HomeНаука и техникаRelated VideosMore From: 1000frolly

Sea Level and CO2 Thomas Wysmuller

328 ratings | 8130 views
Thomas Wysmuller, formerly of NASA, explains the relationship (or non-relationship) between CO2 and sea levels. Recorded at the London conference on climate change, Sept 8-9, 2016.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (162)
Climate C. Heretic (1 month ago)
Al Gore is the NWO... climate change alarmism is CONTROL over EVERYTHING.
Roy Oetting (1 month ago)
Good presentation. It was incomplete though and did not spend much time on solar cycles. I think the reason for that is that he kept saying thru the presentation that correlation is not causation and right now the best proof of solar driven climate is correlation. Until scientists like Svensmark and Soon figure out all the factors science should be relying on statistics so right now the correlation of solar activity temperature for the past thousand years should suffice to demonstrate future causation. It is going to get cold and we know this because of the major cycles of the sun historically repeats itself. One more thing is that as Svensmark has shown is that cosmic rays increase as the sun powers down and I mention this not as a climate factor which it is but as a health factor. I have to ask who is studying this because as we have seen an increase in CO2 the rise is cosmic rays is also apparent. I think this is going to play a factor in reducing average life span as more people die earlier due cosmic ray related health issues such as heart attacks. (foot note: We somehow have assumed that the rise in cO2 is anthropogenic and I'm pretty sure most of what we have seen isw an increase in natural CO2 rise in the atmosphere due to the delay between oceans giving up CO2 for when they began to be warmed which in this case was the medieval warming.)
Rea Ality (1 month ago)
"Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is an issue being used by 'Globalists/Socialists' toward the creation of a one-world government. This is in direct conflict with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Andy Croucheaux (2 months ago)
The presenter left out water vapor, which is the main greenhouse gas by far..
Władca Wymiaru (2 months ago)
Outgassing oceans cause made them shrink XD By the way: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICGal_8qI8c - Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSQlJx76b64 - Top 10 Facts that Prove CO2 Does NOT Drive
GordonVigurs (3 months ago)
The CO2 theory is seriously flawed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBvF9BBWTSs
GordonVigurs (6 months ago)
How can satellite radar operating at 3cm wavelength possibly resolve height changes of milimetres?
1000frolly (6 months ago)
It can't. All satellite sea level 'measurements' are utter nonsense.
Hans Jürgen Vetter (8 months ago)
Great presentation! Thanks! For all who want to learn the dynamics of climate should learn about cosmoclimatology from Prof. Dr. Henrik Svensmark - source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ&t
Silent Witness (9 months ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETu9LP4bCkw you know, science and stuff, economics, you know, eeeeeeeee let´s vote on it, you know, uuuuuuuuum, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRZQWBrHnk0 2:42 I think the science is not settled...what a coward,
Harry Baines (9 months ago)
Yet another Heartland Institute oil shill.
The Killjoy (9 hours ago)
That's a very convincing scientific argument. Oh wait, no, it's really not.
Phallus E (9 months ago)
Deleting and starting over is the only way to deal with trolls like Donald Clifford.
Richard Deron (9 months ago)
This guy is full of crap.
Marc Schuilenburg (6 months ago)
Your blind and dissolution ed can't you see its a political agenda to make money .
Donald Clifford (9 months ago)
Be specific.
Ian Macdonald (9 months ago)
Evidence that the sun's activity affects the climate on other planets, so it likely does on Earth too: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/31/baby-its-cold-outside-evidence-of-solar-cycle-affecting-earths-cloud-cover/
Harry Baines (9 months ago)
The paper they linked to mentioned *NOTHING* about climate. That was only added in by the writer of the article, an idiot ultra-conservative politician who claims single mothers are "too lazy to attract and hold a mate", who claimed the Australian Aboriginal stolen generation is a myth, and who knows absolutely *NOTHING about science. Tell me - how much have you noticed earth's climate change over the 11 year solar cycle? How much of a signal can we see in the various global temperature records?
Matt H (9 months ago)
Another great video Frolly! I see you are still attracting the warmist crowd. Wonder why they even bother commenting here!
Harry Baines (9 months ago)
Frightened of what exactly?
1000frolly (9 months ago)
Matt H Because they are frightened.
Ken Dickman (10 months ago)
Salt is the ever INVADOR  NOT CARBON, now the SEA ( ACIDITY ) tomorrow the LAND!!
primpal08 (10 months ago)
But CO2 is a deadly poison. That's why climate alarmists are using it to extract money from the West while making sure that the worlds' biggest CO2 emitter, China, is under no pressure to reduce its' CO2 levels at all - climate alarmists are, by their own standards, killing the planet for profit. Fortunately though, their science is junk science & every day their narrative crumbles a little more.
