The Origins Podcast 
The news is full of hotly debated and divergent claims about the existence, impacts, and risks of climate change. Public policy should be based on science, but if it isn’t possible to explain the scientific principles & predictions associated with climate change in a straightforward and accessible fashion, then what hope is there for any rational public discourse and decision-making on the subject?
Fortunately, it is possible and Lawrence Krauss will present a lively and compelling narrative that explores the history of how scientists progressed to our current understanding of climate change and explains the basic theoretical and observational underpinnings of climate science. Viewers will leave with an informed perspective to judge public policy proposals, and with information they can use in discussions with family, friends, and within their communities.
Join us for what promises to be an entertaining and informative live event about a topic that should be of interest to us all.
Chapters:
00:16:38 – Beginning of Lecture
Presented by The ORIGINS Project Foundation in association with Think Inc.
All proceeds will go to the ORIGINS Project Foundation, a 501 c3 nonprofit foundation devoted to promoting science, education, reason, and culture to meet today’s current challenges.
source
About The Author
Near the end where he discusses the targets of CO2 and Temperatures that "WE" need to achieve, the "WE" he is talking about is China and India, but he won't say that. U.S. emissions levels are back to 2005 levels, he won't say that either bc it will kill book sales.
Watching on November 25, 2023. 421.20 ppm.
95% of the delta will be under sea level; South Vietnam has highlands.
Even the alarmist can't paint a scary picture anymore.
China and Inda don't care if S.Vietnamese get flooded.
I found a discussion or a debate on virtually everything, including flat earth; but ZERO debate in climate change, specifically man made global warming.
When the greenhouse is explained adequately in layman’s terms, then global warming denial is less likely — Example: As sunlight’s photonic energy actively warms the Earth, invisible infrared radiation (heat energy) is being simultaneously radiated away from our planet’s surface toward space. And though it streams freely past the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, it is readily ‘absorbed and reemitted’ repeatedly over and over, again and again by carbon dioxide and all of the other greenhouse gases. This repetitive process delays the escape of the radiant energy and builds up heat in the atmosphere, thus creating a ‘blanketing effect’ that prevents our planet from being completely frozen solid.
Note: With greenhouse gases comprising only 4/10ths of one percent of the atmosphere, this shows how powerful they are. What makes this possible is that as the greenhouse gas molecules absorb ‘infrared heat’, they energetically gyrate more and more wildly and collide with other atmospheric gas molecules, thus transferring their ‘kinetic energy’ of motion into them. This combined energetic field of kinetic vibration and radiant energy measures as thermal energy.
For more, search:
‘Enhanced Greenhouse Effect’;
‘Amplified Greenhouse Effect’.
For the big picture, search:
Marcott reconstruction chart
There is something confusing here:
Wikipedia and National Geographic (as per IPCC data) say that human being have emitted 2,240 GTon from 1850 to atmosphere, which remains in atmosphere now about 950 GTon.
Lawrence Krauss is sure that about 200 GTon from 1900 to 2021 (I ignore his source) which is so so far below from the other sources( I assume all are reliable sources).
Anyone has the answer to this?
Thank you.
Before ANYONE , gets a
"Right to Vote Card",
should be made to watch this, AND BE TESTED on their understanding,
BEFORE THEY GET THAT RIGHT !!
There is good reason they use temperatures dating back to 1880, as it shows a nice increase from a particular cold period, the little ice age, however, three periods in the last four thousand have been two degrees warmer than today. Notwithstanding, the ice cores show that carbon dioxide has 700-year lag behind, which is obvious as the oceans degas as they warm.
this is how you know climate change is bullshit — if you are a disgraced celebrity-scientist you can do a lecture supporting the socialist vehicle for economic capture and begin reconstituting your meal ticket
(24:00min) … Lawrence Krauss even didn't get the numbers right … if you solve his equation for T, which is physically meaningless, you get this (meaningless) value …
… 'Pout = 4*Pi*R²*5.67*(T/100)⁴ = 10¹⁷W' … of … T = 30.7°C (-23.3°F) with R=6371km.
So his other number "-18°C" is therefore plain wrong! … but the fundamental failure here is applying the inversion of the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law, which results into this meaningless calculated value, which has nothing to do with a real temperature! It is just an equivalent measure for radiation energy density. Reasoning: absorbed energy increases the enthalpy (H=U+pV) of the absorbing body (in this case the earth) and it depends on the mass (m) the volume (V) and it pressure (p) of the absorbing body, what temperature value will show up on its surface.
