Categories: Articles


Charlie Tame · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

I suspect the kid who asked about Fractals might have a very good idea.

GhettoRanger · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Notice the complex mathematical equations on the screen behind him, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". It's all bullshit, him and his fucking Russian Dolls.

Some Guy · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Every single chart i see be it nasa or noaa or different videos all had different graphs with different maximums and minimums and even different curves for temperature. What am i supposed to think about that.

vladimir1341 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

There is no Global Warming, only Ozone Layer Depletion. The Ozone ( blue sky ) Layer is what protects all life on Earth from the intense heat and harmful rays of the Sun. It also stops the extreme freezing temperature from outer space entering the Earths atmosphere. C.F.C.s and aeroplanes are destroying and thinning the Ozone Layer at an alarming rate. C.F.C.s have a life span of between 50 – 100 years. One C.F.C. molecule kill 100,000 Ozone Layer molecules. Forget Global Warming, Ozone Layer Depletion really is the end of the World.

ragusajr100 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Was that Guy McPherson in the audience?

ragusajr100 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Charles Moore obviously does not understand the difference between climate and weather and thus is disqualified.

ragusajr100 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

2019 talking, The permafrost melt has started in earnest 70 years earlier than expected, the Thermal Haline belt is breaking down in the North Atlantic, that is the news today. The United States has pulled out of the weak Paris Agreement. The end is truly near, this time based on Science.

CyrilleParis · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Very good lecture!

Past or Present · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it?

Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth — through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves.

Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer — not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on "Mitigation of Climate Change." He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”

And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Past or Present · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Job 37: 9-16 NLT

9 The stormy wind comes from its chamber,
and the driving winds bring the cold.
10 God's breath sends the ice,
freezing wide expanses of water.
11 He loads the clouds with moisture,
and they flash with his lightning.
12 The clouds churn about at his direction.
They do whatever he commands throughout the earth.
13 He makes these things happen either to punish people
or to show his unfailing love.
14 "Pay attention to this, Job.
Stop and consider the wonderful miracles of God!
15 Do you know how God controls the storm
and causes the lightning to flash from his clouds?
16 Do you understand how he moves the clouds
with wonderful perfection and skill?
17 When you are sweltering in your clothes
and the south wind dies down and everything is still,
18 he makes the skies reflect the heat like a bronze mirror.
Can you do that?

The Hebrew word for "stormy wind" is cawphah and means a hurricane.

Tim Newth · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

The climate models always underestimate because the positive feedbacks are not included. Paul Beckwith does a great job of explaining what's going on in 15 minute YouTube vids

Dalton Duncan · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Dan Britt explains it much better in his lecture "Orbits and Ice Ages".

pumpkineater69 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

To summarize, we don't have the ability yet to model climate for the next 100 years…Exoflop!

Oscar Vandermeer · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

That wedge idea is contrived.

potato psoas · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

The more variables you add to the equation, the more complex the system becomes. To say you can't debate it is just intellectually dishonest. Laypeople get manipulated by emotion and rely on appeal to authority because they refuse to study the scientific literature – and for good reason. This climate change debate is a good example of how we define objectivity, who to trust, and how to prove your ideas to others.

Earth Man · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

I clicked ahead to see if this was worth watching. There was a storm in Great Britain at 6 min. Click ahead. Click ahead, chaos, water vapor. Wow is this guy a bad communicator. Not going to waste any more time on him.

Michael Bradish · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

He jumps right in by addressing a scientific argument from a newspaper (not one that climate-change-denying scientists use) then gets right into POTENTIAL amplifiers and never gets to a climate model that works while pointing out the pitfalls to accurate prediction, that climate-change-denying scientists use to explain why models don't work. He uses simplistic and crude models to try to represent the complex models that don't work.

PrivateSi · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Science is so spoiled by free public money is got arrogant and greedy to the point of hysteria.

