature of a body is the measure of heat output, it can never be greater than the measure of heat input. Output = input. When a thing is warmed it is heated to an equivalent of the heat input. If this input is not maintained it will cool. Those that propose that heat can build up to be hotter than the total measure of heat input at a given time either do not understand what heat is or are being deliberately misleading. To illustrate, an object being heated by a flame can never become hotter than that flame, it's temperature cannot rise inexorably to the temperature of the sun for instance. Heat cannot be accumulated. When we think about it common sense tells us this must be the case. NASA and even Nobel Prize winning physicists have expounded 'accumulated heat' as the explanation how CO2 is able to warm the atmosphere. They claim that over hundreds of years CO2 has captured heat energy and this heat has 'accumulated' to produce a serious warming effect. As I have just explained, this is totally impossible and fundamentally violates all the laws of thermodynamics. That respected scientists should support such uneducated, unthinking nonsense is disturbing and only reflects that in terms of being able to think clearly about a subject they have no facility or inclination. These are the Dark Ages of science. Belief has outweighed logic or any critical thought. It tells us that we should not unquestioningly accept anything we are told, that experts can be fools. (NB: be aware of attempts to discard thermodynamics by talking about biology. Eg. 'It only takes a drop of arsenic to kill a person.' This would be somewhat desperate, muddled thinking. Clearly biological processes based on the reaction of a cell are not the same as the laws of physics/thermodynamics).

How do they actually have a model when the climate is chaotic and random i`m sure physics does not work like that for other science

@@bonysminiatures3123 it's called a guess.

@@bonysminiatures3123 When you have accurate data collected from millions of different variables, you can very easily predict climate change patterns in the future, which we have successfully done since the 1900s

@@AlphaMoist millions of different variables = millions of different outcomes

@@bonysminiatures3123 Why do you think that’s true?

exactly, JJ. Although, the acid rain thing was real: rubber factories in Indiana & Ohio, and Steel factories in western PA, generated significant amounts of sulfur emissions. The Great Lakes added significant amounts of water to the sulfur through natural evaporation. The mixture of sulfur + water = sulfuric acid. Even high school chemistry teaches how strong is sulfuric acid compared to carbonic acid (CO2+water). While the weak acid helps keep rain water from immediately growing microorganisms, the strong acid kills fish and other creatures who only drink from streams in upstate NY, VT, NH, MA, and even CT. Thus, some states suffered damage as a result of pollution created in other states. Very important legislation put an end to such pollution, but also sent the tire manufacturing jobs to Japan, Korea & China, where the Pacific Ocean takes up the sulfuric acid, causing the ocean to become less basic (ocean water pH is slightly basic, not acidic). When you hear idiots blame CO2 for such a change, don't believe it. Only scientific illiterates (including SCOTUS justices) could believe CO2 is a pollutant.

Man made continental drift will be next😉

Acid rain was a real threat. The evidence was very plain and the problem was addressed. The same goes for depleted ozone.; it has not recovered completely yet. There was no "coming ice age" in the 1970s; someone wrote a paper that was very quickly debunked, that is all. Clearly you have very little understanding of science otherwise you would not have posted such nonsense,

HAHA.. You are wrong. Total CO2 in atmosphere increased 5% from 1957 to 1975 alone

@@atwaterpub What is 5% of 0.037 ? It did not increase to 5% of the atmosphere. The latest data says CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is 0.040 %

@@pookatim The fact that from the year 1957 to 1976 the content of the CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 5% is indisputably true. Check the data yourself. Compared to 1957, in 1976 there was 5% more CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, Today there is more CO2 in the atmosphere that there has been in the past 2 million years. We can tell this from ice core samples and other archaeological data.

@@atwaterpub My mistake. I didn't realize you are only a troll.

@@pookatim there is no place for personal attacks on youtube. Check the data and you will find it independently correct. CO2 content of the atmosphere is increasing over the past 150 years. As long as we burn petroleum products on planet Earth, the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase. It is just math.

Agreed. H2O is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere. On dry areas lots of IR can escape to space. On wet areas vapor (greenhouse gas) can easily turn into a cloud (=more albedo, no greenhouse). Inside a cloud there may be vertical latent convection, that transfers energy up. Modeling these things is easy. Only modeling them right is difficult. ;)

@@davidgeissbuhler6285 If he's so great then why in his first debunking does he claim in the last 800,000 years it's never been so high and show a graph for only the last 1,000 years? debunking debunked already, so typical they only show what meets their requirement and not the whole facts.

