How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (pt 3 of 3)

[laysampson1231c]

Your vid went viral on Japan

[brewhaha2010]

Besides that the kids must love it to.

[brewhaha2010]

I love this man, the hat makes him hotter:)

[gopc32]

Alrighty this hat thing is starting to piss me off.

[committeesq]

How 'bout each person contact at least one policy maker, a US Senator for instance, and ask how it's coming along?

I'm a huge fan of Leon Panetta as someone that can make a difference in environmental policy. Look him up.

[jerrywayne93]

It's crazy as you go from Part 1 to Part 2 to Part 3, that the number of views significantly drops. Funny how many people stopped watching early on before even finishing the full collection.

[bugattibowler]

Sorry, but I'm still not fully understanding your response to the "aren't we just swapping CO2 for H2O, another greenhouse gas" argument. I might just not be connecting the dots, but how does it take away from the fact that H2O still is a greenhouse gas? I see that the hydrogen-powered cars use materials that haven't been buried underground for 3 mil. years, but is that still relevant if we continue to use it?

[sparky303]

you should just kill yourself and all your offspring and you would be stopping further co2 gasses from entering the environment. Stop preaching and lead by example. It would make a great youtube video.

[bribeanbabybopdelux]

Wow!

We dont know much do we?

Especially about whether our data is trustworthy or not.

Now why would the establishment fund and produce misleading data?

Welcome to the New World. Order out of chaos.

[yinyang555]

whiteboardo! :D

[altrn8tiv]

And let's be clear about this, we campaigned against climate change and pollution in the 80's and now told it was us that caused it. It was the power companies and governments that caused it, and to a lesser extent car drivers and industry. Cutting back 5 % on our part is not fair, pointless, and avoiding the real issue- we need law changes and green power. And please don't sell nuclear as green either, that's another scam and irresponsible to future generations and does produce CO2 lots of it

[altrn8tiv]

Srithor. Spot on argument, it's gone from 280 ppm to 386 ppm, number your graphs clearly. But come on, we knew about global warming in 1957, it never was about the science, but about rich economists and governments being unwilling to admit it or act, so thankyou for speaking out and studying it, it's public opinion and governments and energy companies acting on science we've known for ages, but when we used to speak out we'd be arrested at demonstrations, denied access to information etc etc.ACT

[MichaelDeMichele]

excellent video! you teach this subject so well. youre fluent in speech and get the points across at fast pace with minimal fluff. this 3rd video was a bit of a ramble though.

more free youtube lectures!!!

you the man. btw i love that shirt.

[adamx20]

Your mysterious Carbon suck is probably lightning, and you keep forgetting the ocean sucks up Carbon because of the plant life inside. If we don't care for our oceans, the same effect will happen. Consider that, it is likely the Gt2 Net carbon absorption of the ocean has decreased over the years.

[orlingas]

I'm curious as to why the data starts only 160,000 years ago? What is the data for the millions of years?

[SinnottAnthony]

Probably can't retrieve data from that long ago from the ice.

[altrn8tiv]

orlingas- ice cores that contain bubbles have only been extracted so far back, not sure exactly how far back, but much evidence of this age comes from ice cores. waysworth is spot on. envirovideo101, are you on about water? adamx20, lots of CO2 we have released into the atmosphere has gone into oceans, and the oceans are becoming closer to saturation, and will absorb less until it can't absorb any more. waysworth, carbon tax is essential to preserve forests, also law change and no corruption

[EnviroVideo101]

I think the point about H2O not being a bad byproduct of burning hydrogen in cars becasue it came from water in a matter of months is incorrect. Surely the relevant piece of information is how quickly the H2O from cars GO BACK INTO the hydrological cycle. Whether I pull a greenhouse gas out of my pocket, my grandma's closet, or a box that's been stored for 10,000,000 years, that's a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, right? Comments?

[waysworth]

Other than governments collecting corbon tax (which in all likelyhood will end up going to insure that things go on the way they always have), who is going to do what, to bring about a significant change?

My sceptacism is not about the science, but the economics of the climate change issue, and the belief that whatever the case, it will simply end up another huge money grab by the powers that be, who have lucked into yet another fear tactic with which to control the masses.

[axe863]

Aggregate human production is responsible for only 3.4% of all carbon emissions

How are we responsible for global warming?

[GWDataseeker]

I would think that a metric to monitor global warming would be global temperatures. If global warming is true then temperatures must go up. The "Hockey Stick" described in MBH 98 is losing credibity every year. There must be more to understand that the models are not including.

[jono753]

0.4% CO2 right now (2:04) ? I think you made a typo and meant 0.04%.

[wonderingmind42]

Yeah, you're right. I thought I'd pointed that out in the "More info" tab, but hadn't. I'll do that now. Thanks for the catch.

[DaveDaranjo]

You may wish to add a video annotation to make your corrections crystal clear to all viewers! ;)

[Srithor]

Dear Greg, I would really recommend you to do so. Your message is so important for all of us, hence it is worthwhile. Your argumentation is based in large parts on figures, and it would increase your (deserved) credibility if your corrections (also concerning the mistakes in the first video) were presented in a dynamic way.

[Srithor]

As your video and the script is published independently of your YouTube-profile, it could also be necessary to think about an updated video, in order not to give GCC-sceptics a point to argue with and limit your influence. You cannot count on other vloggers here, because you are the one popular enough to draw viewers to the clips.

