Climate change

Just curious what retiredweatherman's stance is on this "issue"?

Before you get your knobs in a twist at yet another video, I shall inform you that this particular, recent video by Robert (1000Frolly PhD) addresses not the political side of the argument, but instead the scientific; alongside the credibility of ice-core records by comparison to plant stomata records. 



NOTE: Robert does make fun of the NASA graphs, statements, and so forth throughout the beginning of the video—but not related to politics; farthermore, he later takes on a more serious tone, disproving the theory step-by-step.

Winter nights have the biggest change of those graphs nei . Extreme cold is less likely in the upper midwest compared to 100 years ago. It's more likely in the south, I wonder why?


Rainfall has been increasing in much of the USA too. Some is probably from better rainfall recording, some could be from land use. Adding farmland and irrigating it probably increases rainfall.

Did an internet search, and found this paper

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00655.1

said that a warm equatorial Pacific due to the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). Unusual warmth from that oscillation, leads to a warmer western US than otherwise but cooler southeast

In this model the warming hole is produced mostly from internal decadal time-scale variability originating mainly from the equatorial central Pacific associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO)

don't really understand it nor know what the IPO is, but skimmed it. Climate model with no greenhouse gas change, showing the correlation in temperatures between the IPO and winter temperatures (top left)

I tried to follow a little the videos of that guy, but he seems to send me into deep sleepiness. 

Anyway, it is the typical example of bad scientific communication. What he says is not intrinsically wrong, but he chooses only the data he needs to demonstrate his points and completely ignore the rest. It is basically the serious equivalent of This.

In the first video, some of the points he tries to disputate are just wrong. 
- Temperature follows CO₂ concentration 
Real answer (in brief): temperature follows many factors, one of which is CO₂. So that many of those factors are related by complex feedback mechanism, it is hard to define a common mechanism which explains all the climatic changes in the past, and "temperature follows CO₂" is definitively too simplistic to even make sense. 
- don't have time to check ice core data, it's too far from my field
- most of the recent CO₂ increase must be caused by us
This requires to introduce the concept of carbon cycles [1]. Making it short, the burning of fossil fuels makes C which has been hidden for geological eras available again for entering the quick part of the carbon cycle, which is the one involving the atmosphere, the plants and the oceans. Even if the anthropological influx is smaller than some natural ones, it remains non-negligible because it alters the pre-existent equilibrium (in other words, it has to go somewhere). As for the CO₂ from the oceans instead, the equilibrium between CO₂ in the gas phase and dissolved in water is related to its concentration in the two phases and to the temperature, changing any of these would move the equilibrium.

In what I saw, the concept he avoided to mention the most in this video was feedback, which is a core concept in nowadays climate change theories and that changes the final conclusions about many of his statements.


The "No-greenhouse effect on Venus" is even more absurd. As for his final points:
- as for the fact that CO₂ is in super-critical state at the surface, this doesn't inhibit it from absorbing infrared. Also liquid and solids would absorb CO₂ and get warm for this. All the fermion stuff seems quite random (even because both ¹²C and ¹⁶O are actually bosons), but he is basically describing the enlargement of IR bands when passing to condensates states of matter. 
- The fact that Venus atmosphere manages to remain that warm even if the incoming radiation is very low is a quite evident symptom that its atmosphere is very effective at avoiding heat loss with the space. Ultimately, the energy balance is mostly made of incoming and out-coming radiation,  and greenhouse gasses mostly slow down the radiative cooling. His argument is mostly on what you want to define as greenhouse effect than anything else, as if trapping the IR radiation emitted by the surface after absorbing sunlight or IR back-emitted from the atmosphere was completely different.
- very low temperature changes between day and night are a typical consequence of greenhouse effect.
- no idea of what he wants to point out in point 4. It doesn't even look like a conclusion. Same for point 5. 




(I've already lost enough time on this, time to sleep...)

Not about "the world ending", but about why it's cooling—that's the correct statement. No fellow on this forum would even begin to reckon that AOC's 12-year joke was even slightly genuine...apart from, perhaps, Ariete (he's got something for her, I'm sure of it)!