@@scottgate4983 You did not read even the axis of the chart. The unit is 1000 years. So the chart shows 800 000 years. Your statement says a lot about you but little about Stocker.

@@flemme4580 so i missed read something i am human but i guess you must be perfect to make such claims about others, still doesn't make his argument right as it's been proven many times that there is no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. As stated by Joe at the start of this thread things are a lot more complex than they make them out to be and i haven't seen 1 climate model yet taking into account all factors and if this doesn't happen then their models are wrong by default and automatically bias.

@@scottgate4983 I reacted this way not because I am perfect but because you claimed you had debunked him and then immediately generalized how typical his behavior is. The correlation between co2 and temperature is very strong. Just look at any graph from the ice core data. Mind you, correlation is not causation, so maybe you did not mean correlation. Yes climate is complicated. We do understand the immediate effect of co2 but we understand much less some of the feedback loops. However at the moment there seems to be no credible alternative theory explaining the current warming.

"Prepare for doom" - Zobo the Clown

"I am simply baffled". Well that's because you've never heard of "wealth", "money", "cash", "stuff, "fun", "moolah", "more stuff", "additional fun", "lucre", "the green" and "survival of the best to lie, cheat, scam, subjugate, bamboozle". A huge knowledge gap in your science studies. Become fulled learned and, like me, you'll never be simply baffled again.

Like all other human talents, "empathy" and "caring" are not equally distributed. Some people are sadly deficient, much to the detriment of the rest of us. I feel your pain. sorry. "that's life"

try watching the video from Finnish tv about the hockey stick on you tube . it might open your eyes . climate doomers have billions invested in propaganda . its hard to find much info reported that hasn't been put out by alarmists . but if you look there is plenty of good science with a different view

@@atwaterpub you use the word talent when you mean attributes... akin to your lack of cognitive capability.

If that was true, you would already believe it. The climate models have been remarkably accurate.

@@bds3919 Please produce the remarkable evidence for this statemen.t

@@bds3919 No, they haven't. And more to the point is that no one, NO ONE, has yet explained or proven that even the predicted increase in temperature would necessarily be bad. The planet has had warmer spells in the past and look! we're still here!!

@@bds3919 Every single prediction has failed massively!! by 2008 half of the UK costal regions were supposed to be under water...

Climate change is an absolute constant, PERIOD. Massive end level events that caused rapid heating or cooling of earth have never been caused by the human race. Don’t believe me, ask a wooly mammoth 🦣 I live, and have lived at sea level for more than twenty years, the ocean is right where they put it. Torrential rains north of my location pushing fresh water downstream will raise tides briefly at the Gulf of Mexico, sometimes we get a flood and then it always goes down. As a matter of fact the river levels are quite low at present. A little rain would help.

Who cares? What’s your point?

An important question is when are you measuring. His first myth starts by saying "if you count 1 million molecules in the air". But when is this count occurring? Also important is the rate of which increase in molecules is reflected in warming. He seems to imply that additional warming would be at a rate proportional to initial warming (though he asserts the natural greenhouse gases account for 33C to work backward to a baseline of -15C.... however, how does he determine the warming effect of natural greenhouse gases?), but clearly that is not the case, because otherwise we would be looking at around a 15C increase today as opposed to the 1.5-2C actually observed.

So encouraging to read intelligent comments.

Natural cycle of the earth. You have no 1000 year data.

@@natureisallpowerful yes you do. It is generally termed "proxy data" by which temperatures are computed. These include isotope ratios in ice cores, among others.

@@gregggoodnight9889 I knew that ice core samples would come out. What about natural shrinking and expanding glaciers. I think we have a tiny impact on it,lets hope it stays that way.

Greenhouse gas effect on the Venus proven WRONG...

There are so much evidence of Global Warming -- how could anyone be unaware of them?

