Episode #098: Solar Variability Ignored / IPCC Mandates AGW / Dark Age Cold Period / CO2 Fertilization Effect

Hi, I'm Chandler Garcia. As a PICU nurse and global health advocate, I've cared for women and children all over the world, from Costa Rica to Egypt to Kenya and beyond. And no matter where I go or how tough the conditions get, I always wear my figs. These scrubs are lightweight, breathable, and super soft, perfect for long shifts in any environment. They've got pockets in all the right places, the fit is flexible, and they're durable through every admission, surgery, and post-op. But it's not just about the scrubs. Another big part of what I love about figs is when they say they're committed to supporting healthcare workers all over the world, they mean it. I recently joined them on an impact trip to India where I worked in triage, caring for babies in a mobile clinic. My figs aren't just what I wear. They're part of the impact I want to make. Wherever my work takes me, figs helps me show up ready to make a difference while looking and feeling my best. Get 15% off your first order at wearfigs.com with code FIGSRX. That's wearfigs.com, code FIGSRX. This is Cosmographia, the Randall Carlson Podcast. And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. This is Cosmographia, the Randall Carlson Podcast, and it has been quite a while since we've recorded. It's been a minute. Yeah, a regular episode. It's been a minute for sure. We've all been doing trips, touring. I think Brad is still on the road. Randall's had many appearances in different places, but we're all back, even Mike, which I don't think he's ever left his house. I'm in my bunker. He's in orbit. Oh, yeah. Mike is in orbit. He can't leave without a spacesuit. He only hangs up and he just stays there in the chair until the next time. But it is good to be back recording regular shows, and maybe we'll, I mean, we have another trip next week, so who knows, you know. We're getting him in when we can. But that trip's going to be over before this video comes out. That's true. Yeah. We're going to run up to 100 pretty soon. All right. We're going to have a celebration. We're going to finally do a beer show for episode 100. Bruce has been paying for it. Several things going on. Toga. We talked about Toga. And Bruce, you're the executive producer of the beer show. Toga's and beers. Yeah. Bruce, beer show's coming. Randall, how are you doing, man? I'm doing as well as could be expected. Yeah? What should we expect? Expectations are high. You should be expecting me to be doing quite well. Okay, good. All right. I got back from the road being quite weary, though. Yeah, those plane flights, they just take their toll after a while. It must have been, how long was your flight back from Turkey? Uh, the, the long one was 10 hours. Yeah. No. Stan Bull to New York. So. Traveling in tubes. I mean, Jack Black was wrong. It's not the greatest. Traveling in tubes is not the wave of the future. Yeah. Yeah. After 10 hours, you're tired of sitting in a metal tube in the sky. Yeah. Yeah. The tubes have to be connected. Yes. If they were connected all the way across, that might be cool. Yeah. A hurtling metal tube for 10 hours is just. Hurdling. Yeah. So I guess that was over the Atlantic. Did you flew from Turkey and then you had a layover or change planes? Yeah. Istanbul to New York, New York to Austin. Hmm. Yeah. Layovers weren't too bad. Uh, they actually, we had some delays. Oh yeah. In Turkey. Uh, yeah. We missed our flight. Yeah. To Austin. That's right. We had to stay the night in New York. Yeah. That's right. But that was actually good. They gave us a hotel room and we had a break. After the long flight, we got a night's sleep. Yep. It was great. It kind of, it kind of fixed the jet lag problem for me. Yeah. A little bit. I still woke up at 3 a.m. a couple of times, but not too bad. But yeah, Turkey was a lot of fun. It was amazing. I bet it was just from what I saw in your videos, you've, you're putting together. Yeah. Yeah. First hand. That's awesome. The rent was out in Arizona, right? So earth origins happened. So look for that availability video on demand of Randall's specific, uh, lectures out there. Got into a little bit of a Holy grail mysteries. Yep. Always interested there. And then what you went and did an interview, uh, for guy TV. So several new things coming out with Randall. I think Ben was there too, right? Yeah. He was in Colorado there at the guy studios. Yeah. And that was right after we got back from Turkey. So he was, you know, yeah, I can imagine. I