The Atmospheric Physics Behind Net Zero 

I love that we are asked to answer questions and exercise our noodles instead of merely accepting what is said! Climate sensitivity if equilibrium is maintained equation - higher or lower than lambda? And Angstroms 'mistake'? Great stuff!

If your graphic @ 14:00 is ALL CO2 molecules you should redo it not to scale but to the atmospheric ration 410:1,000,000 (ppm). That's probably the objection Limbaugh had with the slide. if u did that you'd be hard pressed to show 1 CO2 molecules in such a small space.

I'm still a bit confused. There was a lot of mentioning that the outgoing long wave radiation is reduced because it is colder higher up. But isn't the increased absorbtion of incoming short wave radiation equally important, to the point that outgoing longwave radiation will be higher than before humans meddled with the system?

Excellent.

Nice presentation. I wonder if the opposite is true regarding atmospheric density and has this been confirmed in the laboratory? ie does a less dense atmosphere influence the average temperature to be colder?

28:31 can you explain why climate science makes such an issue of the Arctic when if you consider the net temperature change over the last 100 years there has been none. The Arctic was as warm in the 1920s and 30s as it is now. This is confirmed by written records at the time and multiple temperature records from the area.

Some big names here. Doesn’t surprise me that a statistical mechanic and a spectroscopist came to different conclusions on this. Angstrom is making the basic assumption that all spectroscopists make that you have a single scattering event. Once you get toward band saturation that assumption breaks down and the relationships between incident light, transmitted light and concentration no longer hold. As every scuba diver knows you don’t have to be able to see the bottom to be able to see at the bottom. If you looked at the temperature inside that tube at the end of the experiment you would see something different to looking at transmitted light.

The experiment he should have done is baking a birthday cake with one of the birthday candles. They all like to talk about large numbers and moles and the energy of thousands of Hiroshima bombs in attempts to scare everyone but they never boil it down to the fact that there simply will never be enough greenhouse gasses (other than water vapour) to have any actual significant impact on climate. c02 would need to get to the concentration that we would be passing out to have a measurable effect on climate. And even at that amount swanky erroneous would still be wrong and Angstrom Would be mostly right.

The quality of this lecture is truly excellent, as always with any Gresham lecture.

Looking down from above at the coloured dots makes it look as though they are very crowded together but in fact for every 10000 "balls" only 4 are carbon dioxide so his pictures are a gross distortion of reality. Don't know why he did that.

28:36 water goes turbulent and turbulent is difficult so that’s why they use a viscous fluid to MAKE the experiment work. So I guess they will need to make the atmosphere viscous to make climate alarm true. There’s a story about NASA scientists who were responsible for testing the special wing components of the space shuttle. They used a air cannon to blast tiny bits of foam at the components to determine the level of damage and pronounced that there was no problem and the shuttle would be fine. They forgot to mention that they first used large chunks of foam and utterly destroyed the components but that result didn’t yield the data they were looking for so they ignored it. The takeaway from this anecdote is that scientists can be so focused on trying to get the results they want they can ignore everything that doesn’t comply with what they want to see and not realise that there’s a problem with doing that.

Important subject. Not helped by Myles's tendency to interrupt himself mid flow. Not a problem for those familiar with the subject but could be for new initiates.

Uncertainty should not be an escape. If a plane runs out of fuel in mid-flight then it will crash - just because we are uncertain of exactly where, or when -- does not mean we dodge the calamity.

We are in a natural global cooling era, but the Milankovitch cycles are totally overwhelmed by the increases in green house gases. There were scientific articles published about this in the 70s. See J Imbrie, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (1980/02/29): 943-953.

Another thing I note is that Prof Will Happer from Princeton disagrees with what Myles is saying and seriously so. OK so what? Well, Will is an expert in atmospheric physics where this chap is not and Will has years more experience. Myles might be an expert in presenting simplified physics to people who don't know very much but I doubt he'd have the courage to be on the same podium as Happer, swapping theories and calculations. I'd like to see it anyway.

We are still waiting for the catastrophic sea level rise. Thank goodness for green house gases as we would all freeze to death and CO2 comes in handy as well given all carbon based life forms (everything) would not exist without it. He might be a professor but climate is not his best subject.

In reference to science making progress, academia has never had much courage. Furthermore, science is a very funny word, all you have to do is put the definite article in front of it and it becomes the opposite, “The Science.” Michael Mann’s hockey stick is a perfect example of how Scientism has become the dogma of universities with opposition to the agenda heavily suppressed. Willie Soon, Richard Linzden, William Harper, Freeman Dyson and John Clauser, would all disagree with his assumptions on radiant forcing, and are far more educated in physics. Doubling of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 800ppm would only increase the available heat by 3 Watts per metre squared, 0.7 degrees C, notwithstanding, saturation is reached at approximately 120ppm. Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide thermal insulation (greenhouse effect) only acts in 13-16 microns of the Infrared scale, radiates its energy in all directions, holds its energy for less than 0.001 seconds and has to compete with water vapour. As John Clauser Nobel Prize for physics 2023 stated when referring to the IPCC, “those clowns can’t even calculate clouds. He also assumes a complex system with many variables doesn’t have any negative feed back loops, one such being the Iris effect of high level clouds, theorised by Professor Richard Linzden, Atmospheric physics MIT. In closing he is simple pushing a narrative his livelihood depends, the impact of political ideas has nothing to do with science.

its not a theory... trust us, we now. its maybe confusing for you but dont worry we now.

I hope you the best success. You should research *promosm*!