@@dnickaroo3574 could it be because alarmists hurt their own case by using deception exaggeration lying? 1) haven't you noticed that climate activists use verbal descriptions when quoting numbers doesn't have enough punch? like "hottest decade since records were kept". that means since 1880. plus it hides the tiny actual temperature increase of 1 degree centigrade that took over a century to happen. 2) how about "the rate has doubled". so instead of 1.5 millimeters of sea level rise per year you have 3! or instead of 0.1 degrees per decade it is now 0.15. Are we up to our hips in water yet? 3) haven't you noticed climate activists look for proxies instead of direct data. like polar bear populations or coral bleaching. tbc

@George Hong No, I have not noticed that. The evidence is quite easy to find. Why ignore what is so obvious?

@@dnickaroo3574 so the next question is how much should we worry about this tiny rise in temperature? What is your position? Warmist or centrist or skeptic?

They are alike in this respect: that if you add more heat energy than escapes, you will raise the average temperature within them.

@@Globovoyeur Yes. And unalike in many many others.

@@Globovoyeur You're missing the most important point of all. No one argues that increasing the heat applied raises the temperature of the thing heat is applied to. Guess what! When the sun radiates more heat, the planets in the solar system pick up that additional radiation. The point in all of this is whether man is increasing the heat, though whatever you wish to believe about the temperature increasing, it hasn't been worth the notice. Oceans are still where we'd expect them; food production continues to increase every year; and no one talks about drowning polar bears anymore. Gee, I wonder why!

@@anthonyjames4478 You can accept what the climate scientists are telling us, or you can choose to disbelieve them. I'll stand with the scientists.

@@Globovoyeur what about the variables of the poles with their extreme cold weathers?

Get your ears cleaned!

thanks...will do 👍

petec9686 they don’t care about the climate as much as they care about the politics behind policing the global climate commerce agenda. The more you did into the info it becomes clear there’s more politics than science in what they claim.

Are you saying that global warming is a myth?

@@byroncjohnston1 no. The climate is always changing. In 1800 it was much colder than it had been 500 years earlier, or even 2000 years earlier. The Romans had vineyards in Northern Britain. THe Vikings had settlements in Greenland which they had to abandon because it got too cold. Since the early 1800s, it has been warming. This warming began before we really started boosting the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Have we raised the CO2 levels? Of course. Is this good or bad? The jury is still out on that one. It is a fact that cold still kills way more than heat. There are undeniable benefits. CO2 is plant food. We can grow more food and with less water. Satellite data proves that the earth has greened over the last 50 years. I would recommend you watch some of Bjorn Lomberg's videos. He says that the key to making life better for all is to make us richer. This is because wealth allows people the luxury of worrying about the environment. Poor people are too busy just trying to keep from starving. And at this time, artificially suppressing this wealth by shutting down the carbon economy is a bad idea.

The real problem, is 'popsci' cultists, who seem to think the climate should, would, or could remain comfortable for one self-aborbed, infant species - adapt or perish.

Shout it from the roof tops, brother!

@@springbloom5940 The problem being.... we should be adapting to global freezing. Were being set up with a system of trade ( think food ) and solar / wind power, that is being adapted for heat. If a mini ice age sets in were going to freeze and starve to death !

As we were coming out of the little ice age should we be surprised .As world wide industrialisation had not yet started is that another myth debunked

don't mention pre 1850, they freak out

I guess this statement does not need to be backed by data?

@@bjornelmqvist4546 You are an eager beaver

This is true, it shows this hamburg effect wasn't important enough for Donald Trump to notice, and buy all the McDonald's franchises he could (And be able to be his own Ronald McDonald). The money's in becoming an oilygarch and getting that oil for his buds in Iran, Venezuela, and the Arctic. You can make lies figure, but this gentlemans figures don't lie. These gaslighters here all work for big oil HR departments.

@@robertrichard6107 regardless of the different theories a person would have to be quite dense not to see the effects of Global warming. The climate trends have to worry any intellectual person. of course many, about 40%, have been influenced by Prof. Mausfeld's discussed manipulative techniques,

@@bjornelmqvist4546 If I was being paid by a government to say, "you can eat your own poo to sustain life to help fix climate change" guess what? I'm taking my big pay day lol

Citation please!

@@drekpaprika Just google geologic co2 levels. Wikipedia and many others have great sources. One geo journaled paper I read said flatly, there is no correlation between C02 levels and geologic time scale temperatures. We had ice ages when C02 was 2000ppm.