Keep on spreading the words of sense!

[altrn8tiv]

serves you right for only looking at the most popular

[aitutakiv]

Great video. I believe Scientific American ran an article discussing how carbon dioxide is actually changing the chemical composition of the ocean and creating huge "dead zones." The ocean may not be able to accept much more of our CO2.

[mdiem]

CO2 + H2O = carbonic acid.

all the melting ice is changing the salinity level too

that is affecting currents

and that is affecting atmospheric weather as well.

it's pretty fucked all around.

[fireofenergy]

Electric must be better than hydrogen since the heat needed to make it (cleanly) can be stored for days until used for steam generation from CSP (or concentrated solar thermal plant) at a much higher efficiency than electrolysis.

A hole in this (my) argument is that Concentrated PV is more efficient per square space of land than CSP. Thus it might be worth trying to figure the H2 thing out after all !

[AcolyteOfDeath]

Actually, the MOST recent ice core data shows that CO2 levels haven't been higher than now in the last 840,000 years! So nearly A MILLION years of data show that CO2 levels haven't gone above 300 ppm -- that's even stronger evidence for your case.

[Terlin1466]

Best video, so far.

[mjk4523]

what about the trees dont they suck up 1%

[facrp]

hahah! trees are the same as plants!!!

[barbarossa0067]

Agreed at 3:58. As a chemical engineer who minored in Environmental Studies, I don't understand how anyone can claim that this can not have an effect. The surface of the earth is like a chemical reactor. If this isn't happening, then most of what we understand about process engineering is wrong and we shouldn't be able to produce anything in the chemical industry.

[athemilkman]

werent the dinausors killed because a meteor hit earth and the resulting debris in the air changed the climate? scary 0_0

[olloyd1985]

I have a question, have the US Government brought in some kind of 'green tax'?

[starwarsgeek8]

there are many proposals but few. if any, have passed (assuming you meant a carbon tax)

[facrp]

there is one in California already i've been told

[olloyd1985]

I would like to know where he gets his sources from because the graph that shows the human trend i do not believe is from real research.

[ash4432]

i do there call nasa and dr james hansen.

[olloyd1985]

James Hansen is not a climate scientist.

He has no climate related degree.

He has a degree in physics.

And he is on the payroll of the Federal Government.

The media (controlled by the same people that control the government) as usual is creating something that does not exist.

And NASA cannot be trusted.

[StarongBahd]

AAAS and NAS seem to agree with these figures. Also I'd trust NASA a lot more than I'd trust a lot of other people on this subject, though I still wouldn't fully trust NASA in some areas.

[dtothediesel]

Yes, he has no climatology or climate science degree, but he has done his research in climatology.

[devineaux9000]

wonderingmind42, you wrote on the whiteboard that the current concentration of carbon dioxide was 0.4%, but you said earlier that the concentration was 0.04%.

[wonderingmind42]

Yeah, that's a marko (like a typo, but with a marker instead of a typewriter). Should be 0.04%. Good catch.

[wwickeddogg]

Is the Hydrogen free, or do we have to burn oil to get the Hydrogen?

[OperationCrossroad]

Climate change is a bad news, but it looks like the Peak Oil crisis is going to hit us like a ton of brick ahead of the climate crisis.

[OlySvenson]

For a dramatic and disturbing look at climate change, read "Snowball Earth", Scientific American, January 2000 p. 68-73. The authors discuss how ice, weathering of rocks, volcanoes, arrangement of the continents, and biological effects all come into play in climate. Lots of different rates of absorption and release of CO2 interact in complex, non-linear ways. It's instructive and cautionary.

[smv3rs]

I have only one question. If CO2 concentration in the air directly affects the global temperature, what drove the CO2 concentrations during the ice ages and during the warm periods in the past, when humans were not around to make the immense amount of impact we're making right now. I would like a rational answer.

thanx

[nord73]

Through time, the Earth has been target for several major disasters, like supervolcanoes and meteorite impacts. When these events occur, ash, dust and other particles creates an "artificial" greenhouse effect.

[OlySvenson]

nord73's answer is good, but there are other factors. Volcanoes spew CO2, and they are working all the time.

Green plants a take CO2 out of the air and of that is buried, removing it for a long time. In a warm climate plants remove a huge amount of CO2 from the air.

Note also that there were at least 4 major "ice ages" in the last 500K years. Reduced plant life sucks less CO2 out, but volcanoes keep spewing, so CO2 rises.

Rocks remove CO2 as they weather, so erosion matters too. Complex!

[smv3rs]

isn't your idea on the increased CO2 emission contradicts what exactly happened?.. The Ice Core data suggests that CO2 levels actually decreased during ice ages. Also based on the assumption that CO2 increases cause a considerable amount of the greenhouse effect, why does the ice ages last for so long?... The historical data suggests that the earth was colder at most of the time.

[philkillz]

WOW, these videos are great. You are very enthusiastic about teaching, and we really need more teacher like you in the teaching field. You make learning fun, and interesting at the same time. I just wished I had a teacher this passionate about their work when I was in high school. Most of my teachers back in high school just taught for the money, not with their hearts.

[frigidmagi]

2nd comment as promised. A Harvard Medical study has found that over 100,000 Americans die a year due to air pollution. Cutting down on air pollution will save lives, reducing a waste of human resources. Add in the national security need and it becomes clear, even if you don't believe in Climate Change, you should want off the oil.