It's the èconomics not the technology of the collectors. The technology of the collectors is a path way to Bankruptcy! The secret is the cycling the water molecules since Renewable Green Energy is unreliable, unstable, and not available on demand. One has to save part of the "Free" energy to balance out the grid energy. The cost of the required infrastructure is more than the 1st world economies can supply. Colliding what the 1st world economies need and what every living entities requires consuming enough electricity to change low value desert land by using fuel cells to enable desert land to flow with Milk and Honey.
Dr. Krauss I would love an answer, but not expecting one. I have worked in Atmospheric Physics for almost 40 years (Atmospheric propagation and Compensation — Adaptive optics) but for the past 15 years or so on Climate Change issues (as Risk Mitigation for Carbon Intensive Industries).What I don't understand is why the public can't or won't separate the Science from the Policy responses. of course, the modeled have uncertainties (But the OBSERVATIIONS are real) and as you know the methodologies, we use along with a diverse scenario set try to highlight most of the issues (much like MITs World 3 Model did in the 70s). My group settled on pursuing several Geoengineering solutions (CCS, etc.), and I disagree with some of the current policy choices (because they will have almost ZERO effect on GLOBAL CO2 but reduce the Global GDP/ Capita — because the NOTION of Decoupling is certainty false (Energy and GDP are beyond a doubt Correlated)). So, I'm frustrated on two points. When I say the scientific concern is very real, I hear the push to zero Carbon is dumb, and the science is fake (usually for economic gain). When I say I disagree with the policy choices (SMRs for example) I hear I don't understand the science. Your thoughts? The path to lower CO2 in the atmosphere can't be addressed rationally if the rhetoric continues like this.
No, you're right, Lawrence, 3.39 W/m2 doesn't seem like a lot. In fact, it's not a lot for a doubling of CO2. And it represents an increased temperature of 0.75 degrees Kelvin at the equator which, again, is not a lot.
Dr Krause, do you ever get tied of being right all the time ?
I’ve watched your videos for some time, well done Doctor.
It isn't possible to "explain the scientific principles and predictions associated with climate change in a straightforward and accessible fashion" because it is fraud.
CO2 was between 1000 ppm and 3000 ppm between 66million and 250 million years ago during. Dinosaurs lived for 200 million years – if there was the slightest truth to the tiny bits of CO2 humans contribute 11ppm of 44ppm – measued currently there isn't a chance it would effect the climate let alone threaten life on earth.
There is NO correlation between CO2 and Temps, during the covid lockdown the global CO2 dropped 17%, yet not any change in Temps, 1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms cannot alter the Earth's Climate…..
Read that book. It's better that this good lecture! 😊
Thank you so much! for making a very clear, passionate , interesting, persuasive and SUBSTANTIVE lecture on climate change. Truly you have more than accomplished your goal in making climate change understandable to everyone. Keep up the good work Sir.
Criticism of the 200 years (overripe) "greenhouse gas theory" going back to Fourier in 1824 (He was more circumspect and closer to reality than the IPCC)
"1. There is no physical mechanism by which a gas can absorb energy without simultaneously creating an equal and opposite emission spectrum, and in the open atmosphere of our planet, there is nowhere for energy to hide other than in ice or water. Carbon dioxide can not absorb and preserve energy. At no stage is cooling prevented, and even if it were, that would not increase the originally achieved maximum temperature. A blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not add heat and give you a fever; it does not make you warmer, it just keeps you warmer.
2. Quite the opposite. The earth would be warmer if there were to be no water vapor in the atmosphere and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course). Observational evidence can be seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g., Sahara, Namib, and Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures. The absence of water vapor allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally compared to an atmosphere with greater water vapor and at the same latitude. Conversely, the absence of water vapor will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort of “greenhouse effect” in reverse.
3. That statement only holds true in high-humidity areas and then only during the hours of darkness. The presence of water vapor creates a cooler daytime atmosphere and a less cold (not warmer) atmosphere at night. At no stage is heat added nor created by the presence of water vapor or any other substance. In any case, earth is already enveloped in the perfect “blanket”: the vacuum of space – void of matter and having no temperature of itself, we could not ask for a better insulation. As per #1 above, a blanket can, at best, maintain your body temperature; it can not give you a fever, and neither can a thermos make its contents warmer.