@@drekpaprika yep he is wrong it wasn't 4000ppm but above 8000ppm when life erupted.

no, he did not lie, he was talking about the past 800 000 years, ice cores don't go further back. those past Co2 levels you talk about, IPCC is btw at 8000 ppm a few million years ago, but that is on very few proxies and mostly modeled with Geocarb.

Not since the dawn of man. Maybe with the dinosaurs?

Which oil company do you work for? Disinformation from those like you is why so many idiots don’t believe in climate change

oh wow-thank you for writing this! (I read this before watching, lol.)

The science was in the red stamp colours = climate emergency.

@@lesliesurette5010 so, a book with a nicely sounding title that you really like is therefore automatically a science book, right?

tell that to the agricultural government website written by farmers lol go find out how much co2 is pumped by burning fuels into our crops in greenhouses... after all, its called "the greenhouse effect, right". I used Canada's. here's a hint, its around 1200ppm while the earth has sat at 400-440ppm for decades...dun dun dun keep paying that tax and smile, you're saving the world by throwing money at it :D

Exactly

It’s a log relationship

@@FacePalmTheWorldArmy That doesn't change the fact of saturation. In terms of plant life, 400ppm is a dearth of CO2. If you care to go back further than a few decades, you'll find that plant life developed and thrived at levels such as 1500 ppm.

@@johnford2508 at no time in our current history was it 1500. That's in greenhouses we use to farm today, which are filled with by using burning gas. As for the death of co2, that's a Bill Gates goal. Also, My plants seem to do just fine outside in the summer.

Seems normal in mid summer for Temps to climb......jus sayin.

They had to do that to give credence to their deception.

Incredible - fake graph, not only the 1930s

Also starts after little ice age

How about the extensive worldwide temperature readings from 1901? 9:42 Full coverage... including the oceans!

What graph do you even refer to?

well said !

Make sure to hang your stocking near the fireplace!

Well said.

"of the 3% caused by human activity just 1% of the 3% is caused by UK" Really? where dod the Industrial Revolution start and where was the industrial heart of the world for a hundred years or so? Vanuatu?

I believe you are correct on N20.

There's sources on every graph, troll.

@@theangora9512 He works for the UN, that should give you a hint. Take a look at their Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, not to mention this current crisis they have construed for us based on lies.

Try applying physics to a chaotic and mostly random climate ... you cannot

Not relevant for you perhaps, but there are people who still believe in those myths.

You wasted your time because his lecture confirmed the science that you disagree with? It is getting harder and harder to find any credible scientist who disagrees with the findings of the most recent IPCC report. The data is now overwhelming and convincing.

@@RJones-Indy You say this with an authority like you have a clue what your are submitting, but it is in-fact not true at all. There are many people that are in disagreement with the claims made based on the data model findings and the coupling of those projections with real measurements that have been taken. Your reference to credible scientist must be your halo, in this example I am easily able to assume you are referencing the ones that are behind the belief of looming climate disaster based on the funding they receive. If you were getting paid via systems that required you to have the belief, then of course you will have the belief.

@@chrishunt4718 Chris, I not-so-humbly disagree and I do say it with authority. I hold an earned Ph.D. in environmental science, and while I am NOT a climate scientist, my 30+ years in the industry/academia at least allows me to interpret the data better than most commenting on these forums. Feel free to post your sources of those that have published in peer-reviewed journals and I will be happy to review. Note as well, there are multiple models, run by different academic/scientific organizations and they are all generally congruent. You may also want to review the videos of "potholer 54" as well on this topic as well as the skeptical science website.

@@chrishunt4718 I see, so when asked to produce the science, you revert to the old trope of, "its a global conspiracy"! Thousands of scientists, dozens of national science organizations, hundreds of universities, all faking data to conspire against humanity and line their pockets...very believable. But, if you can produce even the thinnest veneer of contrarian view with some pseudo-scientific jargon (not too complicated of course), - Fox News will trot you out like you have just won the Nobel! Really Chris?

What do you mean? The hamburgers are part of the causation. Should he have talked more about carbon sources? Or gone more into detail on how greenhouse gases work?

Scott, this guy doesn't get it

Whatever. You're the nut lol.