[Jacnas]

Regarding 5:40; the objection that if we act then we won't be able to tell whether AGW was happening is a bit like saying 'I shouldn't have wasted money on that flu shot cause I didn't catch the flu. You should use that argument if you're going to make more vids on the subject.

[rufusy12]

The last 2 major ice ages, about 20 000 years ago and 135 000 years ago. now take a look at your first graph, 20 000 years ago CO2 is <200ppm cool cool. 135 000 CO2 <300ppm. The illinoian glacier 135 000 years ago the CO2 was high... hmmmmm. people need to realize its not greenhouse gasses affecting temperature and its proven in sooo many graphs. i was hoping youd show the hockey stick curve so i could prove that wrong too. everyone google times of last ice ages and line it up with this grapgh

[Jacnas]

That is of course nonsense. 5 minutes check of appropriate graphs on wikipedia is enough to prove it.

[ExtremeMorphs]

Goffpot, you are a moron. Watch the video "population, and energy" to learn a little more on doubling, and exponential growth (x% growth over time). Then come back to me, and bring your lunch because this will take a while.

[guffpot]

Er .... yeah, right Morhps.

After you've taught me all about "exponetial" and "logarithm" (yawn), I'll run you through residual calculus.

Bring your breakfast.

[tadaa11]

I think they need to focus on the increase in carbon dioxide over the natural variation, which is what he's is doing here.

[guffpot]

Arch - Do you not need temperature down to something like -79C or -109F for dry ice? Lowest temperatures in Antarctica about -60C?

[TheRealArchAngel]

To make, yes, to maintain no. It's why the Ice is extra sensitive to the 1-2 degree swings cause it is just barely holding together as ice. Also it isn't warm air, it's warm Ocean currants. Fastest way to "quick thaw" a Frozen Turkey is to set it under a running stream of warm water in the sink, likewise a 1-2 degree increase temperature in the Ocean (The real place the heat addition is happening cause of Plankton boom making the Oceans darker) kills the polar caps faster

[guffpot]

The ice core data.

There are known mixing processes going on in the ice. I say that must also be an averaging process (a convolution in mathematical terms).

This will filter (remove) the extremes. The underlying CO2 "signal" must have exceeded 300ppm to get the average to that level. The rate of change of the average will indicate how much.

My guess is that the ice gives something like a 100-1000 year moving average CO2 signal.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Well this is assuming that it wasn't carbon dioxide rich sea water or rain water that froze up there. The main reason why the Polar Ice melts so easy and quickly is that a lot of it got the density of Styrofoam from being little more then compacted snow with carbon Dioxide gas trapped in it as "dry Ice", so it doesn't take much heat to melt and liquify. Water expands when turned to Ice, and Polar Ice is even more so. Total Meltdown, which has happen before, would equal a 20 foot sea level rise

[turfinted]

I have some questions. How did you conclude norm is for the temperature to be at equilibrium? It seems you are familiar with the Volstok data and I am sure you are familiar with the GISP data as well. The Volstok temperature graph show 10,000s of years of wild temperature swings over very short periods including in the last 800 years with 3 major temp swings 2.5 degrees C.

[turfinted]

Yes the GISP data for the northern hemisphere does show the temperature in the northern hemisphere has been at an equilibrium for the last 800 years but if you look at the entire graph going back 10,000s of years it is clear the last 800 years have been a fluke. For example the temperature rose 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago, 2 degrees C higher 2000 years ago and 3 degrees C higher 3300 years ago and...

[turfinted]

the temperature was this low 4700 years ago, 5500 years ago, 7000 years ago and 8200 years ago but it went right back up several degrees within a 100 years. Is not a temp increase over due by 700 years?

[turfinted]

My other questions are, are you not ignoring the greenhouse effect of the other layers of the atmosphere? Why does not a 100 ppm increase show any noticeable effects in the lab? In the lab you have to raise the CO2 hundreds of times to measure any noticeable effect.

[guffpot]

Burden of proof lies with the sceptics. Good try.

I suppose that labours everybody with the burden of disproving any cranky theory which happens along. On those grounds, I can't disprove that I'm not going to burn in Hell. Oh well.

Anyway, the burden of proof will naturally fall to the AGW acolytes when Joe Public really starts to feel it and wants to know what's going on. Believe me, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[guffpot]

Q: "How would that not have an impact on climate?"

Er ... closure of the IR bands.

Nobody suggests a linearity. AFAIK, everybody accepts a logarithmic relationship in climate sensitivity.

Climate sensitivity is controversial. The "required" sensetivity for even the more modest forecasts has NEVER BEEN PROVED.

Once again, one-sided presentation of the arguments and .... too alarmist!

But an exceptional display of confirmation bias.

[wonderingmind42]

guffpot: Could you explain more what you mean by closure of the IR bands? I haven't heard of this, and would like to know more. Would especially be interested if you could point me to some sources high up on my credibility spectrum. Be sure to message me directly when you respond here, so I can come looking. Thanks for taking the time.

[guffpot]

Try the Beer-Lambert Law, or concept of optical depth.

"Closure" loosely refers to the onset of an effect like saturation - you get to the point where adding more GHG makes little difference.

AFAIK, study of climate sensitivity normally assumes a logarithmic relationship.