Bruce Williams Studio (9 months ago)
Thanks +1000frolly for your continued public service. I haven't been paying attention for some time now, but I'm so glad to see that reason and logic seem to be making headway. Merry Christmas my friend!
1000frolly (10 months ago)
primpal08 Good one! So now we have 'Communist' CO2 and 'Capitalist' CO2. Yes; we can all guess which one is toxic, that the globalists want to control & eliminate.
primpal08 (10 months ago)
Paul Carter Only CO2 produced by Western industry is toxic. Climate alarmist scienticians say so & globalist politicians agree. Or is it the other way around? It's hard to tell without a program.
Paul Carter (10 months ago)
primpal08 CO2 is chemically and biochemically very inert, not toxic. 400pm will never harm the breathng of any animal. 30% maybe. Yes, I agree that the main toxins here are greed and selfishness.
1000frolly (10 months ago)
Isn't it informative how climate activists never say a thing about communist China's massive emissions - already more than double the USA's, and set to double again by 2030? Hmmm, I wonder what their politics are?
Aaron Davis (10 months ago)
More recent data refutes Mr. Wysmuller's notion that temperatures are not rising. It is rising and has been for a long time. Polar ice melting is accelerating and once it's gone the effect on temperatures will be to rise abruptly. We can and must implement an Active Thermal Control system for the planet. We start by halting the rapid release of fossil and nuclear energy into the atmosphere and hydrosphere where natural radiant cooling cannot keep up, and causing increased humidity and cloud cover further suppressing nighttime radiant cooling. Wysmuller is correct in proposing airborne weather modification using the 100,000 flight per day commercial aircraft to increase clouds and humidity during the day and decreasing them at night.
Neville Buck (6 months ago)
TRUE. Simply google Professor Don Easterbrook Ph.D. a very senior, non-political, highly respected scientist who has stated clearly in a Congressional Hearing that his "Peer Reviewed" original data had been fraudulently altered and adjusted in the preparation of models and representations for FUNDING and GRANTS. ps: All the models, still have proven to FAIL even with the fraudulent alterations. FACT CHECKED.
Thermal Reboot (8 months ago)
You're looking for Patrick Moore formerly of Greenpeace.
Aaron Davis (10 months ago)
I agree, there seems to be a bias about accumulating levels of CO2 over what I think is simply a proxy for man made accumulation of excess heat that the planet has no natural means of rejecting. CO2, HCLs, Ozone all could potentially be what's known as forcing factors in that they absorb and slows outgoing radiation. But how much they do so relative to the big players like water vapor and could cover is not at all obvious. They've modeled the crap out of this hypothesis with what is known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) but variations in results are bigger then the offset. It is happenings, it is us, it's bad, and it can be fixed. But you have a good point, they need to not attack the proxy and go after the real problem; how to reject more heat to space.
1000frolly (10 months ago)
dastardlyman How much does NASA a year now get to 'investigate' climate? US$2 Billion - that buys a lot of 'science'.
dastardlyman (10 months ago)
there is a problem with nasa - they are so invested in the co2 global warming nonsense that they are going back and changing temperatures from history to make today look warmer. one of the founders of greenpeace - i for get his name is very angry about this - he is worth watching. all the climate models are wrong or incomplete and have been predicting disaster since the 1990s - its all hype and nonsense. the kids in uk schools are taught c02 warming as fact - it makes me very sad.
Borce Ivanovski (10 months ago)
www.labofcarbon.com.au is the only genuine instant solution for get rid off CO2 #&#
YourTV Unplugged (10 months ago)
Yep, it's like this... You either have the authority as truth... Or truth as the authority! Those people have chosen the former and allowed themselves to trapped in their disinformation chambers with no escape (because anything that doesn't come from their disinformation source they feel they can't trust, so therefore they end up only trusting disinformation. A truly horrible state for a mind to be in)... Next time to try and break through to them, ask them this: If you put so much trust into these few sources thinking they could never lie to you, don't you see that's exactly how they can and are getting away with lying to you? If they think they can never lie ,then the opposite is true, because by thinking they could never lie allows them to easily lie to you constantly because you've by default given them credit for telling the truth without verifying their information, because you're just trusting it. Well guess what your trust has been betrayed! Seriously tell them, if you really think they could never lie, then you've just made it impossible for them not to lie! The moment you started blindly trusting them, is the same exact moment they betrayed that trust and started selling you all the bridges in the united states and now they're getting to the rest of them of the world!
