New Video : The Climate Control Knob

Posted on April 29, 2018 by tonyheller

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to New Video : The Climate Control Knob

  1. Disillusioned says:
    April 30, 2018 at 12:06 am

    Excellent video. Thank you.

    Reply
  2. DeeDub says:
    April 30, 2018 at 2:43 am

    Terrific as always, Tony, and I marvel at your ability to crank out compelling videos like this time after time after time. Truly amazing.

    My question is this:

    If temperature drives CO2, how do you reconcile it with the well-known graphs like the one below indicating that over some 6oo million years, there is no correlation whatever between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2. And should we not be gasping in thanks for the present uptick in both, regardless of the reason?

    http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

    Reply
    • Disillusioned says:
      May 1, 2018 at 9:39 am

      DeeDub,

      Rather than trying to proxy 600 million years to find your correlation, try looking at the correlation between temperature changes and CO2 changes, from empirical data on a much shorter scale, say over the last 6 decades: http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

      There seems to be a 9-12 month lag between changes in global temperature and changes to atmospheric CO2.

      Reply
      • Disillusioned says:
        May 1, 2018 at 10:06 am

        Up-to-date graph (Feb 2018):

        http://climate4you.com/images/DIFF12%20GlobalCO2%20HadCRUT4%20HadSST3%20Since1958.gif

        Since 1958, changes in atmospheric CO2 have been following changes to global surface air temperature and sea surface temps, with approximately a 9 to 12 month lag.

        Reply
        • DeeDub says:
          May 1, 2018 at 3:11 pm

          Thanks, Disillusioned,

          To be clear, I wasn’t trying to find a correlation; I was just pointing out (via one of many such graphs that, to my knowledge, are not contested by the Alarmist-Warmist community) that with no correlation whatever between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 over geologic time, there is no reason to believe that there is one now — i.e., over the course of mere decades — to say nothing of the fact that correlation is not causation.

          On the other hand, if, as you are pointing out, whatever correlation there presently is between the two is the opposite of what A-Ws persist in believing, I say to them, Deal With It.

          They won’t, of course, but as their predictions continue to fall like dominoes — such that “Global Warming” was replaced by “Climate Change” (and who doesn’t believe in THAT?), only to have “Climate Disruption” make its appearance (now ANYTHING can be blamed on anthropogenic CO2), one can expect that the general public will tire of the hysteria to the point that A-Ws finally STFU and go away.

          Reply
  3. Phil Jones says:
    April 30, 2018 at 6:40 am

    The Climate Industry is based on Power, Control, Lies n Bullshit…

    Not Science.

    Reply
  4. Phil Jones says:
    April 30, 2018 at 6:42 am

    This Model shows Hotness in 2018…

    #Scyience

    Reply
  5. Griff says:
    April 30, 2018 at 7:53 am

    drouth… that’s a good old word we don’t see much of these days!

    Reply
  6. Michael Spencer says:
    April 30, 2018 at 9:34 am

    A bloody brilliant compilation Tony. As I’m presently in hospital getting a hip fix i’be been torturing myself reading a few facts behind the political “fix” of the “consensus” going back to the 1980/1990s – Christopher Booker/Donna Laframboise just for starters. I really shouldn’t do it because it puts up the blood pressure as the sheer chicanery and fraud of a few inadequate personalities seeking to massage their egos, whilst at the same relishing the lovely money coming their way (complete with Nobel Prizes and political “clout”.
    So, far from there beings “thousands of climate scientists” there would seem to be a mere handful of opportunistic charlatans who have taken advantage of the gullible public who “Want to do the right thing” to “save the planet” so “groupthink” is in control. Future generations are going to this in exactly the same way “Tulip Mania”, “The South Sea” and, example par excellence: Nazism!
    Mind you, your resident real-denier Griff will want to quibble with this. Religious group fanatics always do!

    Reply
  7. Steelman says:
    May 1, 2018 at 7:46 am

    Correct me if, i’m wrong, but as pointed out in this video, the warming precedes, the co2, right?
    As i’ve read, there is also a lag, like 800 years. That make sense, cause warming of the oceans, takes time.
    Now if we are to have a longer period of cooling, the co2 levels will drop, in sync with the cooling oceans, but the full effect, will show in, about 800 years.
    Todays levels will then, correspond with the MWP, approximately.

    Reply
    • Disillusioned says:
      May 1, 2018 at 9:20 am

      You’re referring to the lag in ice core proxy data. And you’re right, that temperature changes precede changes to CO2 – both to cooling and warming temperatures.

      But, there’s no need to wait 800 years to see changes. There is apparently a much shorter lag, of 9-12 months, in contemporary atmospheric and ocean data: http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

      It makes sense, because CO2 seems to react to temperature rather immediately. Try your own test – pop a beer after setting it in the sun and see how the CO2 in the beer reacts to the heat.

      Reply
      • Steelman says:
        May 1, 2018 at 9:39 am

        Thanks. Absolutely make sense, also. Hvat doesn’t make sense is that co2 produse warming.

        Reply
        • Steelman says:
          May 1, 2018 at 9:40 am

          F…phone..what doesen’t make sense, typo.

          Reply
        • Disillusioned says:
          May 1, 2018 at 9:52 am

          Well, at current concentrations of CO2, yes.

          There does seem to be a radiative forcing effect with CO2, however. But it also seems that that effect has shot most of its wad well before 100 ppm. So, at atmospheric concentrations of 400 ppm and above, yes – temperature is going to be the leader, and not CO2.

          Reply

Leave a Reply to Disillusioned Cancel reply

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