Complete "closure" is not predicted by theory (log function). In practice it should be a moot point as GHG concentration increases and gradient drops off.

[guffpot]

Tried to reply to this earlier, but post doesn't seem to have worked. Take 2 ..

Try the Beer-Lambert law or the concept of optical depth.

"Closure" loosely refers to an effect like saturation: a point where adding more GHG makes little or no difference.

Complete closure is not predicted by the equations (logarithmic relationship), but it will be a moot point in practice as the gradient of the curve levels off.

[guffpot]

contd.

AFAIK, the studies of climate sensitivity accept the logarithmic relationship on the above grounds.

I find it alarmist to talk about CO2 doubling without acknowldging falling sensitivity to GHG.

I think Al Gore does this in AIT, when he shows a CO2 curve shooting up (complete with mechanical lift to help make the point).

When I say, "IR bands", I mean the spectral zones where CO2 is "optically thick" (my words).

[TempestStormwind]

I don't have a lot of time, but I should note that Guffpot appears to have two things confused: First, climate sensitivity and radiative forcing, and second, how a logarithmic curve interacts with an exponential one.

Yes, CO2 forcing is logarithmic. If we were talking about a linear growth curve, you would be absolutely right, we'd see a levelling off.

However, as you note, we're speaking an exponential growth curve (doubling Co2).

Try plotting the curve Y=log2(2^X) and seeing what happens.

[guffpot]

Tempest,

Not sure that I am confusing anything.

According to David Archibald: "The first 20ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm." (there is a presentation on YouTube).

If so, going from 300 ppm to 400 ppm has a minimal forcing effect. Doubling to 600ppm is hardly going to add any more.

I accept that you might not rate Archibald on WM's credibility chart. If so, feel free to offer something to contradict him.

[TempestStormwind]

Archibald's numbers don't look right, ESPECIALLY when we factor in feedbacks, although he has the general idea (CO2 forcing is logarithmic).

Given how he thinks five temperature stations in the southwestern US are representative of the entire globe, he may not be the best source. Google "worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere" to see what I mean.

Also: What does the graph of logarithmic forcing (of the form Y=log2(Z)) look like for exponential (doubling) CO2 (roughly Z=2^X)?

[guffpot]

Feedback is controversial. It's something YOU really need to get the *desired* climate response.

Five stations may a perfectly valid approach. Chosen for a consistent signal over a relatively long sample interval. Things like consistent methods and avoiding contamination from UHI.

A similar study was done at Armagh.

Where does that "worst paper" stuff fall on the credibility chart? With that title, it is hardly inspiring. Do try to be consistent, and keep an open mind.

[TempestStormwind]

Those five stations are all within 100km of each other. He's clearly looking at a regional phenomenon and calling it global. Had he picked a different (rural) region, or indeed used global (rural) data, his conclusion completely falls apart.

Although I rate the "worst paper" review rather low on the credibility spectrum, his analysis can be easily replicated. The errors pointed out are all there, plain as day.

Please answer my question about logarithmic relations with exponential inputs.

[guffpot]

Archibald's work (and the Armagh study) are based on historical data at specified locations. It would be great if there was much more good quality instrumental data with long duration. But we're not in that happy position.

You are correct to question this work because of the limitations of the data. I have encouraged you to be more critical of other analysis supporting AGW for exactly the same reason.

I can answer your question about logs. Will you answer my question about Briffa?

[wonderingmind42]

(1/2) guffpot: I know enough science to know that it would be foolish of me to do a little internet research on an issue, and then use that to contradict the unequivocal statements of the science establishment. So I won't even try to address the science of your question. I'm not qualified to. What is comes down to for me it: How can one read the statements from AAAS, NAS, USCAP, and even Shell, and then think that you can dismiss them as insignificant, easily contradicted by your evaluation?

[guffpot]

There's a lot on the internet, including peer reviewed material. You really SHOULD get stuck into the science of the issue. You're a physics teacher. You've spent the time on these vids. You want to influence others.

I cannot buy the argument that it is all too hard for you and I. Here's a simple rule: if it can't be explained, don't beleive it.

(ps. PLEASE PLEASE remove the witch hunt stuff about McIntyre et al. They are only "doing science", whether you agree with them or not.)

[wonderingmind42]

(2/2) guffpot: The point I'm trying to make is that it comes down to risk management, not scientific certainty. Of course it's possible that all those fuddy-duddies are wrong. But then when you look at the stakes which we are placing on that gamble (irreversible, pervasive, and massive change to our only global climate), it becomes pretty clear that pitting your own evaluation against theirs is not a prudent bet. What do you think?

[guffpot]

Sorry WM42. Maybe we just disagree on this.

I have studied and practised science and engineering to advanced level. That kinda leaves me with an opinion.

Soembody once said "extrordinary claim needs an extrordinary proof".

AGW is a life changing proposition and needs to be explained to my satisfaction. Easiest thing to do is ask questions and poke at it. See how well it stands up to some basic tests.

The answers I get are weak and inconsistent. That's good reason to be cautious.

[petruciobr]

Interesting that you are already retired with 39 years old. Maybe Enviromental Engineer was not such a good choice of career for you?

[TheRealArchAngel]

yeah they shelved the project in favor for sending unmanned probes to mars with those "off the self" designs which is why "retired" was with ""...lol. It's fine, I lived.

