Пікірлер

• 
  @joshuasmith121519 күн бұрын

  holy crap. this is not for amateurs.

• 
  @tobiasyoderАй бұрын

  thanks for not dumbing it down... sick of explanations that are just vague

• 
  @critiqueofthegothgfАй бұрын

  great lecture! I already knew the majority of the information presented but did learn a couple of new things which is always awesome. 2 years late to this but I needed to tell you that you are an excellent educator and communicator, this was seriously so good.

• 
  @mitchellkaye9619Ай бұрын

  Absolutely great. Thanks

• 
  @khadiumhussainrizviofficia30622 ай бұрын

  I need your help sir

• 
  @davebrown65522 ай бұрын

  LOL you totally ignore The Stefan Boltzmann laws Total radiative forcing from CO2 since 1850 Co2 has increased by 50% Insulating effect of CO2 per doubling 3.7W/m2 (using the IPCC estimate) half of that is about 2 w/M2. again using the IPCC estimate current surface radiation is 398 W/m2 so at the beginning of the industrial revolution it would be about 396W/m2 put those numbers into the Stefan Boltzmann equation surface temperature at the start of industrial revolution would be 15.932C compared to now 16.296C So the total climate temperature effect of CO2 is less than 0.5 degrees C. Your ignoring of the effects of the change in solar output is nonsense. the climate is controlled by the sun high solar 'activity' means lots of big black spots on the sun and the planet cools a bit. Low solar activity and there is more sunlight so the planet warms. This is easily demonstrated by seeing the negative correlation between sun spots and hurricane activity. hurricanes are powered by surface energy more sun spots less surface energy less hurricanes The planet's temperature is following the effects of the gleissberg cycle . we have just passed a minimum so the planet is warm the maximum the 1950's caused the planet to cool. the minimum in the 1920's was why the planet was warmer than today. (as measured on rural or oceanic thermometers, with out the contamination of the Urban heat island effect. The planet is going to be cooling for the next 20 to 30 years as sun spot activity increases again.

• 
  @scribblescrabble31858 күн бұрын

  oh boi ...

• 
  @BelisarioHRomo3 ай бұрын

  If you go far back before the misleading false premise of PREINDUSTRIAL CO2 Levels (plants were about to die) there was way much higher concentrations of CO2 Methane and Nitrox Oxides even millions years ago...AND THERE WAS NO HUMANS NO ANTROPOGENIC SH I TT!!

• 
  @sandrocavali98103 ай бұрын

  Never ever start a serious video citing Trump. That's the definition of not serious.

• 
  @thejessundar63703 ай бұрын

  very very good video!! I learnt so much more than what my professors taught in 8 weeks in this 11 min video

• 
  @egonvickerius89843 ай бұрын

  this explanation is not valid as it doesn't count for the heat transport by convection in the athmospere. Your model needs to be updated so the eartth and the athmospere is in contact and balance with eachother. Same with the grean house gases and the athmospere. You will find that the heat radiation is extreamly small at the earth and only to be important near space where the pressure is werry low. At the surface the heat transportstion is made by convection and in space it is radiation.

• 
  @cosmicflare_4 ай бұрын

  tysm

• 
  @a.randomjack66615 ай бұрын

  93,4% of the warming goes into the oceans. 1,5°C represents only 2,3% of "global warming. IPCC AR4 from 2007é There is a cartoon "where does the warming go" or "components of global warming" if you do an image search.

• 
  @a.randomjack66615 ай бұрын

  People confuse profitonomy (the prime directives of corps. is more profits) with economy (circulation of goods). We are ran by junkies, "profit junkies" Which is why of "The Top ten Jobs that Attract Psychopaths' (article) CEO is number one. #Uniparty

• 
  @jackdbenisi70845 ай бұрын

  Patrick Brown ( nose ) is a real propagandist tool

• 
  @jackdbenisi70845 ай бұрын

  Patrick Brown ( nose ) is a real propagandist tool

• 
  @memph76106 ай бұрын

  Ultimately, even if we only get 1.5C of warmer, there will be at least a little bit of adaptation required. Can't hurt to research that approach too.

• 
  @memph76106 ай бұрын

  I do wonder if there is a bias in regards to who becomes a climate researcher. Much of the employment for those who study Earth Science is in mining and oil & gas, which aren't really fields that will appeal to the more environmental activist minded get funneled towards studying environmental problems (such as climate change). Meanwhile the pro resource development earth science graduates, which I would contend is not that huge of a proportion of the population, especially considering earth scientists/geologists actually get to see first hand the size of the open pit mines, tailings ponds, learn about historical contamination issues, etc... get recruited by the mining companies.

• 
  @eugen35746 ай бұрын

  Thanks, very interesting talk

• 
  @marillinkovalaske47976 ай бұрын

  Promo>SM ☺️

• 
  @bradstudio7 ай бұрын

  The amount of nonsense in the first five minutes made me turn it off. He completely discounts heat capacity. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere; of that, 96% of the 0.04% is produced by nature, and the other 4% of 0.04% is related to humans. This whole belief we have the power to affect anything is the science of the mentally handicapped.

