potholer54 | All the errors and fakery from “Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth)” that I can fit in. @potholer54 | Uploaded August 2024 | Updated October 2024, 5 hours ago.
TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL -- PLEASE SUPPORT THIS CHARITY:
I do not ask for contributions. Instead, please support the work of Health in Harmony, which trades forest protections for health care. See my video here: youtube.com/watch?v=j9-GRugP9pU for an explanation of their work.
Donations can be made here: healthinharmony.org/donate-today
Health in Harmony also has a live website: actnow.healthinharmony.org
CORRECTIONS:
1) At around 15:00 I give the atmospheric content of CO2 as 32 billion. This is actually our annual contribution. The total is much higher, around 3,290 billion tonnes -- i.e. 3.3 trillion tonnes.
2) At 23:00 I say the rise in CO2 is shown in red. I should have said 'shown in blue.' Temperatures are shown red, CO2 blue.
3) The link between CO₂ and global temperature was first published in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote, not Arrhenius. Arrhenius quantified it.
4) Spencer doesn't give a time period for the ‘natural air conditioning system’ he ‘feels' (yes, he does use the word 'feel') it will kick in some time and cool things down again. So I was wrong to say 'soon.'
5) Ljunqvist’s reconstruction was for NH temperatures, so I should not have added in _global_ temperatures and compared them to the medieval Warm Period. It's a shame I didn't spot this mistake sooner (my thanks to bacchusevokution for pointing it out), because the NH temperatures are higher still.
SOURCES:
If a source is missing, please ask in the comments section and I'll be happy to add it.
Climate Change - The Movie
youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI&t
Carl Wunsch e-mail:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response
Friis-Christensen complaint:
web.archive.org/web/20070814011908/folk.uio.no/nathan/web/070427_statement.pdf
Heat island effect:
Transformation of Urban Surfaces and Heat Islands in Nanjing during 1984–2018
Li et al DOI:10.3390/su12166521 2020
"Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found"
Thomas C. Peterson 2003
"Climate: large-scale warming is not urban" -- David E Parker
DOI: 10.1038/432290a
"Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China"
Jones et al 2008
Holocene reconstruction:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Marcott 2013
"Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?"
-- N. Shaviv and J. Veizer, GSA Today, 2003
"Cloud Cover Feedback Moderates Fennoscandian Summer Temperature Changes Over the Past 1,000 Years" – Young et al., Geophysical Research Letters 2019
CO2 driving warming at the end of the last glaciation:
'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III' - Caillon et al, 2003
'CO2 climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core' - Barnola et al, 1990
A poster pointed out that a paper 'Earth’s radiative imbalance from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present' by Baggenstos et al (2019) does quantify the contributions of various forcings, and that the loss of albedo (reflectiveness from ice) is a greater contributor to deglaciation than CO2. It could be argued that since the rise in CO2 and greater insolation triggered the melting of ice in the northern hemisphere (where most albedo was lost), CO2 can still be regarded as the main cause. Tricky one that!
On one hand, if someone argues that this still makes CO2 the cause, then it remains the primary driver even during ice ages, which constitute just 1% of the Phanerozoic (there's no doubt it's the primary driver for the other 99%.) If, however, one argues that albedo is the main driver, then the fact that the current rise in CO2 is causing a huge loss in albedo should be a major concern.
Lindzen's failed prediction:
skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html
Please note: Lindzen didn't draw this graph himself, it comes from Skeptical Science based on Lindzen's 'Earth Iris' hypothesis. The text alongside the reconstruction reads: "I want to be explicit that these projections are my interpretation of Lindzen's comments, not Lindzen's own projections."
"Observed Trends of Clouds and Precipitation (1983–2009): Implications for Their Cause(s)"
– Zhong et al 2020
Matthew Wielicki publications and website
matthewwielicki.com/publications
Article about Wielicki's retirement:
al.com/news/2023/01/professor-says-hes-quitting-university-of-alabama-amid-rise-of-illiberalism-dei-pushes-on-campuses.html\
GWPF links to oil money:
theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/climate-sceptic-thinktank-received-funding-from-fossil-fuel-interests
My video on correlation between CO2 and global temperature
youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg
My video on Shaviv and Svensmark's hypothesis:
Cosmic rays cause global warming
youtu.be/vvztL9r47MI
TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL -- PLEASE SUPPORT THIS CHARITY:
I do not ask for contributions. Instead, please support the work of Health in Harmony, which trades forest protections for health care. See my video here: youtube.com/watch?v=j9-GRugP9pU for an explanation of their work.