Noevilea (10 months ago)
YourTV Unplugged I`m at a loss to understand the mentality of many people these days because no matter what you may point them towards as an alternative source of data instead of the IPCC, NOAA and NASA`s BS they tend to claim anything NOT from those sources cant be trusted as those 3 mentioned are the ONLY sources that know what they are talking about. Would not surprise me to find many of these morons are flat earthers. In fact it would explain a hell of a lot.
YourTV Unplugged (10 months ago)
Yea pretty crazy Noevilea, anyone's who's taken even a little time to look into it will recognize it for what it is, a massive fraud... But the people that haven't are basically being weaponized against us and against themselves (while they feel they're doing a noble thing of trying to protect the environment, when really they've been conned into helping them try to gain control of our human energy... That's what this is really all about they don't give a flying fuck about the environment, in fact they'll contribute to destroying it if they thought it would help their cause [seems like they're doing just that right now with their aerosol injections, common haven't we aleady learned aerosols are bad for the ozone layer? Why do we throw out known good information, in favor of pseudo science bogus information? So lets forget what we know, and waste our time on a dead end path... yea that makes sense... really shows they don't care about the environment and only care about their agenda). Luckily though I don't see too many real people like that these days, when I talk to real people they kind of know how crap it is with the sheer amount of bullshit they've been spewing over the years, so it's like they've cried wolf one too many times and hadn't rammed their agenda through fast enough before people realizing they were full of shit! We're winning this though, more and more I only see nothing but bots spouting the global warming lie... They must be feeling more and more alone :D Hahaha Borce, that's funny... Photosysthesis... is that a belief? No it's a fact of nature... CO2 for plants O2 (oxygen) for humans in exchange. That's another fact of nature, not a belief... It is you who have the belief that one of the most essential components of our planet could somehow be detrimental to our planet... That is your belief, I don't have a belief... I have the knowledge that an essential component of life on the planet could not possibly have a detrimental effect on planet! That makes ZERO sense and could not possibly be so! That would be like saying oxygen an essential component of how you stay alive by breathing, is somehow detrimental to your health.... WHAT??? No it is the absence of it that would be detrimental! If you really think CO2 is detrimental to the planet, and you actually believe that... Then guess what you exhale CO2, so as you read this start holding your breath and don't ever stop, because if you exhale anymore you'll be hurting the planet, according to your belief system! See how retarded you are for believing in it?
Borce Ivanovski (10 months ago)
YourTV Unplugged of course you don't have to convince California people because if you try it would be interesting humor show # Please continue to live with your believes and enjoy the aircon #
Noevilea (10 months ago)
YourTV Unplugged Still astounds me the amount of people that push the fear as proposed in the media for the agenda of those that made up all this BS in the first place. Most are simply too lazy to bother doing research so become mouth pieces for the religion of fear that we alone are causing problems while they ignore the fact that Co2 levels were at times up to 2000 PPM.
Jackyboy335 (10 months ago)
FACTS: Global humanity is burning 800,000+ tons of coal EVERY HOUR...24/7. Global humanity is consuming(mostly burning) 162,000,000 gallons of crude oil EVERY HOUR...24/7. Global human population is increasing by 9,000 EVERY HOUR...24/7. The depth of the earth's atmosphere is comparable to a coat of paint on a basketball. Is this not having any effect on anything?
Thermal Reboot (8 months ago)
Jackyboy335 Gee, that sounds like a lot. However, can you tell me how large the atmosphere is in tons? How much CO2 from all sources enters the atmosphere each year and as a percentage of the total how much is due to human activity? Further, how much impact does CO2 have as a global warming gas compared to the combined total of ALL global warming gases?
Ell Bee (8 months ago)
1000frolly In response to your response to Jackboy and your citing of a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) news release. As stated in the article they were, "able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes." They went on to say, "On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example." There is always that dreaded word, "however"!
Harry Baines (9 months ago)
1000frolly _"Yes, more CO2 is hugely beneficial"_ But you claimed the opposite in your PhD paper.
Dwight E Howell (9 months ago)
Biomass is up. Plants grow faster and need less water.
Peter Vudrag (9 months ago)
If we burn every last bit of coal, oil or gas, and all the animals fart their brains out we will manage to warm up our planet by no more than 0.02 degrees. see 1000frolly for another look at why
Shaun Moller (10 months ago)
The thing that ALWAYS happens when a "global warming" person comments or talks to some one, is they NEVER think the sun has anything to do with warming/cooling. NEVER do they understand the sun is the only damn thing that heats/cools this planet. Not even seeing the main thing to the issue is blind irrational blabber. The sun is the thing, not us, not CO2...... the sun god damn it.