You need to educate yourself regarding industrialized farming vs. permaculture. The latter reintroduces carbon (and co2) back into the soil. Planned livestock grazing improves soil conditions significantly; and quite quickly, as a matter of fact. The water table gets restored, and crop yields increase greatly. Denying grazing only results in desertification, which is the result of fewer cows, not more. Support local, grass fed, grazed beef, if you are serious about saving the planet.

what about the number of beans ?

Because the IPCC is not based on opinions, rather on scientific inquiry

@@kristian5157 A proper evaluation needs the work of different scientists. If you select only certain scientists you will only get the results that you want.

@@markustilgner Are you a scientist? No? I thought not.

cj smith vulcanism is also at the low end of the scale

Switzerland has four official languages. This guy is likely fluent in at least two of them and conversant in two more. How many languages do you speak?

You are correct.

The earth should be in a cooling phase by most of the cycles that influence climate but, it’s not even deniers won’t contest that anymore that it’s not cooling. Once the Greenland ice sheets really start fracturing no one knows what is next

I'm disappointed by the fact that he didn't mention that in late 2017, scientists discovered 91 currently active volcanoes 1-2km below the surface of the ice sheet in Western Antarctica, in addition to the 47 active volcanoes they were already aware of. The water off Western Antarctica might have in fact been boiling from a release of geothermal heat...which has nothing to do with man made CO2.

@@shadowdance4666 For the past two years, the ice on Greenland and the Arctic has been expanding. But not as fast as it's been expanding in Antarctica where 90% of the Earth's ice is. We are, in fact, entering a cooling phase, as predicted by those who follow the cycles of sunspot activity, who predict a solar minimum that could last 15-20 years.

Jeff Miller 2 years hmm. Not much of trend. Got a credible link or are you just spreading propaganda. The Milanković cycles I believe are the more dominant factor than the less consistent or predicable sunspot cycles

@@shadowdance4666 Tony Heller does a great job of showing us NOAA data and charts they've published in the past, comparing them to current charts and "adjusted" data that make it appear cooler in the past than it actually was, and warmer now than it actually is. Spend the next few days watching Hellers videos and those of Anthony Watts. It will be good for your soul. "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." - Thornton Wilder

It maybe depends on what you may call "catastrophic". And remember global warming is just starting, let's discuss it in a few decades.

This is settled science. It's been settled for over 30 years.

this is sarcasm , right ? google sea level info to see actual tide gauge data

Just dig a little further...

CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. It is not as significant as we've been told. Humans are impacting the climate. Humans are not impacting it as severely as we've been told.

They were aproximated

You are right. The problem has continually been underestimated.

tell me someone that disagrees the the value of pie ?

Read something other than what you are apparently reading. And as David Rice suggests in his comment ... how many scientists agree with the value of pie?

I take it the message you want to be communicated is "I'm down the pub, and I have nothing to say."

@@ilikethisnamebetter No, sorry. I like the ideas and have watched the video a few times. But I think the data could have been presented in a different manner so it is more easily analysed and assimilated.

@@atwaterpub I managed to follow it.

@@ilikethisnamebetter Well then, hopefully my opinion is in the minority. Thanks.

But you have to admit, the man can play a room.

Argon Fan Boy!

Mark Foster. You can say what you want. He does not react.

There are no argon molecules. There are no known compounds containing argon and argon by itself is one single atom, to make a molecule, according to the official definition, you need at least two atoms bound to each other.

Peter Pepper. Okay, he left out the monotomic gas argon. At 1% it's still 25 times more than CO2.

But his slide said "molecules", he would have been wrong if he'd written Argon under that bullet point! (I'm joking, I know what you mean, I think you're right actually, it's just a technicality)

Acting as if the fact that we can know the temperature of the boiling water, is the reason we need to lower co2... is an even bigger leap.

Your first sentence made me laugh

Explain what you mean. Did you not understand the talk? Or are you saying that I did'nt understand it?

Why do you say that. What do you think is wrong in what he says?

@@philippechauvin7207 it is biased, he is starting with ppms and saying we owe them +30c. Then he continues saying that we added +40% to these. He fails to mention that we have recorded only 0,5c temperature increase since. Hardly a strong correlation. They also tend to fail to let people know, that co2 levels were +8000ppm when life erupted on Earth. They also fail to mention that ice ages occured around and above 1000ppm and we still don't know if co2 levels were low due to ice age or ice age due to low co2. It is a political debate at this stage.