• 
  @tonyhladun90818 ай бұрын

  A beautiful explanation of the fallacy of small data sets. Two cars are traveling down the highway and you watch them for a few miles. They are travelling at the same speed so you conclude they are 100% correlated. Obviously they are not, they just happen to be travelling at the same speed at that time...let's call one CO2 and the other temperature. As Joni said "clouds get in the way".

• 
  @ryangowen28168 ай бұрын

  After bashing my head against the Skew-T long enough, I found this video... absolutely perfectly taught!

• 
  @sponemspoonfilmseditor84188 ай бұрын

  Blabla blablabla ... De toute façon flux anthropique << 1% des flux naturels du cycle du carbone dans un cycle hyper reguléne serait-ce que par la photosynthèse ( végétaux en carence de CO2) *==> l'Homme n'y a de toute façon AUCUNE RESPONSABILITÉ*

• 
  @sahandadldoust70538 ай бұрын

  Thank you for this, truly.

• 
  @txukiki8 ай бұрын

  very good ! thank you !

• 
  @yosemitejam8 ай бұрын

  Co2 effects night time temps, not so much day time temps, actual scientists understand this. Also, it’s easy to pull Co2 out of the atmosphere, it’s call Terra Preta, (bio char). The propaganda is so thick it’ll warm your planet.

• 
  @davelowe19779 ай бұрын

  This is a kindergarten understanding of climate and yet he's so certain about it.

• 
  @grinnerwolff19 ай бұрын

  Curve fitting of climate models don’t prove that CO2 is the major cause of global temperature increase, especially since those models themselves have been proven by Prof John Christy as failing to track temperature records. Give scientists 4 variables and they can make an elephant out of climate models and give them 5 variables they can make the elephant wiggle its trunk.

• 
  @moonwatcher20019 ай бұрын

  Excellent video, mate! Thanks

• 
  @mplaw779 ай бұрын

  Slaying the Sky Dragon March 1912 report in the magazine Popular Mechanics titled, “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate..." "In reality, however, the intensity of an object's emission is a signal of its temperature. Sending that signal out and having it return does not change the signal. In other words, if the signal emitted by a 100 degree body is directed back to it, the body “reads” a 100 degree signal and responds accordingly, i.e, its temperature remains the same. This is how the reflective coating in a thermos helps keep hot coffee hot. The light an object emits is a temperature signal. The reflective coating in a thermos serves to expose hot coffee to its own emission, which thereby sustains its temperature. Doubling-back the coffee's signal doesn't amplify the signal; it does not and can not make the coffee hotter. In sum, a constant-irradiance earth model is nothing but a constant temperature model. Although blocking its temperature signal (its emission) is widely believed to raise its temperature, this is not the case. A constant-irradiance model is thus unable to demonstrate the mechanism of a greenhouse effect ..." O'Sullivan, John; Schreuder, Hans; Johnson, Claes; Ball, Tim; Anderson, Charles; Siddons, Alan; Olson, Joseph A.; Hertzberg, Martin. Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. www.barnesandnoble.com/w/slaying-the-sky-dragon-john-osullivan/1030711877

• 
  @scribblescrabble31858 күн бұрын

  except, the earth sits between a source of irradiance, the sun, and the 3K-void of the universe. So, not a insulated thermos coffee mug.

• 
  @mplaw779 ай бұрын

  Exploring the Origin of the Greenhouse Effects 1.0 and 2.0 | Climate Physics Review 10 May 2022 kzread.info/dash/bejne/hH6KtbWhoJrbnZM.htmlsi=kzHmJBrFPAV2g8Jw

• 
  @mplaw779 ай бұрын

  Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIdpl86Rlpeyis4.htmlsi=M-RWMTzvsSNpEJ1c

• 
  @mplaw779 ай бұрын

  The Greenhouse Effect Reconsidered: From Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall, Arrhenius, to Manabe & Dyson. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gYScktqal5naZNI.htmlsi=KA5BIkZoqThbYWwW

• 
  @iamhudsdent27599 ай бұрын

  1600 world scientists, including Nobel laureates, recently concluded that there is no climate emergency, and warned against climate pseudo science. The IPCC itself by definition practices pseudoscience, because it mandates that only man caused climate change can be addressed. Natural variability evidence is excluded. That should be a huge red flag for anyone who values the scientific method. In other words, for actual scientists. Further, charts going back in earth's history reveal wildly divergent patterns between temperature and CO2. There's no historical correlation, let alone evidence of causation. Choosing the arbitrary, cherry picked time frame since the pre-industrial period does nothing for the cause of science. Especially since, that timeframe encapsules the rising temperatures since the little ice age, giving the false impression that there has been some dramatic increase in temperatures historically, when there was nowhere to go but up. Even further, present CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are extraordinarily low compared to the historical record. The faults in the CO2 narrative, and man caused warming, go on and on, too much to cite here. Announcements for grants are regularly made, for example, but always specifically in favor of man caused scenarios, incentivizing the pseudoscience and careers in pseudoscience, but never scenarios involving natural variability. Do your research. Don't be fooled. And do not rely on the IPCC.