Graham Lyons (8 months ago)
Johnny Jones: absolutely correct and hardly ever considered. The oceans take up two thirds of the surface of the plane. It follows logically, that there are three times as many volcanos under water as on land. The effect of under water volcanos on global warming is even greater than that of land volcanos: volcanos erupt on land and the resulting heat dissipates into space through air; heat from volcanos, erupting from the depths of the oceans, takes years, if not decades, to reach the surface.
Ian Macdonald (9 months ago)
Not necessarily. Kirchhoff's Law of Thermodynamics says that an absorber of thermal radiation MUST also be an emitter. There are no exceptions. Thus, CO2 also has a cooling effect on the upper atmosphere since it provides a way for heat to be liberated to space. .
MrToby9999 (9 months ago)
The argument regarding CO2 is generally about trapping heat and not about creating it. Pretty sure most scientists realize that heat comes from the sun. Just saying.
King Miura (10 months ago)
I see evidence that the CO2 narrative is being talked about less and less by the "warmists" who are now talking more about methane and also just broadening the whole matter into man's destruction of the environment, see? Man is just...well, he's just altering the climate....changing the patterns.....it is just too many humans....consuming too much....making too many changes, see? They say they have met the enemy....and that enemy is man, see? They will not admit they were wrong on CO2....they will change the subject, see?
dlwatib (9 months ago)
Yes, and now that the miniscule sea level rise is no longer as scary as they had hoped they have started talking about ocean "acidification", as if the world's oceans could possible turn from alkaline to acid by the addition of trace amounts (.0012%) of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere.
Bill Franks (10 months ago)
Sad I hoped he was credible. Too bad. His figures are incorrect to actual facts. Ice volume in Antarctica has dropped not gone up.Same facts about Greenland. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/14/16772722/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-sea-level-rise
Dwight E Howell (7 months ago)
NASA did a radar map of the place. Most of Antarctic is several feet higher than the last time they checked. The best evidence is that is snow. The only part with melting seems to have at least 143 active volcanoes. A recent publications found the thick attached ice sheets were freezing from below. They drilled through and examined the ice at the bottom. You can read and hear a lot of bleep. Recently a news outlet said Greenland had a fortnight or two weeks above freezing because of cold air sliding into Europe. Check the records showing the temps and found out it got all the way up to -20 C which was actually a bit of warming but hardly likely to melt the ice sheet even if it was made out of vodka.
Dwight E Howell (7 months ago)
Not really. More like I may be able to give you a lead to a lead. I've watched some lectures by Professor Salby : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM This is one of his lectures. In at least two of them he explains that studies on the residence time of C14 in the atmosphere crated by atomic bomb testing allowed researchers to determine how fast CO2 was removed by natural sinks with most of it being gone in 10 yrs and not detectable any more in 20 yrs. I'm thinking that the studies done on the removal of C14 created by the atmospheric testing are the only possible source of valid data on what actually happens in an atmosphere and I'm hoping nobody repeats them because no more atomic bombs go off in open air. I do think he located the information you are looking for or at least the best approximation available that isn't based on guess work. He used what appeared to be a graph showing what you want in one lecture. I'm not saying the graph is good enough for your needs but if you can find out who made the graph they might be able to help you out. This suggests the experts don't agree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM Good luck and best wishes.
Geoffrey Stevenson (7 months ago)
Dwight, Do you have any good refs on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere? I came across some sources which ref an average time but that is still a little meaningless (to me) unless you also have the standard deviations. Also, I do not understand why residence time is quoted as an average rather than a half-life like radioactive decay. That I would think is a more meaningful way of describing reabsorption. But hey, I am just an instrumentation engineer (at least I was).
Dwight E Howell (8 months ago)
The theory was that CO2 would cause modest warming causing more water to evaporate. However warming just speeds up the water cycle and should also cause more clouds to form which would also shade the surface. CO2 is somewhat unevenly distributed and convection currents are free to do their thing nor is it clear that adding CO2 which is actually a kind of pitiful greenhouse gas is going to do much any more than painting a black surface black will cause it to absorb more heat. It only impacts a tiny part of the spectrum. What has been demonstrated is CO2 has a fast cycle with the gas entering the air and being grabbed from the air by green plants and other sinks occurring at a much faster rate than expected.
Graham Lyons (8 months ago)
YOURTVUNPLUGGED: Who is the 'you' you are talking to?
Island Aerial (10 months ago)
Another gem. Thanks!