@@nyali2 No, he doesn't pretend that the +30°c are due to CO2! Of course not. The +30°c (+33°c in fact) is the result of the mix of GHG particles in the atmosphère, most of it being water. Among these 33°c CO2 with its very low concentration, plays a very limited role (a little bit more than 1 degree (direct and through retroactions) and Thomas Stocker doesn't pretend otherwise. This is the reason why +40% of CO2 increases the temperature by around 5°c and the rest of the increase is coming from the increase of other GHGs, mostly water (due to more evaporation due to the increase of temperature due to CO2 and CH4). Furthermore, you can't make accurate calculation just on average temperatures. Pic temperatures have increased more than average temperatures and pic temperatures increase has a stronger impact on water evaporation than average temperatures increase. Thomas Stocker figures are simplified because real figures are much more complex, and all scientists who know the real calculation and have analysed all detailed information agree on the conclusion that the situation is critical. Last calculation made in Europe and presented last month show that the global warming will be between 6 and 7 °C. In US the topic is political, so you don't have the real information. But in Europe and in Asia nobody contests these conclusion. And I remind you that +4°c means that all the US and Europe being a desert.

Fossil: Because climate Nuclear: Because halflife Hydro: Because rivers Tell me if you need mor details

@@bjornelmqvist4546 solar and wind require base load back up . they are falling far short of expectations in England at exorbitant cost and escalating price of electricity .

The 800K is from Ice core sampling that measures air trapped in the ice. How far back do you want him to go lol? How many reports do you need lol? I would like a reference for those longer data you mention.

No, because you can have atmosphere without greenhouse gases and it would still be an atmosphere. Mars has an atmosphere, it's just incredibly thin compared to Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be significantly colder, if that's what you were getting at.

The magnetic field is the reason why we won't become mars. Wonder why? Use that thing called google.

No, it would just become frozen!

@@skyforge118 : The magnetic field does help Earth maintain an atmosphere. The amount of GHGs like CO2 determine how warm that atmosphere is. We would be cold like Mars without GHGs.

@@lrvogt1257 Wrong. Without the magnetic field the atmosphere would be swept away by Solar wind. Do a little reading...

But he had a fancy battery powered perpetual motion toy and a graphic with shades of red proving the earth is burning up. He's legit! 🤣

One other thing the global climate is changing but scientifically we have no evidence yet that humans are behind it. FACT!

Go up to 1000 ppm and the polar ice caps will melt and flood a good portion of the planet, as it did in the dinosaur days. So it's still an increasingly effective warming agent, even at more than double where we are now.

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Could you give me the link to this source. I'd like to read more.

@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 wasn't that supposed to happen 7 years ago .

,,, debated by?

learn to listen. He said the concentration of CO2. Learn to read....the graph also says concentration. Same for the 14 idiots that liked the comment.

If you think the evidence is "weak", please elucidate on exactly how? Do you have evidence to counter what is presented? If so, please enlighten us.

​@@RJones-Indy To clarify ( a 10 cent word to replace the 10 dollar elucidate) I'll first cover the initial straw man arguments then move on to somewhat changed arguments at his conclusion. As I stated before his initial arguments are not claimed by skeptics. I will cover the 1st one briefly again. Tiny is not claimed, 1/2500 molecules CO2/All atmospheric molecules is a trace gas but over the entire atmosphere is considerable. It is not claimed that CO2 does not have an effect, just less than the affects I listed above, this makes humans not the primary cause of climate change (chronic effect) or of weather (acute effect). Also water vapor has at least twice the effect of CO2 and average cloud cover (a solar shielding effect) is approximately 1/3 of Earth's surface varies with the amount of cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. increased sun spots > increased solar winds > decreased cosmic rays > decreased cloud cover > warmer planet. Low solar activity (like we have now) > decreased solar winds > more cosmic rays hitting Earth > more clouds > cooler planet. Any way that's part 1A (re-explaining in detail what I said before. Simpler and clearer but not over simplistic. If someone responds again I'll move on 2A. This will require more work because of how the data is collected, what data is used, and what assumptions are made on parts of world where even to this day much less data is received compared to industrialized nations.