[mskittychic79]

smart guy. stupid hat.

[gdjconfusion]

that would be SILLY hat

hehe

[kashirakashira]

Another point about how people say we can't affect the earth -- they seem to have forgotten we punched a HOLE in the ozone layer not very long ago.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Like the Green House "Edumacation", I am guessing you are talking about a shuttle mission missing it's "Window" and breaking the same "magic Shield that magically reflects heat back down so CO2 that is "magically" trapped in air and magically traps the heat? lol. The entire "Blanket of air" deflects ultraviolet radiation and near the poles the atmosphere is thinner so more radiation is getting through anyway. Same with Co2, depending on place,elevation,time circulatory CO2 varies .003%-.005%

[TempestStormwind]

Um, wow.

Anything I could say in response to this has already been said:

youtube com/watch?v=vRgmPcEBvW4

Seriously, your understanding of all of this at even a child's level is so abysmal I don't know where to begin.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Pffft. Stop babbling what youve been spoon fed and thumping on the Iccp,NAS,AAS,etc Reports. Honestly, now you know how fustrating it is for a religious nut to convince a "non-believer" (A scientist like me that Actually grasps "Gia") that what they have been thought is "right" and I should to have "faith" in the infalibility of the Environut Cientist,Big Brother intervention, and the "Holy Reports" that proves your faith in Climate Change is human's fault via CO2 release...lol

[TheRealArchAngel]

I use to run climate simulations in an effort to figure out how to make biospheres and the plausability of making "Shake and Bake" colonies (teraforming). I am enjoying these Videos..though still snickering about heat being reflected off the top of the Atmosphere thing when in fact the ground and oceans asorb all the heat then the Atmosphere then gets heated via "Convection" from the oceans & Earth. And as said,natural CO2 never went beyond 300pp..yet 900F to Absolute Zero has happened. Why?

[Rockforce80]

What does the key link graph look like on the scale of the larger graph?

[TempestStormwind]

"Keeling".

And it looks something like this:

tinyurl com/9ooc6

Copy, paste, dot the space and go.

The blue is the Vostok graph (the bigger one), the black is the Mauna Loa observatory (the information that formed the Keeling curve). Note how sudden the rise is, even when zoomed in.

[Rockforce80]

Ah, many thanks. That about solved the only real question I had about this. The rest of it looks pretty rock solid to me. Thanks.

[TheRealArchAngel]

We are Pissing in the pool and need to clean up all the "dirty Technology", there is CO2 in the "Green House Gas", but saying that Co2 is the Cause of Global Warming and not a correlated effect is a Tree Hugger Belief and not scientifically Conclusive considering that 10,000 years of Relatively statle Climate that Human civilization formed in is the real fluke in a otherwise Violently changing world in the 4 billion span that wiped life almost completely off at least 5 times.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Limonene oxide and CO2 can be used to make alternative Plastics thus just a need to capture it from being wasted...maybe even like a muffler attachmet that collects the Co2 to be sold to a recycling center...hmmm (it would be a Limonene oxide containing device making Co2 inert as plastic pebbles as you drive along?)

[TheRealArchAngel]

Likewise if we can make a close system that runs and produce it's own Etheline, converting Co2 into Etheline in the process the back to CO2 then back to Etheline it would be almost a perpetual motion machine...Hmmm.

[RJMastey]

To wondering mind...I'm not going to argue your science, but I do see several logical fallacies in your video. First off, you say that the "burden of proof" falls on those that say it ISN'T anthropogenic. The burden of proof, in debate, falls on those that assert the positive (not those that argue against the positive, ie, skeptics). Immediately following, you argue "they have PH.D.s for a reason", which is another common fallacy, "appeal to authority".

[TempestStormwind]

I agree, but you're also incorrect.

When you leave logic (and enter, i.e., science), expertise *does* matter, and therefore appeals to authority are valid. Unless you think that Jimbo's diagnosis of your illness is as good as your doctor's when they each make logical sense.

Given how the best science we have (IPCC 2007) says that AGW is 90-955% likely (w/ 9/10 confidence), a neutral judge would lean towards science. Ergo, the burden of (scientific) proof is on the skeptics contesting this.

[TheRealArchAngel]

You do know Burden of proof is on the Skeptics is an Argument the Creationist use..yes? I have question...If CO2 never gone up pass 350ppm but Earth has swung between Absolute Zero worldwide and 900F worldwide(according to geological records) with the 20 degree Swampland North Pole being more recent...then 1) why isn't Co2 making a more extreme difference then 1 fucken percent? and 2)If Air properties is "Changed" why doesn't my oven read 401.5 degrees when I measure it with a thermometer?

[TheRealArchAngel]

FYI I'm a retired "Enviromental Engineer" that used to work on and develop artifical Biospheres. But as I am here for entertainment and not to debate the cult of Enviromentalism with it's Co2 armegedon Gospel just pay me no mind. Problem with the rapid meltdown of the Poles is all that fresh water is mixing with Sea Water which can change the saline ratio and density of the Ocean causing circulation from Tropics to Poles to stop and ww will end up with an Ice Age before "total Meltdown" happens.

[petruciobr]

I had already read that somewhere, I doesn't mean I should take your word above that of the top scientific institutions. If you are not lying intentionally, than you are intellectually dishonest - be it consciously or not.