Gary Lewis · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

The take away i got is that its all about Risk management.

deretreivels44 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

This gentleman should stick to whatever field hes a specialist in. So, were 10 years into 50 years of cooling. This is a progression simplified down to one number. Starting at 1750 until 2040. Each number represents 12 years and the MGST relative to all forcing: 5.9, 6.3, 6,5.9,5.7, 5.5, 5, 5.4, 6,6,5, 5.5,6,6, 6.5,7,8.5,7,7.7.3, 5.8, ( today) 5.6, 5.2.
to specultae the degree to which climate warmsfrom mans co2 has no relevance. This lays out exactly what happened and what will happen( from 1750-2040) Its not hard to understand if you know the basics and everything else is just noise. Mans co2 is not warming the planet, i can assure you that!

Lightning Rod · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

i accep-t "existential threat" as alarmed. Why even gamble on it? the risk is terminal
the earth is BURNING ./.. nothing else really matters
except, … what you do about it. Now that You KNOW,
what are YOU going to DO about it?
you serve a higher calling , nothing anyone can do about any of this will serve us
it is what we have sewn for the FUTURE.
Knowledge is the root of all evil

Ian Hughes · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

…at 21.22 he actually says that warm air holds more water vapour! Disproved 200 years ago! Gases act independently of each other, so the air has no effect!

tod jones · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

In spite of the questionable analogy of the wedge=C02, real data is more important than theoretics. Actual data shows the "pause" is real and getting longer and longer and longer. Now actual cooling is setting in an still the theoretical modelers can't accept the facts of the real world.

Joseph Larson · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

His assumptions are wrong in so many ways. Check CO2 concentrations during the Ordovician

6000 ppm

Planet was 20C hotter than now when the Ordovician began. When it ended the planet was in an ice age which we now are in.

If 6000 ppm can't stop an ice age then 400 ppm will not significantly create warming.

He was correct about the warming at the time this talk was given. But it had already stopped and continued to remain flat and cooling has been going on since about 2016. We are most likely going into a Grand Solar Minimum and he did alude to the Maunder minimum which occurred from about 1645 to 1710.

It is very likely here in 2019 that the planet is in the early stages of temperature decline. This will continue for the next few years. Then it will remain cold for the next 4 to 5 decades.

We will have our proof very soon.

The big question is crop production. How do we feed 7 billion people when our crop zones recede by perhaps 100s of miles.

Adam Jh · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Do climatologists ever discover anything.

Washington Strong arm · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

More pseudoscience from the lunatic lefties 😲

Groanups Gurude · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Radio message (actual factual scientific observations) from nearby ship "I have stopped for the night because we are surrounded by ice bergs."
Titanic Captain "ALARMIST HOAX. We will carry on at full speed"
" Er, we regret to announce that the ship (planet) is now becoming unfit for human habitation, as a result of our cramming too many people in and our "Fossil Foolishness" leading to weather chaos, inevitable massive crop failure, mass starvation, breakdown of civilisation, cannibalism, war, pestilence and nuclear meltdown.
For your comfort and convenience we have asked the band to continue to play and our PR company to carry on issuing their familiar reassuring lies as MAD MAX plays out and we all die really, really horribly!"
Thank you for travelling on Planet Earth, formally known to support many forms of quite interesting life, although the one species that was thought at one time to be intelligent has sadly proved not to be."

EF M · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Sun transmitts at an effective temperature of approximately 5800 K,
an emission spectrum, peaked in the central, yellow-green part of the
visible spectrum. Entering Earth's atmosphere, about
55% of the incoming sunlight is infrared photons. They strike the
Earth and are reradiated back out into the atmosphere in the black
body temperature range of 255K. The other 45% is white light and of
that, about 30% of that is reflected back into outer space, which is
what you would see from outer space looking back at the Earth. That
should leave about 31.5% of the total light being white, to strike
the Earth and be reradiated back into the atmosphere as infrared
photons. That would mean 55% infrared photons coming in and 86.5%
total infrared photons going out. As we increase secondary
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we block more incoming infrared
photons, slightly cooling off the planet. Being there are more
outgoing infrared photons than incoming, we should trap more outgoing
infrared photons than reflect incoming photons. That being said, all
things being equal, the planet must heat.