@@stevelenores5637 You do not appear to understand the difference between carbon flux and anthropogenic carbon input. The current models used by the IPCC include cloud forcing and still come to the same conclusion. You are not bringing anything up that has not already been accounted for. Your point of solar minimums, is correct, we are in a period of reduced activity which should be causing a cooling affect. Where is it? It is there, but overwhelmed by the enormous increase from AGW. Go back and look at the peer-reviewed research. Please, don't take my word for it. This is all well established science.

@@RJones-Indy I understand BS terminology when I smell it. "carbon flux" and "anthropogenic carbon input" are two of them. Ever since Cicero in Roman times rhetoricians have stretched words to the breaking point to impress audiences. I'm not so easily impressed. As for IPCC models their greatest weakness is following the data after the predictions and they fail. They don't work forward or backward looking. Take these models to any point in the past and they fail again. Peer review is another is another way of say consensus opinion and science is not done by vote but repeatable(means results can be duplicated) experimentation (note computer models are hypothetical not actual data). This is what I'm talking about when I say it's an exhausting game of wacky-mole. Since your mind is obviously made up go back and follow Greta who believes the planet is on fire. As for me I'm not disposing of my cold weather gear anytime soon.

Please, in what way?

@@bengteklund1576 . read other comments, then you will find your answer. Gr. from Denmark.

+ Amos Soma 'warmer 120,000 years ago and the sea level was 25' higher than it is today. How can they fail to explain why the earth was more than 2 degrees C at that time than it is today'. Actually assessed at 0.5-1.0 degrees higher GMST than now at 126,000-122,000 years ago, not 2 degrees. 'at the height of the last ice age the temperature was more than 7 degrees cooler than it is today' Actually assessed at 5-6 degrees lower GMST than now (deep ocean 3.5 degrees lower temperature than now). ' How can they fail to explain how the earth started to warm about 16,000 years ago'. Actually started to warm from glaciation ¬22,000 years ago not 16,000 years ago. I agree this talk is very thin & basic. It's for little children which is why you responded to it.

All the changes you've listed occurred over a much longer timescale than nowadays global rising temperatures. How can you fail to notice that after scientists telling us over and over again?

Paul Pizzo I don’t understand the opposition to a carbon tax. If you make it revenue neutral and introduce it gently there’s no reason to think it would harm our economy. By revenue neutral we mean you offset the revenue gain in the carbon tax by a reduction in income taxes. The whole economy has the same tax burden. Carbon gets more expensive but at the same time everyone has more money to spend. Then the idea is we respond to the prices and spend more of that money on less carbon intense products.

@@colwem Haha. Dont throw diamonts to a swine :)

I fully agree Jonny

I hear thats where all the good scientists post their research.

if you want to trigger a global warming "(now climate change) true believer, call CO2 "plant food" and watch them melt down. "It's pollution!" they'll say. So, let's get rid of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Um, except at 150 ppm the C3 plants die. That's most crops. So, apparently CO2 is a good thing... (our history shows that at 4,000 ppm, and 25% oxygen at the same time, and life thrived. we aren't there yet.)

@@geraldfrost4710 I mean its not complicated. Some CO2 is necessary for plant respiration. Too much will cause global warming. I dont understand how this is not insanely obvious to you. Its so obvious in fact that really dont think you have thought your argument through.

Prsy tell, who told you that?

@@boffeycn ICPP dosnt account for the sun and cloud activity in there models - and by the way, there models have NEVER been correct - not even close.

@@ajbassbone Can we have citations from reputable sources?

Water vapour has a significant role to play in temperature though. The higher the water vapour the higher the temperature. But of course there are other factors.

@@tysonsperling9912 Absolutely, I was not refuting the statement that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas. I am merely suggesting that as a greenhouse gas it is not the only contender in our global climate pattern. A change in water vapor levels is not the forerunner to significant change, in that it does not alone cause say ice ages or droughts.

It will be a wonderfull job cutting half the total CO2 emissions from 0,038% to 0,014% after spending a billion triillion dollars during 50 a years period then the temperature reduces 1 degree for a year.. and then 2 volcanos explode causing the C02 lvls to rise up to 0,040% again .. bummer.

@Dog Oh, our species would explode alright.

"Some locations" aren't the climate. Temperatures in urban areas affected by the heat island effect aren't the climate. Mean temperatures taken from rural areas across the nation are 8-10 degrees cooler than in the 1930's when the CO2 concentration was much lower.

