2. Climate Change -- the objections

This video, the second in the series, looks at alternative hypotheses explaining global warming. I am only looking at alternative hypotheses put forward by real, professional climate researchers, and the findings of real, professional climate researchers who disagree with them. Yes, I've left a lot of the detail out. This is a 10-minute video summarizing the arguments and counter-arguments, not a PhD thesis. The comments forum will be free and open, as always, but if you disagree with what real, professional climate scientists say, please take it up with them and dont expect me to defend their point of view. If you have a stunning piece of scientific evidence that disproves one side or the other, dont waste time on my channel, write a paper, and get it peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

PLEASE NOTE -- ERROR -- I quoted from an Oreskes Paper and incorrectly stated that nearly 700 papers "explicitely endorsed the view that man-made gases are responsible. This should read that these papers "explicitly or implicity endorsed the view that man-made gases are responsible." The papers that "implicitly" implied it were those that dealt with effects or mitigation measures. The original should not have been in quotation marks either. My apologies for the error.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• solar
• forcing
• acrim
• cosmic
• rays

[47represent]

so they wondered the effect of contrails and had a unique opportunity because of 9/11. so for 3 days prior and after... how did they know to start observations before hand?

[potholer54]

@47represent =how did they know to start observations before hand?= Temperature measurements are taken daily at hundreds of sites across the United States as a matter of routine. When the aircraft were grounded they simply looked at the records 3 days prior and 3 days after. .

[grisgrisy]

some sweet info here

[chrispikeyp]

good work here

[philosophicalreason]

Do you have any videos that deal with just temperature,one degree difference does not seem to be a big deal,if lets say the industrial time period raised the temperature the earth would be incinerated if you add all the one degree differences,obviously the earth is still here so as i stated one degree here and there I am not sure any cause for alarm.Keep in mind if you decide to answer i am not a scientist.

[Researchrules]

You forget that none of the scientific papers provided here ware ever audited by an independent professional.

[ndrthrdr1]

@BigLundi Perhaps the deeply religious were praying rather than paying attention in class. :P

[BigLundi]

@ndrthrdr1 The weird thing is, I learned that in 8th grade general science. I'm not sure how this escaped everyone's grasps.

[ndrthrdr1]

@BigLundi That's right.

[BigLundi]

@truthforchrist Much lower. the thing is, it doesn't matter. Since CO2 is a driving force in climate change, any amount we put into the air is bad. As he outlinehis first video, the slightest nudge to the balance beam of climate can cause a toppling effect that causes large effects.

[Meurglys33]

The quantity of information in that video alone is more than enough to reboot the brain of your typical denier.

You can show it to them, and sure enough, it'll take some time to reboot, but in no time you'll hear them say: "It's the sun, nitwit!.. ...volcanoes... it's cooling...".

They really have no interest in the issue, they're just collectors of contrarian statements. And quite happy to show their collection.

[CHIPSTERO7]

@nigelelsass I would be careful in assuming that the Keeling Curve is a result of raw measurements. The MLO measurements are highly processed. You just need to compare the interannual variability of the Diekirch Luxemburg with the MLO measurements. The Luxemburg data shows variability of up to 200ppmv/year. Also, the MLO measurements are smoothed-out. The un-smoothed data does show significantly more variability than the Keeling Curve. Google "Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade or Natural?".