Europa Europa (10 months ago)
Climate change, global warming, CO2, sea level rise, methane, arctic ice reduction are all code words for taxpayer money embezzlement. Warmers are funded by deep pockets to promote their agenda of lies, exaggeration, and sensationalism.
Europa Europa (10 months ago)
Exactly, even nitrogen which makes up 78% of the atmosphere traps heat and oxygen, which makes up 21% of the atmosphere, also traps heat. But they won't tell you that nitrogen and oxygen are bad guys just like CO2. Methane is everywhere in the universe not just on Earth, but other celestial worlds in our solar system such as Titan. They have even found methane floating freely in deep space and not a part of any heavenly body. My point is that it is more plentiful then most people think and makes up about 80-90% of natural gas used in heating homes and offices as well as electrical energy production from gas turbines.
YourTV Unplugged (10 months ago)
Right on Ken! Fuck off Bill CO2 is good for the planet and frollys already proved that every other gas is the same and doesn't matter which gas it is, the effect is a constant! With his formula that proves that the type of gas doesn't matter whatever gases the environment are made up of all fit into the same equation and get an accurate result! So all this alarmism of things that naturally make up our atmosphere is ridiculous! lol next you'll be screaming watch out oxygen its everywhere, oxygen its bad for you!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL your so dumb that you would think oxygen is bad for you if they told you that next! lol Right taxation and theft will do nothing to help this imaginary problem... It'll just create a new one!
Bill Franks (10 months ago)
Methane levels have doubled.Nitros oxide and hydrogen sulfide have risen drastically too. I am with Trump on poling out of the fraudulent Paris ripoff. Taxation and restrictions will do nothing to help this problem. The problem, is real.
John David Miller (10 months ago)
A graph of the mideviel warming period showing changes in temperature with CO2 remaining constant. For most of the graph it only shows there are multiple variables involved. But at the far right, CO2 levels and temperature are racing up together. That would be a very strong correlation if not a down right causation. In the Temp vs. CO2 Subset graph, I see 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are missing. It only shows La Nina cooling at the end. You tell half a story, you get half an answer. World Atmospheric Temperatures graph is also missing 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017. MMMMMMMMMM Hurricanes didn't mention the number and intensity of the hurricanes in 2017. I wonder why? Does anyone understand the US Hurricane Strikes vs. CO2 graph? Someone definitely left out 2017 again. Dude, we got hammered. Accumulated Cyclone Energy is about ocean temperature which has been on the rise for quite some time. I wonder where that graph came from? US Tornado Counts vs CO2 graph? It's not the number that is important but the severity of each tornado. An F1 does very little, but an F5 clears the ground of everything sticking up. He should talk to the people in Joplin Mo. and Oklahoma City. Precip. Correlates with CO2? Again, it is not the amount but the intensity that is important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E46JByv1eLw US EPA Regulating CO2 Aircraft Emissions. Here he is talking about temperature gain when the planes were grounded. CO2 only has a secondary effect on temperature. H2O is still the primary driver of temperature. Those chem trails are reflecting and scattering white light which will cool the planet. 24K and 8K graph shows sea level rise which shows very little rise. He is quite correct. What he isn't telling you is 35 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually will have a accumulative effect which will cause sea level rise to accelerate again. Tide gauges are not how you measure sea level because the land is also going up or down. GRACE satellites are far more accurate. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ Tectonics in the Baltic. He makes my point. Massive 38% CO2 increase since 1880 with very little sea level gain. I agree. What he doesn't tell you is if the Western Antarctica Ice Shelf collapses, we are talking 18ft. This process has already began. .23mm per year snow gain at the center of Antarctica, but a total net loss of 127 gigatonnes of ice per year. Wait, WAIT! This is New York if we switch to breeder reactors, not continue to use fossil fuels. A decreasing Solar Cycle with global warming? How does that figure together without CO2 having a effect?
Geoffrey Stevenson (7 months ago)
I look forward to it!