• 
  @engyn09 ай бұрын

  I'm not sure why this lecture, and other presentations of the Kaya Identity, as a means to understand the climate crisis, aren't more widely shared. This presentation is the critical factor in understanding the societal factors that drive climate.

• 
  @yourtube59329 ай бұрын

  Fraud

• 
  @yourtube59329 ай бұрын

  This is the guy who lies about data to get published. Total fraud.

• 
  @9realitycheck99 ай бұрын

  ADMITTED LIAR

• 
  @damnsurfer52210 ай бұрын

  HAHA

• 
  @DSeeKer10 ай бұрын

  pretty sure we know how to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.. its called PLANTS, all that new greenwashing money should maybe be used to get more of those bio CO2 extractors working...

• 
  @annaczgli298310 ай бұрын

  I read your article in "The Free Press" regarding your climate paper. I think you did your best & that you meant well.

• 
  @mark4asp10 ай бұрын

  Man-made radiative forcing is speculation; a thought experiment running wild. Any scientist who claims man-made climate change is certain is therefore a fraudulent scientist. Using their scientific credentials to make stuff up,

• 
  @davidegiacometti625011 ай бұрын

  this was incredibly helpful, thank you!

• 
  @glenndavis4452 Жыл бұрын

  If you honestly believe CO2 has some, obviously quite special, property to increase heat energy in thousands of times it’s mass, put it to work doing that. 50% CO2, 50% nitrogen, and the radiative forcing input of say the watts per square centimeter of a damn hair dryer element. Into a polished aluminum (reflects IR ) radiator type heat exchanger. According to the “science” the CO2 will only have to force one other molecule. AND will thermally radiate harmonically, preventing (at least) the other CO2 molecules from losing heat by thermal radiation. If not, as speculated, increasing the temperature of same. This would easily be a billion dollar patent in today’s energy environment. A super high efficiency electric home heater, far superior to trying to just apply the watt energy directly to home air. Super heat the CO2 first, exactly the same way it heats our planet, and then transfer that heat to home air. If you are anywhere close to being right, that is exactly what will happen, except the CO2 only has to force one times it’s mass, not the thousands of times it has to in nature. For some reason (?), 45 years of climate change science hysteria has not been able to productively engage the planet changing energy increase of CO2. Maybe this science channel can interest a real scientist in a multimillion dollar patent ????

• 
  @real_pattern9 ай бұрын

  read an atmospheric physics textbook lmao.

• 
  @glenndavis44529 ай бұрын

  @@real_pattern I have listened to multiple PhDs who can prove zero to minimal effects from greenhouse gases. The fact is that atmospheric carbons ABSORB thermal radiation and convert it to heat energy. How much heat depending upon how hot of a temperature source. They do NOT block, trap, or otherwise build up heat energy beyond that. Period. This is in no way a special property, most of the molecules on the planet also do that. There is basically no way that the minute amounts of Co2 can gain enough heat energy from the weak radiation emitted by earth surface to warm our giant atmosphere. Atmospheric physics measures the pure watts and then converts them to pure degrees. Real degrees have to overcome the temperature inertia of tons of air to increase heat energy in the atmosphere. Period. There are so many flaws in the climate hysteria models I’m not even going to try and list them all here. Unless you are interested in finding out what they are.

• 
  @real_pattern9 ай бұрын

  may the climate hysteria bless you.

• 
  @glenndavis44529 ай бұрын

  @@real_pattern 🙂🙂🙂

• 
  @mplaw779 ай бұрын

  Tom Shula: A Novel Perspective on the Greenhouse Effect kzread.info/dash/bejne/gIdpl86Rlpeyis4.htmlsi=M-RWMTzvsSNpEJ1c

• 
  @PremierCCGuyMMXVI Жыл бұрын

  This was extremely informative thank you Paleoclimatolgy is a very interesting topic indeed and definitely worth the research

• 
  @ltdjag7577 Жыл бұрын

  A quick question, the environmental temperature vs the parcel temperature. If the parcel temp is less than the environmental temperature, then you have CIN. Can you give examples of where the parcel temperature would be either higher or lower than the environmental temperature? In my mind these two temperature measurements are the same, unless the parcel is a theoretical item. Thank you and great presentation.

• 
  @lesnamingha6170 Жыл бұрын

  Thank you for this video. I agree with others, it's the best explanation I've found for a newbie to sounding diagrams. I'll need to keep re-watching but at least I 'm beginning to see daylight through the clouds!!😲😄

• 
  @bigbowlowrong4694 Жыл бұрын

  This is great. However, it should be noted for lazy amateur meteorologists that many skew-T diagrams list the CAPE, Lifted Index and Total Totals values on the chart itself so you don’t need to know how to read them or do any kind of analysis except looking up what the numbers mean😆

• 
  @glastad8 Жыл бұрын

  Really good explanation

• 
  @RJones-Indy Жыл бұрын

  Great lecture, thanks for posting.