Johnny Aquatic · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

A new theory means more grants, a possible book, more lectures, more debate… $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You get the picture…. IT's like the health industry always coming up with a new diet every so often… What is it now KETO? What happened to PALEO?

youcanfoolmeonce · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Let's just forget the "climate change" meme and let posterity worry about it! Let them boil like a frog!

橋本絵莉子 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Fluctuate to colder conditions is WRONG AND FALSE !!!!
There it is still +0.8C Degree HOT !!! So it can not be to COLDER, it is only to NOT SO HOT CONDIONTIONS of course.
What he saying you need to have a global Temp drop back under +0C Degree in global Temp would be COLDER CONDITION, Only !!!!
It is like a fire is not so hot burning anymore you can not talk about No fire or cooling, because there is still a fire burning only not so hot at the moment.
And in global warming WE HAD NEVER A COOLING, it was very hot all the time since 1990 with a lot of energy over +0.4C Degree in Temp and not under this Temp.
The global Temp did never fluctuate to -0.1C degree in global Temp to normal levels of energy. Where you can talk about cooling.

Bitchin Bob · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Tim Ball kicks all your asses.

Robert Bonneau · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Von Neumann described equations/problems such as these as "illposed" … but then came the CHAOS INDUSTRY.
I am not sure whose fault it was but much of this is classical knowledge … Poincare.

RANDY WEST · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Ok, I have no clue what the climate will do in the next 20 or 100 years. Unfortunately neither do the climate scientist.
They bases for all their theories rely on modals. While ignoring the two inescapable limitations of large scale and long timeline modals. First when you add or divide millions of times using the result of one calculation as the input of the next. The modal quickly reaches a point at witch the even infinitesimal amounts of error at the starting point overwhelms the accuracy of the output. The other problem is that systems of physical forces do not scale. For example when flow goes from smooth to turbulent. When forest growth reaches the point at which it chokes out undergrowth or when the rate of growth of the ocean's surface area is overtaken by the rate at which it is evaporated and excess water is transferred to subterranean aquifers. These are things that are not yet understood by science we are only now starting to understand how these transitions are triggered and what the forces involved are. No one can honestly say what the results of a sudden shift to a climate ware it rains on the Sera desert every day will be. How much water can the sand retain, what percentages will be retained at what depths and how will this affect the rate that water will be transferred to underground aquifers. What is the capacity of these aquifers.

alexbald12 · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Co2 is a lagging indicator to temperature.  The little wedge would represent rising temp. This is a bogus presentation…

KONGO JOHN · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Does this fool have a model showing the effect of massively diluting the salinity of the oceans. If major currents change what then talk about existential threats. But it's easier to build nukes and enemies so money is diverted to the Military Industrial Complex. America's jobs program

Total Annihilation Theory · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

No technology's exist that could refreeze the arctic sea ice on the scale necessary to save us. There is no saving us . Sad but true. Time to stop repeating that old platitude.  Nothing that humans can do will stop the sea ice and glaciers from melting and the seas rising. This summer the arctic suffered an almost blue water event. Fresh water is pouring into the seas right now and perma frost are melting at a rapid rate all over the world. The release of methane that comes with permafrost and sea bed melting will accelerate warming. Located within zones that will be severely damaged by seas rising are man's greatest folly, the nuclear power plant. Fuchushima has multiple meltdowns doing it's job to help heat the planet with cores burning hotter than the sun. Releasing man made radiation in volumes that dwarf the 2500 nuclear bomb test of the 1940s,50s,60s  combined. We where exposed then and now. There are many things that could possibly happen to bring man to extinction. The fact is glacial and sea ice are rapidly melting right now. Humans are sick in ways never known before our biosphere was irreparably irradiated with man's folly. We are living in uncertain times for sure. There are things to be done now to alleviate suffering in the near future. Move away from the rising sea before you become a climate refugee. These are the things to be thought about now. There is no stopping or fixing this predicament. A mass human migration from the seaside now is the only hope. Humans changed the world for the worse now they need to change to keep from suffering from it. Food could be the next problem. might have to utilize caves and subways etc. to grow in a more controlled environment. Stop thinking about how we can fix it and start thinking about how we are going to live with it. Good Luck we might not can live with it. But what fun to try.