1000frolly (9 months ago)
John D M "...specific humidity, that is the actual amount of greenhouse gas that is actually in the atmosphere. That has been climbing over the years." . OK Specific Humidity has also been going down for seven decades at most altitudes; http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif The only exception has been very near-surface specific humidity, which has been going sideways, with a slight rise. . "This keeps going on and on and on. I'd say you have been massively out voted" . Out-voted by Cook's misinformation blogsite, skeptical science? Is this a joke? Not only isn't our CO2 driving the climate, but there is growing evidence that its not even our CO2 which is causing most of the rise in the atmosphere; Residence time of CO2 is just 4-5 years; Essenhigh, R. H. (2009). Potential dependence of global warming on the residence time (RT) in the atmosphere of anthropogenically sourced carbon dioxide. Energy & Fuels, 23(5), 2773-2784. Essinghigh says; “rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.” And; "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"; Humlum, O., Stordahl, K., & Solheim, J.-E. (2013). The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. Global and Planetary Change, 100, 51-69. Most of the rise in CO2 is natural - this is obvious when Henry's law is considered anyway. Plant stomata data also support this idea; http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/ http://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/243/full.pdf?sequence=1 (see page 57 and page 75) There are many papers using stomata proxies in the literature which show CO2 varied dramatically over the last 2,000 years, thus directly disputing the monotonic ice core record. (Prof Salby explains why the ice core record is monotonic for CO2) These peer-reviewed papers were totally ignored by the IPCC in all its reports because they did not agree with the political story-line in the summary reports. Steinthorsdottir (2013) shows CO2 at 400ppm during the Younger Dryas. See; dwarf birch stomata Steinthorsdottir (2013) http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1,5&q=dwarf+birch+stomata+steinthorsdottir The Siple ice core data when un-adjusted showed 330ppm in 1891. Jaworowski has showed that the data was then shifted, without any good reason, 83 years forward to match up with Moana Loa data; http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/downloads/scientific_paper_on_global_warming.pdf The most famous ice core, the Vostok (Antarctica) core, with air inclusions allegedly representing the global paleoatmospheres over the last 160,000 years, show CO2 levels below 200 ppmv for many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to 110,000 years BP (Barnola et al., 1987). "Most geochemists were convinced that changes such as these could not occur", says Sarmiento (1991) about these low alleged paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Such low atmospheric CO2 levels below approximately 250 ppmv (McKay et al., 1991) would have led to extinction of certain plant species. This has not been recorded by paleobotanists, showing clearly that the ice core CO2 results are not representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b), hence the CO2 -ice-core-method and its results must be rejected. I have also made a video on this, with references to the literature; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTalL2BVMkU Prof Murry Salby's ground-breaking work shows that temperature, not man-made CO2, drives CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8 If Salby had not been fired by the climate fanatics at Macquarie Uni for his inconvenient discoveries, and all his work confiscated, he would have this all sorted by now. . " It's physics frolly, simple physics." . What is "physics" is that the thermal gradient observed on all planetary bodies with atmospheres >10kPa have a common cause - and its not the greenhouse effect. Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. (2014). Common 0.1 [thinsp] bar tropopause in thick atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7(1), 12-15. Gerlich, G., & Tscheuschner, R. D. (2009). Falsification of the atmospheric CO 2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 23(03), 275-364. Nikolov, N., & Zeller, K. (2017). New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model. Environment Pollution and Climate Change, 1(2), 112. I think its you who have been out-voted.
John David Miller (10 months ago)
+1000frolly You are correct in that relative humidity has been going down since the 1970's. But that is not what controls the climate. It is specific humidity, that is the actual amount of greenhouse gas that is actually in the atmosphere. That has been climbing over the years. "First, we have not increase CO2 by 45%, this is total fiction spread by the IPCC and other UN lackeys such as NGO's. Our contribution has been no more than 12%,a nd probably far less than that." https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/20/atmospheric_co2_humans_put_40_billion_tons_into_the_air_annually.html https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/ http://www.noaa.gov/news/record-annual-increase-of-carbon-dioxide-observed-at-mauna-loa-for-2015 http://www.noaa.gov/news/carbon-dioxide-levels-rose-at-record-pace-for-2nd-straight-year https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases https://books.google.com/books?id=2-sACAAAQBAJ&pg=PT214&lpg=PT214&dq=the+amount+of+co2+entering+the+atmosphere+annually&source=bl&ots=dMkJWvCMob&sig=guvANK3Un1BDXXRUSiAXbPaqC7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKtpDf_pnYAhVL0oMKHXzMBPUQ6AEIZjAJ#v=onepage&q=the%20amount%20of%20co2%20entering%20the%20atmosphere%20annually&f=false This keeps going on and on and on. I'd say you have been massively out voted. "Who told you that more CO2 makes humidity rise?" Actually frolly, you did. You are the one that gave me the answer. And of course, a little careful observation. Remember these numbers frolly. One chance in 23,600 of continuing within one degree in the same direction after the infrared photon is released giving that photon basically a 50/50 chance of going either up or down. It's physics frolly, simple physics.