4. If ever there was equilibrium between temperatures on earth and solar irradiance, the weather as we know it would cease to exist. As is, solar radiation often varies more from mile to mile along any longitude or latitude than anyone could ever imagine and all climate-related “averages” are purely mathematical entities that bear no relation to the actual situation at almost any point on our planet other than perhaps the coldest areas of the poles during their respective long periods of winter darkness when there is not enough energy entering the local climate system to create the greater variations witnessed in more temperate climate zones. Just looking at the maximum and minimum temperature of a particular place in a moderate climate zone and deriving an “average daily temperature” from such observations bears no resemblance to the ever-changing temperatures throughout the day. In between the observed maximum and minimum temperature of the day, it could have hailed or snowed or rained or have been overcast in several episodes. The struggle to reach equilibrium is what makes the weather so unpredictable and equilibrium can never be reached.
5. A brand new Law of Physics here, where parts within a system can behave contrary to the 2nd Law but the whole obeys. Only in “climate science” can such chicanery be accepted as academic judgment. Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”.
6. A photon will not be able to raise the temperature of the object it is hitting if that object is at an equal or higher energy level. In IPCC graphics, that photon warms the earth and the process starts again – quite impossible (see IPCC graphic below). As per #5 above: Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”.
7. Thermal insulation in the setting of our open atmosphere does not make the system one degree warmer than it would be without that insulation (the widely accepted “insulation” being the “greenhouse gases”, not the air itself (nitrogen, oxygen)). For a given energy input, a resultant maximum temperature is achieved and regardless of the amount or type of insulation, that maximum temperature can not be increased. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and a thermos does not make the contents warmer, it merely slows down the rate of cooling.
8. An “infrared greenhouse effect” (whatever next?) would need “greenhouse gases” to hang on to received radiation and only water has that ability which is best seen during the hours of darkness, not whilst the sun is adding energy, when in fact water and water vapor keep soaking up energy and prevent the atmosphere from warming up as much as it would without water and water vapor (quite the opposite to what is being proposed).
9. A 77 degree average surface temperature due to the purely radiative impact of the greenhouse effect? Radiant units do NOT combine in reality – 101 W/m2 directed at a blackbody that's radiating 100 W/m2 raises its energy to 101 W/m2, not 201 – but in the much-heralded Kiehl-Trenberth budget, they DO combine. Let's look at the numbers, then. According to the accepted Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget (see below), the earth's surface averages 168 W/m2 for solar absorption. K-T has the surface lose much of that energy by convection and evapotranspiration, though, so that 324 W/m2 of back-radiated power brings the surface up to 390 W/m2, corresponding to 15°. But in this case we'll reduce convective and evapotranspirative heat loss to zero, which leaves us with the original 168 W/m2. Now, within these parameters, how much extra back-radiation is required to bring the surface up to 77°? SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR W/m2, for a total of EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY TWO W/m2, which corresponds to 77°. (Bonus question: If the greenhouse effect generates enough radiative power to raise the earth's temperature to 77°, but most of this heat is dissipated, then why is there no sign of this excess energy being blasted away from the earth? Satellites only see the earth emitting 240 W/m2.) The average solar irradiance for a blackbody earth – one that absorbs every photon the sun can provide – is 342 W/m2, corresponding to an average temperature of 5.5°. Yet here, illustrious academia estimates conjure 852 W/m2 out of nothing
10. “Radiative equilibrium” is an arbitrary construct to BEGIN with. You just subtract a planet's reflectance from the available irradiance and divide by 4. That's IT. There ARE no other steps. Since Earth reflects about 30% of sunlight, then, 1368 W/m2 × 0.7 = 957.6 W/m2. Dividing by 4 gives you 239.4 W/m2, so that becomes earth's equilibrium figure and this corresponds to a temperature of 255Kelvin. Now, is the earth's average SURFACE temperature 255K? No, it's warmer. So you say that “somewhere up there” is where earth's radiative equilibrium is to be found, somewhere in the troposphere. It's all so silly. But once you convince yourself that the surface does NOT principally determine the earth's temperature, you can convince yourself that it IS determined by the atmosphere and that “greenhouse gases” RAISE the “equilibrium point” higher and higher. And as you see, you can even go as far as asserting that the surface absorbs no sunlight."
Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
There are two basic kinds of anthropogenic global warming, climate change deniers.