It's not an Ice Age because it's not over the entire globe - but yes, that's correct. That's why Climate De-stabilization is better than Global Warming. It's a bad scenario either way.

[orphmet]

TheRealArchAngel: The worry isn't that all of the ice on Earth will melt, it's that the effects of the sudden release of meltwater will have drastic cosequences, such as the disruption of the oceanic conveyor current as this will cause drastic climate changes, potentially rendering farmlands too cold or too dry to yield food.

I am convinced at this point due to your consistently erroneous comments that you do not seek the truth, but instead seek to push your agenda. You are spam in my eyes.

[orphmet]

Interesting hypothesis, but no, I am independent from whoever you suspect I am a double of.

Such a claim is almost as comical as the claim that you aren't just a plant by an industry with the agenda of disputing GCC. Perhaps Big Oil? Who knows but you. Enjoy your dirty money, pig. :)

[TheRealArchAngel]

AH, YOu found me Out!!!....lol. Actually I am a "tree Hugger" but am a practicalist and not a Idealist when it comes to "solving the world's problems". And while the Communist Ideal of letting "those in Charge" Think and Make decisions for you via government policy and intervention or "deffering authority to controllers" like fucken Thralls might Apeal to the likes of wonderingmind42 and maybe even you, I myself want to "hug a tree" only when I feel like it, thank you.

[TheRealArchAngel]

There's that Agenda thing again. Exactly how is Inert Co2 being 5x heavier then "Air" and not able to float into it without help statement a "Agenda?", How is dropping some Co2 into a oven,turning it up to 375f, and measuring 375f instead of 376.5f "a Agenda"?, how is the Soda bottle test showing pure co2 not asorbing any more heat then Air "an agenda"? How is saying air heats uniformally from the surface and not via Co2 content though a "microwave effect" an Agenda? Prove to me I am wrong.

[orphmet]

2. Wikipedia doesn't seem to recognize what "inert CO2" is. There is no article for it and it is never referred to in the carbon dioxide article.

3. Finally, you simply don't make sense. You refused to address my explanation concerning the oven and you're now introducing this "soda bottle" thing expecting me to know what it is.

Why are you trying to muddle the science?

[TheRealArchAngel]

1) Sorry about the Environut's thrall-zombie crack. (wasn't saying you are someone else)

2) Wikipedia is a consensus database which is why like the Consensus 500 years ago would have been "the Earth is flat",Big W says Co2 causes Global warming.Consensus doesn't mean it's right.

3) I have A.D.D. and will end up "all over" if you don't ask me a specific question, or if I am not focusing on a particular point,sorry.

4) I think I said "Air" is the medium that is heated in the Oven by the coil

[TheRealArchAngel]

The "Agenda" thing again. Seriously, I am usually here to scope out Videos by cute girls/ladies and Flag porn (after recording any I like...I'm a guy. I keep coming back here in particular cause of E-mail telling me I got a comment. Exxon owns 90% of Uranium Mines and their sub contracters make the rods, while Chevron/GE own most all the Geothermal,Solar,and Wind technology so to think "Big Oil" wouldnt stop getting rich as "Big Oil" to get Richer as "Big Wind","Big Air" or "Big Solar" is silly

[petruciobr]

If different people seem to be seing you the exact same way, you might want to pause and wonder if you are not comming out as exactly that.

Your claim that I'm someone else is totally bogus. But of course, that would be the answer I'd give if it weren't bogus, so there's no way out of this.

[TheRealArchAngel]

**If different people seem to be seeing you the exact same way, you might want to pause and wonder if you are not coming out as exactly that.**

I am well aware that commenting here will get the same relative response as wonderingmind42 is "preaching to the Choir" and it is no different then going to a Muslin site and saying Mohammad wasn't a Prophet, a Christian Site and saying Jesus wasn't the son of God,or going to a Evolution site and saying the "Frankenstein effect" has never been proven

[TheRealArchAngel]

Carbon Dioxide being used as a refrigerant in the labs and Industry cause it rapidly expands in the presence of heat and doesn't reflect/deflect/irradiate heat in any way shape or form? Or that Carbon Dioxide,no matter how much you pump into an environment, cant magically reflect/irradiate/absorb more heat then the surface below transfers to it cause it breaks the laws of Thermal dynamics?How are these lies?

[TheRealArchAngel]

That a desert enviroment with 80% humidity from water vapor and .036% Carbon dioxide in it's air,is 95f degrees and muggy most of the night, but a Desert Enviroment with 0% humidity but .040% Carbon Dioxide in it's air still goes fucken freezing at night is a lie?

[TheRealArchAngel]

Yes,It violates Carl Sagan's "baloney detection kit" to yield to authority and anything written or said by someone in such authority is "Infallible". I have a a few degrees in the Sciences and even worked on a few projects involving Weather but am I more or less credible cause of a few pieces of paper and my Experiences? Obviously not cause not only have I been called idiot or childish against my posts but I have also been "Spammed" for trying to say it's the Oceans warming the Planet,not Co2

[middlj14]

Use less energy in the US! In the UK all appliances are rated, from A++ to D, on how energy efficient they are. We seem to care a lot more about the environment than americans. I wish Americans were less ignorant, its very sad how Europe are trying their best, we in the UK have strict gouverment regulations and carbon targets to meet. The US just dont seem to care, a big fat country with a throw-away society.

