Another good documentary on the climate change hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
It is a bit dated (2007), though, it contains plenty of relevant information for fighting back against the doomsday scenarios, which are conveniently available to push forward certain political agendas.
A summary of the many topics covered:
- the intolerance for dissent against their narratives (censorship, cancel culture)
- atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes by ~800 years in the geological records, not vice versa. In other words, temperature changes drive CO2 changes, not the reverse
- the fake news surrounding climate change narratives, how the propaganda works
- the convergence of interests (money, ideology, political power, notoriety, etc.) which led to the rise of the overall climate change narrative
- how the narrative actually harms the developing world
- climate is most strongly controlled by changes in the Sun, not atmospheric CO2 levels (this plot from the documentary nicely illustrates that point: https://imgflip.com/i/51mcfi ). Changes in the Sun's luminosity result in changes of our (water) clouds, which then controls the surface temperature. This was apparently well understood and agreed upon by the climate science community just before the climate change narratives began to really gain traction
- greenhouse gas models imply a particular temperature structure of the atmosphere, the data (satellite & balloon measurements) directly contradict these models, in fact, the opposite occurs than what the models predicted
- humans output a small fraction of CO2 compared to the other sources of atmospheric CO2 (i.e., volcanism, the ocean, etc.)
- how the doomsday narrative used to be about a "great freeze", aka, a new ice age, which was abandoned for various reasons (political and science driven)
- the drift of climate change narratives to become more and more fearful
- models are only as good as the assumptions which go into them (i.e., the underlying physics, input parameters, etc.). One poor assumption and the prediction can be quite wrong. Consequently, a model can exist to make just about any prediction about the climate (temperature goes up, goes down, catastrophe, non-catastrophe, etc.)
- how sea level changes actually work
- the fantasizing of pre-industrial civilization (and third world countries) by "environmentalists", whom, ignore the poor living conditions of these times and places
- atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant
- malaria is not a tropical disease (one of the largest outbreaks was actually in a cold region of Russia), so, global warming isn't going result in a huge increase in malaria deaths
They didn't use some of the words/language above, but in effect, this is what was meant.
I think the most overlooked thing is the state of the oceans.
The lowering PH levels would have far more of an impact on the shrinking ice caps than a temperature increase.
The degrading plastic whirlpools in the pacific trap carbon dioxide, and instead of it naturally falling to the sea floor to seed the wildlife there with necessary carbon, it stays at the top-levels of the ocean and disperses far more widely, altering the PH levels in the form of carbonic acid.
The waste traps algae and the heat retention of the material bakes it algae, killing it. The algae would have turned the carbonic acid into oxygen and carbohydrates, but that isn't allowed to happen.
Furthermore, the algae isn't allowed to follow the ocean currents and disperse oxygen and provide a food source for many herbivore fish. The sum of all this is a dwindling in ocean life populations.
And finally, China pumping toxic waste including sulfuric, nitric, and hydrochloric acid into the oceans is also impacting the PH levels of the oceans.
We need to clean the oceans before any CO2 emission reductions would even possibly be considered as a method for preventing the shrinkage of the ice caps.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think pH has a larger impact than overall temperature? I would assume the actual increase in solute concentration from the acidification by way of an increase in carbonate concentrations is negligible compared to the salinity of the oceans.
Ice tends to melt faster when not in a PH neutral environment.
As ice melts, the colder water is drawn down because it is more dense than the surrounding water.
If the surrounding water is salty, however, then the colder water is not as dense as the salt water and actually insulates the ice. That means salt water can actually make ice melt SLOWER. It seems backwards, but it is true, so long as the cold water surrounding the ice isn't drawn away. Here's a video showing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF0RlTCk_b4
If the salty water is acidic, however, it disrupts this process slightly and allows the ice to melt faster.
I just ran this experiment in my kitchen, and acidic water did increase the melting rate.
I had 3 glasses of water, all the same temperature. Two of the glasses I added a spoon of salt water and stirred them. In one of those I added two spoonfuls of vinegar.
I added an ice cube to each glass. The pure water glass melted the fastest. The one with vinegar next and then shortly the salt only, confirming my hypothesis that acid added to the salt water increases the melting rate. You can run the same experiment for yourself.
Oh great point. Did not think about how the density of the melting water would compare to the salt water.
I would be super curious to learn what the mechanism of the acid protection is.
And now according to NASA we are entering a solar minimum phase and temps will drop 2-6 degrees Centigrade in the next 10-20 years.
This is very simple. How did the Earth's climate warm enough to melt the glaciers during the last ice age?
That's covered in the documentary. It follows the Sun's fluctuating luminosity.
This is exactly my point. But my question is the "wrench" in the machine.
Ah, yes, I was unsure what exactly you meant. You throw that question out there to challenge climate alarmists on their claims, and hopefully wake them up
Yep. We know the facts. Now let's vacuum pack them into MSM style brain snacks.
Hey, scientist here (not a climate scientist unfortunately, got bit by the biology bug but have taken my fair share of earth science coursework). To start off I will disclaim that I am now a believer in human caused climate change, though I haven't always been. I watched about half of the video (sorry its a really long video) and it brings up a lot of fair criticisms of the climate change crowd. You are right there are a lot of moneyed interests and most people who cry global warming haven't done their research. Though admittedly there are also a lot of moneyed interests behind the continued use of fossil fuels. Regardless, some points in the video don't make sense. For example, humans have caused a significant increase in CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere along with other gases like NO2 and CH4 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide). And anyone that has any expertise in chemistry or physics can tell you that these molecules trap heat! Specifically, unlike O2 and H20, they can absorb infrared radiation and reemit it which leads some of it heading back to the earth. You're right that we are in uncharted territory and we don't know exactly its impact on the rate of temperature increase, but if recent years are any indication we are in for some really alarming trends (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows). One final point I would like to make is that no one worth your time is fantasizing about a pre-industrial world. But thats not the only alternative! Even use of renewables and technologies such as carbon capture can let us maintain our current living standards, without posing a continued existential threat to our planet. Like I said, I get your skepticism—for a long time I was a skeptic myself—but ignoring this problem is risky. Happy to engage in a conversation about this, I love learning more about climate and what holes people see in the climate change theory.