1. The corporate or political influencer who likely knows better but lies for personal benefit… money.
2. The ignorant maga extremist type who knows little to nothing about the subject but parrots the party line talking points.
Both betray their agenda by persistently repeating the very same hackneyed and long debunked bullsh*t.
They are at worst dishonest and at best complete fools and suckers.
—“MET Office UK, Causes of climate change” —"Columbia Climate School, How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?"
—“MIT, How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?
—NASA: Vital Signs, Global Temperature
—NASA: Watching the Land Temperature Bell Curve Heat Up (this. shows how a small increase in average produces a large number of extremely hot days)
—YouTube Sabine Hossenfelder, I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here's How It Works.
Daft or dishonest ? At 47mins Krauss demonstrates that the cart pushes the horse. Observed at the beginning middle and end of the journey, the cart is always closely correlated with the horse. Times this by 0.75 and we have proved Hansons theory. However, the same correlation can be observed if it is the horse that is in fact pulling the cart. Because it is the change in temperature that causes the change in co2, of course there is a calculable relationship. AS the temperature changes first, co2 cant be the cause.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: "The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing."
Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
Still a crock of shit
a question for all you idiots that are sleeping…
IS THE SUN GROWING IN SIZE
OR IS IT ALWAYS THE SAME SIZE?????
IF YOU CHOOSE THE CORRECT ANSWER, YOU WILL KNOW WHY IT'S GETTING HOTTER…
This video contains the UN Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution.
Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet.
0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for H2O water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2.
What about Milankovitch cycles? These cycles have been proven as ~correct for thousands of yrs to some degree.
Doesn't the Vostok ice core chart at 1:01:30 ish totally wreck the "Las Vegas Effect". You wouldn't see sharp dropoffs in atmospheric CO2 if it takes 1000 years to get recaptured. Also, if you show CO2, temperature, and sea level all with high correlation, doesn't that indicate that there is another causal factor forcing them all?
this guy's a lightweight.
In my opinion the classic flawed view climate of activists comes in 45:15. 1) your predictions that match so well what you see do not account for effects like the natural heating the Earth was already in as coming from the little ice age (likely due to sun activity) 2) focusing on the last 200 years ignoring eons of paleoclimate inconvenience (no, the classic convenient slide shown in 47:00 only shows correlation and not causation which was not even there at other paleo times). So while I agree with the duck thought process it think it fails here as the whole idea loves the concept of ignoring the elephant in the room. Note that even if the natural events take only some fraction of the effect, the whole theory and predictions are out of the window. If current simulations are given no anthropogenic input, predictions are no climate change at all, and that should make scientist question the result. I suggest a good read with fresh eyes of something like "Climate Change – 2014 – De Larminat" if you are into a bit of a technical book. In a few words the author applies a system identification method without a priori biases using paleoclimate data and modern data. Results suggest that the best fit for the model is a lower than predicted C02 radiative forcing and much higher Solar variability, through direct and indirect effects. Plenty of non-consensus studies should be taken seriously instead of being ignored, this is not a scientific method.
It's crucial to understand that Lawrence Krauss represents the scientific consensus on climate change, derived from the work of thousands of scientists globally who rigorously peer-review each other's research. This consensus shows that human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions, are driving significant climate change. When you see a scientist like Dr. William Happer disagreeing with this consensus, it's important to recognize that they are an outlier. Relying on an isolated opinion over the consensus should be a red flag.
In the age of misinformation, some people fall into "exceditism," cherry-picking a single authority to support their biases, ignoring the broader scientific evidence, and often becoming aggressive when challenged. True scientific understanding comes from considering the consensus, not the views of a few individuals.
When scientists are interviewed, especially on TV, and speak in terms of "I know," it should trigger alarm bells. This often indicates a confirmation bias and a departure from representing the scientific consensus. Scientists should speak using "we know" or "we do not know" to reflect collective understanding. Always be wary of those speaking in personal terms rather than on behalf of the scientific community.
Therefore, Lawrence Krauss has absolutely no reason to debate William Happer. Happer does not represent the consensus, and his arguments have not gone through peer review or been validated by the broader scientific community. Debating him would give undue credibility to views that do not reflect the scientific consensus, which is why such a debate would make no sense.