1000frolly (10 months ago)
John D M 1) "As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year" . You do realize that 200 Billion tonnes of ice loss per year represents a sea level rise of 2" in a century? Is this what you are trying to frighten us with? HELP! The sea has gone over my BIG TOE! . "Just because there is a temporary rebound, doesn't mean we will not encounter a serious long term loss, which we clearly will." . Why do you think this trend is 'temporary'; and what makes you think that there will be a 'serious' long term loss in polar ice? . 2) "The rain in Lod..." . It's apparent that you have no idea what LOD is; I should have explained. This is Length of Day. -How the rate of spin of the Earth varies, this obviously affects the shape of the geoid. . 3) “..begin pushing for breeder reactors..” . But I have been pushing for breeder reactors - since the early 1970’s. . 5a) “35gigatonnes annually, is a large sum of mass.” 5b) “CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and emits infrared photons.” 5c) “…I've got kids inside.” . a) No it’s not, its tiny. Natural emissions are over 700Gt. b) So what? Where is the scientific paper which quantifies any atmospheric warming due to CO2? c) This is the second time you have invoked kids to try and make people feel guilty. How about trying science? Isn’t this a scientific matter? . 6) "I find guessing without any data far more disturbing." . Who is guessing? We have accurate measurements of the eustatic sea level changes. . 7) "..can our civilization withstand such an onslaught. " . The 'onslaught' we should be worried about is the sustained attacks on western democracies by the UN, EU and other globalists like Soros. Climate changes/wild weather will happen no matter what the level of CO2 is in the atmosphere. . 9) "unless those deposits of dense ore were also moving." . But they are moving! The entire surface of the Earth moves due to several factors including; Lunar gravitational effects, LOD changes, continental drift. . 10) "The additional 45% increase of CO2 we put into the atmosphere has caused a 5% increase in humidity since 1880." . First, we have not increase CO2 by 45%, this is total fiction spread by the IPCC and other UN lackeys such as NGO's. Our contribution has been no more than 12%,a nd probably far less than that. Secondly, atmospheric humidity as measured by our global balloon network, has been falling since at least 1948; http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericRelativeHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif Who told you that more CO2 makes humidity rise?
1000frolly (10 months ago)
Mike "When you post a video you are acknowledging your agreement with what is said." . Well, in general maybe. I do not agree with everything everyone says in all the videos I post here. . "So is Tony Heller wrong or is your last response to me incorrect?" . Both could be correct. We have a climate which is dominated by at least 16 climate cycles. Here they are, as I found hem in the literature; (The IPCC uses just one of these) 9.1 Lunar Moon’s orbital cycles 11 Schwabe Sunspot cycle tied to Jupiter’s orbit 22 Hale Magnetic field reversal on the sun cycle 61 Yoshimura Sun barycentre motion Jupiter/Saturn tidal beat 84 - 92 Gleissberg Solar activity related to Uranus orbital period 120 Velasco Predicts solar minimum in 2040 172 Landscheidt Uranus and Neptune Resonance 210 - 240De-Vries / Suess TSI cycle linked via a 5/2 resonance to Uranus 934 Bond Angular momentum - sum of planets and Sun 1,470 Dansgaard-Oeschger Not known – found through Heinrich events 2,300 Hallstatt / Bray Solar cycle 26,000 Milankovitch Precession cycle of the Earth’s axis 41,000 Milankovitch Obliquity cycle of the Earth’s axial tilt 100,000 Milankovitch Eccentricity cycle; changes in Earth’s orbit 32,000,000 Not named yet Sun’s vertical oscillation through Milky Way 141,000,000 Not named yet Sun traverses Milky Way’s spiral arms On human time-scales, the Yoshimura dominates; Here are clear graphs of the 60-year Yoshimura cycle; http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3andHadCRUT4%20Global37MonthlyRunningMeanTempSince1850.gif HadCRUT 50-year trend reveals the 60year cycle; http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%2050yr%20AnnualTrendSinceDecember1899.gif Here is a Morelet Wavelet Analysis showing the cycle; http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm Here is original literature on the cycle; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00206186#page-1 The Yoshimura is superimposed on other longer (warming) solar cycles such as the De Vriess and Suess/Bond cycles.
Franklin Taylor (10 months ago)
Thank you Sir!
J Henry Phillips (10 months ago)
Even the advertisement was good! Altruist National Socialism has turned Latin America into a huge slum loke 1980s Moscow
Corey Falls (10 months ago)
Staten Island is a perfect place to measure Sea Levels, My family used to own Staten Island when we were oil barons, back then up to 382 years ago, we used to get oil for our lamps from whales. Staten Island was perfect for beaching whales as it was such a low grade to the Ocean, I am in Canada now, a non Loyal Loyalist, so tell me as I have never been back, Is Staten Island now under water? We used to own Coney Island as well, even lower, is it still above water? Most area was around 3ft above the waterline back then in the 1600's.