@@Ctajm Exactly. Climate could be said to be the mean of national or international (depending on what is being considered) temperatures (plus rainfall etc.) over a given period. In other words long term weather over a very large area.

There is a link between water boiling and individual molecules. To bring up osmosis as another example, you'd know that the definition is a net movement of water molecules from more negative water potential to less negative water potential. It's all about macro vs micro. When observing osmosis, you can't predict whether a certain molecule will travel in a certain direction, but you know that examining all the molecules will give a net result. Similarly, in his analogy we don't know where each individual molecule will go and how much energy it has, but combined together you know that a majority of particles have enough energy to overcome the partial pressure of atmosphere, and hence vaporise.

@@Ctajm That's a huge difference, but I'd like to know where you got your stats.

@@PeterOzanne Tony Heller has the data collected from only actual thermometers in rural locations going back to 1900 provided by National Climate Research. NOAA has it, too, but doesn't use it because it doesn't support the agenda. Watch his videos. He documents everything he claims.

Chemtrail excuse.

In the 1960 s LBJ was given a report saying sulfates in the stratosphere would cool the planet: the side effect of monsoon failure and billions of climate refugees would have been ignored. The US would get about 100 million, well within its capacity to absorb.

In the geological record, atmospheric CO2 was up to 7000 PPM (during *climatic optima,* during which life thrived far more readily than it does today), and runaway global warming has *never* happened!

Thats easy, the greenhouse gasses CO2, H2O and NH4 are all capable to absorb heat. Oxygen and nitrogen not. Heat kind of just passes through them. In and out again out to space.... The greenhouse gasses does of course not hold on the the heat for ever, but radiates it in all directions. Up and down and to all sides. The heat they radiate down to earth is then trapped. You will probably hear people say that CO2 can't be responsible for all the heat we have experienced, and that is true. But you see, heat the climate a little bit and the oceans give of more water vapor....so it heats up more and we get even more water wapor.

Read a book

no he did not it is not a stable system

if anything goes wrong it is chernobyl russia all over

That’s neither here or there

You are right. Any solution that does not include large amounts of nuclear energy is doomed to failure. It's just math.

Martin Pieterse BS

All very important considerations, these people often speak in global terms without looking at the variables from local sampling and the margin of error that global variables/measurements vs local variables/measurements and what they translate to in terms of data analysis and interpretation. Their methodology is questionable. Their conclusions are questionable. Their data is questionable too, as tree rings and ice cores are notoriously variable in accuracy. Thermometers were not used and/or available globally until fairly recently and satellite imaging is only something we've had for around 50 years, and even then not something taking constant global measurements until the turn of the 21st century. They also omit natural cycles such as tectonic, solar and volcanic activity and jump the gun saying CO2 is the culprit.

No, just facts presented quietly.

The complacency, stupidity, selfishness, ignorance and arrogance that your four-word response to this carefully thought-out talk by a senior climate scientist displays (and, more importantly, the fact that it has prompted 48 'likes') makes the prospect of democratic societies taking action to avoid catastrophic climate change seem unlikely. The chaos that ensues from catastrophic climate change will make democracy a dim memory. Congratulations.

@@ilikethisnamebetter After interacting with deniers for many years one thing other than the lies funded by fossil fuels and mining has become obvious, and that is there are two main denier camps. One is those that believe it is their biblical EndTime and the other that puny humans can not affect their god's perfect creation Spencer and Christy are in the second camp. Also apparent is their overwhelming support for Trump and Brexit.

@@boffeycn indeed!

Yes, and he showed that in his numbers -->> 3:40 He said the last 3 numbers are greenhouse gasses. N2 = 780,000 O2 = 210,000 H20 = 3,900 CO2 = 280 CH4 < 1

Some Guy They don't mention it because Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas.

@Some Guy So are you saying all gases are greenhouse gases? . . . lol . . . You are a moron. Nitrogen is NOT considered a greenhouse gas.

Yes, but it is only relevant as positive feedback. There is only so much water vapor the air can hold before it rains. But when we put CO2 into the atmosphere and it gets warmer, more water vaporizes. And CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands of years. So you cannot really compare those two.

Some Guy Yes it does, you moron.

we're just entering the next minimum after going thru the maximum .