There are lots of statements in the video which are simply wrong. First: climate change models contain so many uncertainties, e.g. cloud cover, oceans turnovers, solar influence, that their results are useless. Science shows that the impact of CO2 concentrations in air has only little impact on climate – in contrast to climate change propadanda. And by the way: The residence time of CO2 is a function of CO2 concentration in air and not of emissions.Thus emitted CO2 will not stay in air for many hundret of years. And, and…there are so many unproven or wrong statements. Not worth buying his book.
Thanks
Watts is Joules / second, you just turn the earth to be flat.
Amazing!
Thanks doc!
Naomi Oreskes' book, The Merchants of Doubt, is useful for understanding that the folks who promoted uncertainty about smoking to benefit the tobacco industry were the same people who muddled the real danger of acid rain and, now, the danger of human caused global warming.
Climate change is a money making scam for the greedy rich I'm here 73 years I don't see any change no way no how .that's my opinion .
So if a volcano went extinct tomorrow will we miss it. Antartica grows on its east side.
Problem, there is no direct proof a .0125% increase in CO2 has any direct effect on temperature, not even a lab experiment.
People like to say oh there was this feedback like water vapor that is how CO2 does it. However the problem with a feedback is it has to have a "spark" to effect it. In the lab a 125 ppm increase in CO2 has around .01 to .001 degree C effect on temp. This is a thousand of a degree! A thousand of a degree is not a spark! There are many other things in the climate that have more "spark" than a thousand of a degree, like the 11 year solar cycle, or heat moving around the oceans, and many more things!
So what is the IPCC proof of the miracle power of CO2?
Well, basically they lay witness to it. The IPCC's proof is simply they cant find anything else to explain the warming they believe to be happening, except for CO2, so the "experts" conclude most temp change on earth is tied to CO2, and according to them their models confirm it. (Despite the models not performing well at all for decades)
Note, here are some IPCC examples from the ARs which is the focus of their proof, basically claiming it is not internal variability or anything else, a process of elimination. (where the heck do I take that bet?)
For example, the IPCC notes that AR5 reported “it was extremely likely that human influence was the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century, and that it was virtually certain that warming over the same period cannot be explained by internal variability alone”. AR6 Section 3.3.1.1.2 Page 438
Here the IPCC reminds that AR5 “assessed that it was virtually certain that internal variability alone could not account for observed warming since 1951”. They go on to state AR5 “observed changes since the 1950s in many parts of the climate system are attributable to anthropogenic influence”. AR6 Section 3.8.1 Page 506
The IPCC claims in AR6 Section 3.3.1.1.1 Page 431 that in AR5 it “assessed that it was extremely likely that human activities had caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010, and virtually certain that internal variability alone could not account for the observed global warming since 1951.”
The IPCC believes a main line of evidence is that “both the current and previous generations of models show that increases in greenhouse gases cause global warming”. AR6 FAQ 3.3 Page 519
You can see for the IPCC is it basically a process of elimination, filling in the blank, all based on circumstantial evidence that CO2 as this miracle effect on temp, but they never explain or even give a theory HOW CO2 could possibly increase its forcing the 1000 of times needed to be this "spark".
Then at the same time the IPCC will tell us oh the reason our models missed the warming hiatus was maybe kinda from internal variability. No really they cover all their bases and for good reason. The problem is with experts on the internet do not take time to read the IPCC ARs to even understand this!
For example, in AR6 “assessed as likely rather than very likely because the studies may underestimate the importance of the structural limitations of climate models, which probably do not represent all possible sources of internal variability; use too simple climate models, which may underestimate the role of internal variability; or underestimate model uncertainty”. AR6 Section 3.3.1.1.2 Page 442
Let us say in 20 years this miracle power of CO2 is proven a myth, who will governments sue that were convinced by the IPCC they had to spend trillions of dollars on stopping the evils of CO2?
Are you going to sue the IPCC? Of course not, the IPC will just say that in their ARs they never said the CO2 miracle was a proven fact, actually they will probably tell you the ARs are filled with nothing but questions, areas lacking data, missed prediction, contradictions, other suspects, and more. They will laugh at you is my guess!
Simply put, the IPCC offers no direct proof of how a 125 ppm increase in CO2 can have any direct effect on temp, being the "spark" needed to trigger feedbacks that are full of INFINITE questions!
Look believe in the miracle power of CO2 all you want, believe the IPCC are such experts having such a great understanding of the climate that they can lay witness to this CO2 miracle with their models, despite not being able to explain HOW the spark happens.
But PLEASE stop trying to pass off the CO2 miracle as fact, it is not!
His book wont age well.