[blackice228]

Ok, I am Canadian, so yyou could call me "American" but you should not assue that we don't care, or that our applinces are rated because they are. I believe that the goverment of the US is to worried about there economie and us in Canada is no better. But it is very rude to assume that were all like that. I'm very enviromental, we use energy star applinces, fuel affishent cars and lights and I walk every where. So its very rude to think the were all ignorent.

[middlj14]

To be honest i wasnt talking about canada - i think canada is a lovely clean country. i was refering to the USA. obviously there will be exceptions , but on a whole the message portrayed in this country is the one i stated above. Thank you for your reply. Joe

[theangryocelot]

No matter what anyone says about this issue, it's undeniable that you are an excellent science teacher...you're students are lucky to have you. You remind me of my old Biology teacher in high school, who had a fun time going on about trees shooting out sperm every spring..."all that yellow GUNK on your car is tree ejaculation!" *laughs at all the horrified young faces*

[TheRealArchAngel]

I agree 100% on him being a good teacher. I actually watched all the Videos cause he is a very good in relating his information and is very entertaining. Only gripe I have is the common misinformation that it's Co2 trapping extra heat when it is actually the Oceans asorbing more heat cause they are darker from a plankton growth boom, and Air is heated by convection from the Earth and Oceans and not reflection and asorbtion as he demonstrated. Oh well.

[Edukator99]

This is just a theoretical statement but here's a concern I've had about hydrogen cells that was somewhat confirmed in this video.

If we pump millions of tons of H20 into the atmosphere it will fall back down again when the air gets saturated. Won't this cause massive flooding?

[TempestStormwind]

No, because guess where the hydrogen was before it was put in the fuel cells.

It's part of the active hydro cycle. We took water out of the oceans (or distilleries, or whatever), split it*, and then a couple weeks later it's used to power a hydrogen fuel cell.

Flooding would only occur if we're pulling hydrogen and/or oxygen from OUTSIDE the active hydro cycle, thus increasing the net amount of water in that cycle. (This is why fossil fuel CO2 emissions are a problem, but biodeisel's aren't.)

[beartare42]

I agree with almost everything you say. (well pretty much everything you say).

However, the problem with biofuel (from what I've heard) is that in many places they are cutting/burning down more rainforest to have room to grow more corn for biofuel.

So really biofuel kindof defeats itself.

[TempestStormwind]

* (Split it)

The problem with fuel cells isn't the emissions. It's the initial source of energy.

Like all forms of energy exchange, something's lost. They take more power to split than you'll get out of it. (This is always the case with batteries and fuel cells, though, so that's not the complaint.)

The TRICK... is getting a carbon-neutral source of power to provide electrolysis in the first place.

[baley7]

You forgot to mention that the energy to split the water is taken from renewable energy sources like solar/wind ... Since fuel cells are nothing more than batteries!

[CathyInBlue]

I'm a skeptic, and I've followed this series through from the beginning to here, and I've finally been spurred to comment by the glowy adoration of the hydrogen fuel cell.

Alternative energy devices like ethanol engines and hydrogen fuel cells, as they are executed today, are 100%, absolute boondoggles.

[CathyInBlue]

You mentioned that the H2O was H2O just three months ago, then you blythely mention that it gets split so that it can be fed to the fuel cell. Well, where did the energy for that splitting come from? ??? Ah! It came from the coal, natural gas, and nuclear powered electric grid, so far from being carbon neutral, they're just carbon displacers.

[CathyInBlue]

If green people want carbon neutral transportation, we'll need mass construction projects for NUCLEAR power plants, wind farms (like the ones Ted Kennedy vetoed), solar collectors, tidal generators, or other mass alternative energy production technologies. Nothing short of that has a chance of lowering  human pollutants, whether or not they have any impact on GCC.

[TempestStormwind]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. This is also often levied as a complaint against other fuel sources (biodiesel is the usual target), while unreliability is targeted against wind/tidal/solar generators.

It's for this reason that I support nuclear power, even though I get attacked by more militant environmentalists.

I'm also hopeful that eventually we'll get fusion working, but that's just a pipe dream.

[smarthandsomeguy]

Just recently I read about 2 guys from Scottland who invented a fairly simple device for getting energy out of waves. Waves have quite a lot of energy on a large scale, and the energy comes from the sun.

googled it: news . bbc . co . uk/2/hi/technology/6410839 . stm

[smarthandsomeguy]

Hmmm.... I'm from Europe, and maybe this doesn't sound intriguing to you guys from the US, but have you ever considered consuming less energy?

By that, I don't mean sitting in the dark after 20pm, but building energy efficient houses, cars and electrical devices.

AFAIK, if we switched from fossil fuels to uranium, we would run out of uranium pretty soon, btw.

[thishereguy1980]

Ever heard of a breeder reactor? It's a form of nuclear reactor that, in addition to producing energy, creates more radioactive material that can be used as fuel. How? By colliding neutrons ejected from fission reactions with non-radioactive isotopes like Uranium-238 and Thorium-232 to produce radioactive ones like Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239. It also produces less radioactive waste than other kinds of reactors. HURRAY WIKIPEDIA!

[0815Scooter]

I came across this link on a local radio show's website. I watched the first one & sent it to everyone I know. Then I watched more. These videos inspire me to finding ways to do more. You provided this material & helped some of us with our education, would you be interested in sharing more ways that we can DO more to effect change? Tell us what/how to do whatever we can. Side note, my daughters & I really dig what you are doing & your mode of delivery. You're good teacher, and we thank you.