Andy Croucheaux (10 months ago)
Thankyou again Frolly !
Jamal Munshi (10 months ago)
A test of the anthropogenic sea level rise hypithesis. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023248
Bill Franks (10 months ago)
Climate change, Unfortunately, the oxygen will be replaced with hydrogen sulfide and methane, nitrous oxide. Our end will come from affiliation and spontaneous fires. Warming is a side effect. Extinction is the end product.
bakters (10 months ago)
+Bill Franks - Since the temperatures are growing so steadily, should I invest in an arctic port somewhere in the North West Passage region? Because people did... I wonder how much they earned from all this shipping going across the north of Canada?
Steve Selwood (10 months ago)
@Bill Franks: Yes, at the same rate as before 1950, when CO2 was much lower. Go figure ay, no affect from CO2 at all. I'm not sure a few mm per year could be claimed as "fast" lol I wouldn't sit on the shore and wait for the sea level to rise, you'll be very very bored lol
Bill Franks (10 months ago)
Wow, I did not know it was rising so fast scenes 1950.
Steve Selwood (10 months ago)
@Bill Franks: Well done, you've proved that tripe is published widely :) Now how about we look at some real data instead of political & funding biased fake science. Of course, if you'd watched the video, you'd have seen plenty of real evidence. The issue is a really simple one, so simple that anyone can look at it and see for themselves. I encourage everyone to examine the empirical evidence. There are hundreds of long-term tide gauge records from all over the globe. By long-term I mean more than 90 years. These are available on the NOAA website. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.htm Just look at many long-term charts, and see if there is any significant acceleration. I think you will find that the pre 1950 part of the chart looks very very similar to the post 1970 part of the chart. With increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the claimed affect on the climate, how is it possible that there is no significant affect on local sea levels? To make it easier, here is a list of long-term tide gauge charts from around the globe. Mean Sea Level at Brest, France http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=190-091&g_date=1800/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=190-091 Mean Sea Level at Wismar, Germany http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=120-022&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1&g_date=1840/1-2099/12 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=120-022 Mean Sea Level at San Francisco, CA, USA http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9414290&g_date=1850/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290 Mean Sea Level at The Battery, NY, USA http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8518750&g_date=1850/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 Mean Sea Level at Aberdeen I & II, UK http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=170-011&g_date=1860/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=170-011 Mean Sea Level at Poti, Georgia http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=305-021&g_date=1870/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=305-021 Mean Sea Level at Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=680-140&g_date=1880/1-2099/12&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=680-140 Mean Sea Level at Honolulu, HI, USA http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=1612340&quadratic=1&g_date=1900/1-2099/12&quad_ci=1 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1612340 Here are a couple of tide gauge charts with a 1M sea level rise prediction. The Battery New York https://i.imgur.com/ecqWQ4M.png Sydney Australia https://i.imgur.com/RmQrz3Y.png Is such a prediction credible from the charts? If you wish to support the predictions of sea level rise you have to explain why these charts do not support such claims. This chart makes the point, that pre 1950 looks just like post 1970. http://www.sealevel.info/680-140_Sydney_2016-04_anthro_vs_natural.png Such a chart can be repeated for every long-term local sea level chart on the NOAA website.
Axe Man (10 months ago)
"contrails". yeah right.
J Glad (10 months ago)
Axe Man So sad and so completely obvious that the couple thousand unbelievably rich owners of Evil Corp. had a meeting and decided that if the slaves were catching on and unsettled by the horrible degradation to our environment and quality of life they had to come up with a way to limit their personal liability, shift blame onto the poor, and come up with some excuse to tax and scam everyone further into poverty with broadsweeping price increases so we'd all shut up and be to busy slaving to save up for food water and shelter so we wouldn't have time nor the will to complain or ask anymore questions. Nasty sentence.. but true enough if you look at the state of affairs on this planet.
Axe Man (10 months ago)
+J Glad, Oh I agree, One of my big beefs with all this climate change nonsense is that it has distracted from, and starved of research funding, many real environmental issues.
J Glad (10 months ago)
Even *if* those streaks in the sky are "jet engine exhaust" there is no such thing as an engine with 100% efficiency of a fuel burn.. so all the fuel, fuel "additives" and soot raining down everyday is carcinogenic and toxic. This fact has been deliberately obscured by the weather mod and chem-trail ranting. Seriously... https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101005-planes-pollution-deaths-science-environment/

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.