Donations can be made here: healthinharmony.org/donate-today
Health in Harmony also has a live website: actnow.healthinharmony.org
CORRECTIONS:
1) At around 15:00 I give the atmospheric content of CO2 as 32 billion. This is actually our annual contribution. The total is much higher, around 3,290 billion tonnes -- i.e. 3.3 trillion tonnes.
2) At 23:00 I say the rise in CO2 is shown in red. I should have said 'shown in blue.' Temperatures are shown red, CO2 blue.
3) The link between CO₂ and global temperature was first published in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote, not Arrhenius. Arrhenius quantified it.
4) Spencer doesn't give a time period for the ‘natural air conditioning system’ he ‘feels' (yes, he does use the word 'feel') it will kick in some time and cool things down again. So I was wrong to say 'soon.'
5) Ljunqvist’s reconstruction was for NH temperatures, so I should not have added in _global_ temperatures and compared them to the medieval Warm Period. It's a shame I didn't spot this mistake sooner (my thanks to bacchusevokution for pointing it out), because the NH temperatures are higher still.
SOURCES:
If a source is missing, please ask in the comments section and I'll be happy to add it.
Climate Change - The Movie
youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI&t
Carl Wunsch e-mail:
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response
Friis-Christensen complaint:
web.archive.org/web/20070814011908/folk.uio.no/nathan/web/070427_statement.pdf
Heat island effect:
Transformation of Urban Surfaces and Heat Islands in Nanjing during 1984–2018
Li et al DOI:10.3390/su12166521 2020
"Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found"
Thomas C. Peterson 2003
"Climate: large-scale warming is not urban" -- David E Parker
DOI: 10.1038/432290a
"Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China"
Jones et al 2008
Holocene reconstruction:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
Marcott 2013
"Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?"
-- N. Shaviv and J. Veizer, GSA Today, 2003
"Cloud Cover Feedback Moderates Fennoscandian Summer Temperature Changes Over the Past 1,000 Years" – Young et al., Geophysical Research Letters 2019
CO2 driving warming at the end of the last glaciation:
'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III' - Caillon et al, 2003
'CO2 climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core' - Barnola et al, 1990
A poster pointed out that a paper 'Earth’s radiative imbalance from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present' by Baggenstos et al (2019) does quantify the contributions of various forcings, and that the loss of albedo (reflectiveness from ice) is a greater contributor to deglaciation than CO2. It could be argued that since the rise in CO2 and greater insolation triggered the melting of ice in the northern hemisphere (where most albedo was lost), CO2 can still be regarded as the main cause. Tricky one that!
On one hand, if someone argues that this still makes CO2 the cause, then it remains the primary driver even during ice ages, which constitute just 1% of the Phanerozoic (there's no doubt it's the primary driver for the other 99%.) If, however, one argues that albedo is the main driver, then the fact that the current rise in CO2 is causing a huge loss in albedo should be a major concern.
Lindzen's failed prediction:
skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html
Please note: Lindzen didn't draw this graph himself, it comes from Skeptical Science based on Lindzen's 'Earth Iris' hypothesis. The text alongside the reconstruction reads: "I want to be explicit that these projections are my interpretation of Lindzen's comments, not Lindzen's own projections."
"Observed Trends of Clouds and Precipitation (1983–2009): Implications for Their Cause(s)"
– Zhong et al 2020
Matthew Wielicki publications and website
matthewwielicki.com/publications
Article about Wielicki's retirement:
al.com/news/2023/01/professor-says-hes-quitting-university-of-alabama-amid-rise-of-illiberalism-dei-pushes-on-campuses.html\
GWPF links to oil money:
theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/04/climate-sceptic-thinktank-received-funding-from-fossil-fuel-interests
My video on correlation between CO2 and global temperature
youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg
My video on Shaviv and Svensmark's hypothesis:
Cosmic rays cause global warming
youtu.be/vvztL9r47MI