[rickl2222]

Don't indoctrinate children into a belief that the world is ending and if we don't do all the things they tell us we will die.Please don't frighten them with this nonsense!How many "i don't knows" can you count in his video? Why can't these benevolent believers of man-made global warming predict the weather tomorrow or next week but they can convince you they have PROVED what causes climate change and what is going to happen to the entire planet!Children should be happy and free from this!

[iiopen]

I think you need to go back to the beginning video and review again. Try pausing once in a while so you have a chance to think it through. Do the research. Check the sources. Weigh their credibility.

[rickl2222]

You're sick in the head if you think people should be teaching their children this nonsense! Teach them to check both ways before crossing, you know, kid stuff. Don't create some science fiction world where children are conditioned from birth to FEAR a theory that the world is going to end and well, have a good life! Do not brainwash your self with confounding intellectual research that is one sided.

[cyle46]

I'd like to inform you that this video is not for children. Children are not the ones who are deciding about his issue. These videos are for adults. Also, the entire world is made up of "I don't knows". Do you drive to the supermarket? How do you know you won't be hit by another car and killed? By your logic you shouldn't drive to the supermarket because you don't know whether or not you will be killed in an accident.

[gwdrake]

The risk assessment videos (all six) would be good ones for you to look at. It answers these questions quite well, except for the suggestion that its better to shoot the children in the head without telling them you're about to, which is (i.e., shooting) what this position advocates

[baley7]

Ignorance is bliss eh? That's a good idea let's all be ignorant change nothing and 99.999% get ourself in huge trouble. Makes sense, after all it's their future that is depending on our decision, why bother .... :s

[JustinTwice]

Quick correction, at about 2:05 where you say and write 400 ppm is .4% instead of .04%. Obviously a mistake but easy to take out of context because it is in your favor. Keep up the good work. I'm getting ready to watch the rest.

[1littlelee]

why go from Vostok to a CO2 spewing volcano surrounded by water? because the amiount of carbon will show higher, but why would you GW fans change the proxy to measure it, because it was not high enought using Vostok data, these graphs have already been debunked

[1littlelee]

Just after the war when the Ind. revolution took off temperature dropped, then in 1970 the temps started to rise this is not shown in this video, besides its alreay shown to be false, NASA cant send men to space safely

[aurelia314159]

1littlelee,

Please be coherent and cite your sources. It does not matter that CO2 was measured at Mauna Loa - what DOES matter is the steady increase over the years at that single location.

[spiderveloce]

What are you talking about? keep the discussion relevant... and coherent please. And please cite a competent source who has ebunked vostok... and explain this NASA thing... :p.

[knucklescrape]

You are so full of Sh@t! If CO2 really drives temperature, then why have there been HOTTER periods in the past, when the concentration of CO2 was HALF what it is now?

How dare you shift the burden of proof to the objector?! Since you are calling for a massive increase in governmental authority, you do have a tremendous burden of proof, which you have yet to meet, since none of the IPPC climate models has accurately projected climate change yet.

[iiopen]

Let's not start the "You are so full of Sh@t!" shit. Take your time. Go back and review - I think you missed something.

[iiopen]

Or get outa the way!

[rickl2222]

You're rather "militant" about this aren't you iiopen? Interesting! Very telling!

[tristie84]

-if it was an anamoly IT WAS NOT CHANGE IN CLIMATE.

If an alcoholic does not drink for a week but has drunk everyday for the past thirty years before and continues to drink everyday since that sober week, what does it make them?

-if an alcoholic has drunk everyday for the past 30 years and from a day, has not at a drink for 10 years what does that make them? -which one is the anamoly and which on is a change in the trend?

[tristie84]

THINK ABOUT IT!

2)proof wholly supports globally climate change, ergo, you need to prove that it does not exist.

He is calling for a massive shift in accountability.  For you and me to take accountability for our actions and not put up with shit. This will then shift government polices and authority.

Start from the facts THEN form a belief.

Rock on wonderingmind42!!!

[exusian]

"If CO2 really drives temperature, then why have there been HOTTER periods in the past, when the concentration of CO2 was HALF what it is now?"

Such as when, exactly?

Back to your question, and just assuming that you can come up with an example, you are aware that CO2 is not the only thing that can drive temperature, right?

[0815Scooter]

Before you resort to name calling, think about just one little part of this whole thing. How much are you willing to gamble at the roulette table? You don't strike me as a millionaire, so are you going to bet it all on the hopes you might be right? Here's a thought, take the time to put as much time and research into your hypothesis, and send us a video. Let us here the other side of the story, sh!thead!

[knucklescrape]

I have subsequently apologized for the name-calling, so please, no more replies. I regret my poor choice of language.

That said, the burden of proof clearly lies with the person suggesting that we completely change our way of life based on a theory which has yet to produce a climate model which can accurately project what happens even in the short term.

[cyberdemon107]

YAY!!!

moar videos please

you are the best

i wish you were my teacher back in hs

most of mine were soo boring

[motolorax]

Bravo. You've been courageous. The sight of a secondary school (or whatever your called) science teacher giving such presentations gives me more hope than they Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps your next series of videos can cover the dichotomy of personal knowledge vs. social intelligence, sub-titled: why we'll mess it up anyway.