John Zyp · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

I hope he won’t say anything about Annardic.

MAX GEYER · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

there is something i have asked before about climate models,that is the refrigeration affect ,of water on changing state from liquid to gas, this uses huge amounts of energy., if a model does not include this nett energy usage then it will be a lot less accurate. to condense again it will release energy high in the atmosphere which can be raidiated outwards much easier and quicker. this all results in a negative feedback.

MAX GEYER · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

the little boys idea is almost exactly the same as inexact computing, wonderful interim idea,
ie: take one out of say a thousand dolls(representing a calculation). this gives less accurate picture, but will give u a probabilty, that child caught everyone , absolutely wonderfull, is the uncluttered mind.

Richard Pauli · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Thanks for this classic. This should be on the list of important climatology lectures. Thanks. Will there be more on this topic? Is it not the most important topic of all time?

Linz Earth · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

CO2 just one wedge. Over fishing of the Oceans, over use of Pesticides, Nuclear Waste, Plastic Pollution of the food chain, Clearing of Old growth forest, land clearing for Agriculture, over use of Antibiotics in stock feed. GM crops, fertilizer run off into streams
and river systems, introduction of foreign pest which compete with or prey on native species. Many other wedges to choose from.

Robert Bagwell · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

"Taking some mitigating action" Dr. Palmer didn't discuss an important underlying notion that it might not be possible to mitigate our risk at this point. This is a discussion worthy point. Some experts feel that we would have needed to make global policy changes back in the late '70s in order to have any chance at corrective action.

Mark Young · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

10 year olds understand the Science of Green House Gasses. The Science of Global Warming is expressed by the formula <>w/m2=rf The earth receives Short Wave Radiation, this is reflected of all surfaces on the earth and absorbed by most surfaces. The reflection is Long Wave Radiation. If an Atmosphere is present on a body being heated by SWR The Atmosphere will exert a force on the outgoing LWR. If the Atmosphere contain Green House Gasses they will absorb and re radiate that LWR. The net effect being a positive increase to a maximum of doubling of reflected LWR for every molecule of GHG that is interacted with. This will therefore increase the SRF (Solar Radiative Forcing). Therefore satellites measure the Incoming and Outgoing Radiation. There is now an imbalance of 2.25w/m2. If that is scaled to the Earth size then that is 2.25 x 500,000,000,000m2. That is 2 TRILLION Watts. Or = 500,000 40 megawatt power stations who's sole purpose is to heat the Earth.

k klages · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

You would do better if you used beer and how it reacts on a warm day in retaining CO2 vs a cold day and is drinkable one day later. The worlds oceans are the great repository of CO 2. Yes they have increased by .5 degrees since 1700. Yes the temperature increased to 1998. But due to a lack of increased solar activity based on NASA observations and previous climate observations, we are moving cooler in overall solar output.

Blair Macdonald · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

Greenhouse theory presents the greatest contradiction to quantum mechanics; it assumes N2 and O2 do not emit or absorb infrared radiation at any temperature and it is only the 'greenhouse gases' that do. All matter above absolute 0 Kelvin radiates IR by QM. Something is wrong; and I know the answer. GH theory is wrong.

Blair Macdonald · July 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

'CO2 very very very long lived in the atmosphere'…be there for 100's of thousands of years' 1:07:20 I don't get that, it's very very very dangerously heavy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *