Great presentation by Mr. Einhorn. I especially love the charts comparing alarmist climate change indicators like hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires etc ... to carbon dioxide emissions. As the latter goes up the indicators go down which is contrary to what politicians and the MSM are feeding the general population. Those are very revealing tools and important visual aids for those unable or too lazy to think critically. They're essential in conveying actual reality as facts alone appear to be woefully insufficient.
Might blow your mind here .. another good one .. The Golden Toad of Costa Rica, Bufo periglenes, was featured in my thesis at Middlesex University when I created a system for Zoology which led me to a distinction, was already a scientist and asked to do a PhD working in Medical Teleoperation. I turned them down. Was tipped for decades to take over from Attenborough, turned down the BBC twice. Like Heller recently covered and I have been stating, one of many things to alarmists, Mann (blocked me), Hayhoe (blocked me via reputation, it would appear), Cox (blocked me for explaning how CO2 works in different types of water in aquatic environments with plants) and others, to these fools .. Animals move with altitude to stay within climate and everything, including trees, insects, slugs have to move with them. In Calabria I solved why Salamandra salamandra gigliolii was the only one out of 40 in the genus that turned diurnal and I realized that had moved over thousands of years, not since the Industrial Revolution started. The British Herpetological Society stated I have solved a puzzle that had been scratching their heads about for 50 years and it took me a single visit. Know various scientists, experts, published people in a number of fields. I really am the person they say. 😉😉
Tom, just got to around the 24 minute mark. Have you had Peter Ridd on yet? He has a channel called reef rebels. He is really good on the coral reef stuff.
He's been my podcast guest twice (#9 and #191). You can search for names, topics, etc at my podcast summary page here: tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries
Sea level is measured with floats on harbour posts. Harbour post elevation is measured with high accuracy GPS. Some places, there is a lowering of the harbours. Some places there is a rising of the harbours. Sea level averages are next to constant.
Global sea level determination by GPS satellite is a farce, not the least of which is the fact that precise determination of GPS satellite positioning is measured by reference to 'fixed' laser transponders located on land (which undulates as much or more than the purported 'average' sea levels they presumably chronicle.
The figures for Mumbai have a typographical error in the figures as 0.8mm per year translates to 8cm per century (not 80 cm/century). Great presentation 👍🏼
Wish I could fast forward 20-30 years and see when the climate has actually cooled and the world realizes that humans adding CO2, the gas of life, to the atmosphere...even just that 3% was a net benefit!
With all of the water locked up in the northern hemisphere between 2020-2024, there is no way the oceans are still rising. It’s in the 40’s in June in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, averaging 5 degrees colder over last year, which was 2 degrees colder than 2022 … and we just came out of El Niño!!! The narrative is crashing.
How blessed we've been to have Al Gore stop working on the internet which he claims to have invented (called it the information super highway at the time), and turn his great insights and attention to woble glarming. Where has he invested his money? Green energy companies.
don't even give them "miniscule" let alone minimal "not measurable" is the correct response then remind them that if it cant be measured it is not science.
Dr Roy Spencer's Lower Tropospheric Anomoly figure rose by 0.8 C following the Hunga Tonga volcano eruption. Hunga Tonga raised H2O in the atmosphere by 2000 ppm. This is the 'Greenhouse Effect' in action. CO2 has increased by 100 ppm in 50 years. Remember IR absorption is non linear. CO2 may be responsible for 0.2 deg C, at a very generous estimation.
There are some RU-vidrs out there posting deceptive videos that use clickbait titles to draw you in and then turn out to be Climate Alarmists. Basically saying, See the CO2 numbers ARE rising-without EVER giving voice to the cyclic nature of climate or the self-regulating aspects of plant growth in higher CO2 atmospheres-to name just two. One suggestion would be to simplify the massive splash of data points with simple linear regression visualization and differential calculus for curvilinear smoothing.
Covid argument is incorrect. Co2 emissions went down only slightly. Co2 in the atmosphere kept increasing. The real lesson is this: 10% less of C02 coincided with massive economic disruption. So try reducing Co2 emission by 50% and see what happens!
Surely the drop in temperature was due to the sudden lack of direct radiation? Air temperature probably remained much the same. Did you check for that?
That saying stems from the past. Not that I join the climate change dogma, but, like in the UK, we've had the most rainy month of May since 1983. Too warm for that time of year. June arrived with rain and tempi below 10 Celsius, in the Netherlands. Climate may be affected by geo-engineering. Near dams generating electric power, actually, no joke, cloud-seeding is applied when the waterlevel lowers too much, lowering the volume of electric power. We should keep an eye on it as well. Let's wait until YT removes this comment 😉👋👩🌾
Is the sea level rising or is the land sinking? Either way, minimal change each decade. Billionaires wouldn't be moving to islands if they believed the sea would rise 20 feet in 10 years! We need to educate our politicians and insist they stop listening to activists. Messing with the climate and thinking we know what we are doing to alter climate is going to be our tragedy.
Good summary. But the logic applied (correlation v causation) re Paris agreement at 29 minutes was very thin, at best. A multi factor relationship surely. More context please.
CO2 does not and can not “generate” heat in any way or any amount what so ever… period. The only thing CO 2 can do is to “reflect” a very small amount thermal energy it receives from long wave infrared energy being emitted from the earth after the earth receives it from the sun. So the only thing you can really say CO2 does is to slow down the rate of cooling, and by a very small amount at that, as does any “greenhouse gas” including water vapor which is 100 times more abundant in our atmosphere, and clouds (which are made of water vapor) as well can slow the rate of cooling. I hear people on the skeptics (scientific) side say all the time that they agree that CO2 contributes to some small amount of the warming of the planet, but that is not really true. It only contributes to the mitigation of the cooling rate, and a very minuscule and diminishing amount at that. Next to the sun itself… water (oceans), water vapor, and clouds make the earth a livable place in terms of temperature and climate for all life forms on our planet.
What increasing atmospheric CO2 does is slow the rate at which thermal energy from Earth's surface flows into space. This raises the temperature of the lower troposphere at the expense of the stratosphere. In other words, the same thermal energy is redistributed.
Did I miss the greening of the planet as a natural consequence of CO2. Also CO2 saturation means we can cope with doubling CO2 to 800 ppm with no significant rise in temp.
First I would love to thank Steve Einhorn: Excellent presentation. But there is one problem even with your work. It is the assumption that CO2 actually causes any warming at all. The ICE Core data shows that CO2 rises after temperature and that is A Priori not warming caused by CO2 and that CO2 having risen does not prevent cooling. The base assumption is wrong. In fact CO2 causing plant growth actually takes up sunlight and heat into the biomass reducing temperatures as we see over our agricultural areas.
You are half right on this one. Sometimes CO2 leads temperature and sometimes temperature leads CO2. This is seen from ice core data over last 7 (?) Glacials and interglacials.
Yes, i agree with that conclusion. I also just ust reviewed the recent presentation by Dr Founier on Tom Nelson. Much harder to follow but he seems to prove that co2 increases follow temperature increases by six months. This assessment is on much smaller cycle and related to ENSO, but very interesting conclusion.
Surely there are two separate factors here. Yes, warmer temperatures lead to outgassing of CO2 from warmer oceans, but that CO2 also does cause a certain amount of warming. However, the amount of warming resulting from that outgassing is only about 5% of the original ocean warming. As for vegetation, when plants die their CO2 is released. It's an ongoing cycle that is not affected by the amount of vegetation involved.
Could you specify exactly which glacial cycles have CO2 leading temperatures? I was under the impression that all the cycles had temperatures changing before CO2.
Great presentation! Some minor questions...you stopped showing measured temperatures versus certain climate model in 2015, why was that? And secondly, you didn't mention the sea surface temperature rises starting about 2022, or the hockey stick. Just wondering what you have said in relation to that.
@@N1otAn1otherN1ame Urban Heat Island effect. Towns and cities store heat in the daytime and re-emit it at night, thus increasing surface temperatures.
He presented excellent information until 38:00. Solar farms, while fragile and hideous do not immolate birds. Concentrated solar energy farms immolate birds.
10:00 WHY is the world warmer during periods of high amounts of Sun Spots?? Is there a mechanism know in science that can contribute to this? (Psss it’s lack of cosmic rays producing clouds)
Isn't it the variation in the electromagnetic field of the Sun that reduces cosmic radiation rather than the 22-year sunspot cycle? I understood the sunspot cycle only affects insolation.
a far more important comparison is void in this discussion. how many species went extinct or impacted or killed from Hydro Electric Dams vs wind and solar ?? do the wind and solar structures make new habitats the way a huge lake from a dam provides for wildlife?? hardly. we have been decommissioning clean reliable hydroelectric production because we got tired of telling short sighted environmental narzi's to go pound sand with their pie in the sky unreliable dreams. put em all back in their places and improve wilderness water sources and homes for wildlife. they just couldn't stand the fact that so much good came from giant hydroelectric MAN MADE projects so the contrived to destroy them. grow up America and tell the children to to their rooms
CO2 does not and can not “generate” heat in any way or any amount what so ever… period. The only thing CO 2 can do is to “reflect” a very small amount thermal energy it receives from long wave infrared energy being emitted from the earth after the earth receives it from the sun. So the only thing you can really say CO2 does is to slow down the rate of cooling, and by a very small amount at that, as does any “greenhouse gas” including water vapor which is 100 times more abundant in our atmosphere, and clouds (which are made of water vapor) as well can slow the rate of cooling. I hear people on the skeptics (scientific) side say all the time that they agree that CO2 contributes to some small amount of the warming of the planet, but that is not really true. It only contributes to the mitigation of the cooling rate, and a very minuscule and diminishing amount at that. Next to the sun itself… water (oceans), water vapor, and clouds make the earth a livable place in terms of temperature and climate for all life forms on our planet.
@@glenndavis4452 There is no back radiation. Much of the heat from the surface is carried by convection up to the higher troposphere, where radiation takes over. The effect of the radiative component from the surface is to warm the lower atmosphere.