was surprised to see him there. Yeah. But, um, I tell you what that, you know, I know we, we need to get back into the serious material, but I just have to say, Ben is, is working with that guy's great. And during the Turkey tour, you know, he's been trying to get his citizenship. He flew back to the U S for a meeting about that and then came back to Turkey and then flew back again and then went to Gaia. So yeah. Yeah. Wow. Putting in the time to make it happen. He is putting in the time for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate Ben big time, but he still can't vote. He's trying to get his American citizenship. That's right. Yeah. He's got it now. I think he went to the, Oh, good. Good. I can vote now. Yeah. He can vote now who the president was and then it was all okay. And then he flew back. Yeah. Well, I can understand Australia has gone completely off the charts. Yeah. Well, they've always been upside down. That's right. On the wrong side of the planet. It's just, it's weird. Well, when you're in the future, you get skewed a bit. This is episode number what, Brad? Zero nine, eight. Zero nine, eight. Wow. Close to. Yeah, we are. A hundred. At the rate we're going, we might reach a hundred in six months. Well, yeah. For the, for our four year anniversary, we might get to a hundred. Yeah. Hey, but if you include the live stream shows, we're, we're past that. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. There's 23. Randall's done a lot of shows since, um, Cosmo started. Yeah. So, um, good job, Randall. Yeah. Thank you, Brad. You need to do more. Well, we're going to start cranking out content from that. Randall centric studio there. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Randall centric. Yep. Yeah, man. I've got Randall all the time. Is it a neighbor? All the Randall you can handle. It's a, that studio is a, is a, a navel of the world. It is. This is the hub. Yeah. This is it. This is the Omphelos. Omphelos. Oh man. Yep. This is it. Everything happens from here. It emanates out around the planet. Yeah. We can come up with a new Randall centric theory of the solar system. Everything orbits around Randall. Well, in a relativistic fashion, I mean, have you ever actually wondered where exactly is the center of the universe? No, it's right here, bro. Yes. In British Columbia. We went there. We, Brad and I have been there. We've been there. Yeah. That's right. I think we told that story, didn't we? Yeah. Yeah. So we won't repeat it. You have to go back and watch all the earlier episodes to find, but yeah. Yeah. Start from the beginning. There's 97 episodes of Diggs to find that story. It's the triple junction of faults there somewhere in central, southern British Columbia. But yeah, it has been, it has been a bit since we did the last show. So does anybody know where we were? Yeah. Where are we, where, where are we, where are we going? Where are we, we were, did we get into the carbon? I think we were getting into the carbon fertilization effect, weren't we? We had talked about that quite a bit. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Incorrect. Uh, attitudes about carbon dioxide and trying to write some of the, the graphs and the data that have been put out publicly and how those things are manipulated and, uh, yeah, I went through a lot of your, uh, discussion of the carbon cycle and the demonization of CO2. Greening of the planet. Yeah. We looked at the, uh, scientific studies on increased carbon dioxide and how the plants react, all that stuff. Yep. Right. And you guys done your own experiments there, Russ, right? Pumping up CO2 at 1200 PPM or something and seeing the results of that. Yeah. After first reading redemption of the beast years ago, I set up a, a greenhouse with grow lights and got a bunch of different plants and maintain this, the CO2 at 1200 PPM during the day. And they grew like crazy. Of course, I didn't take any notes or photographs. So Randall told me it wasn't proper. It wasn't science. It was just, I just proved it to myself. But no one else. You had to prove it to yourself. You wouldn't take my word for it. No, I was like, this sounds like bull. Let me build. No, it did. Reading that did inspire me to do a lot of work. And then of course I'm, you know, maintaining the CO2 bottles and exchanging them out for a whole season. That was quite a bit of work every day in the morning and after and in the evening, I was going down there and turning on the CO2 and then going out there and turning it off. Yeah. I didn't read that paper, but I'm a Richard Feynman fan. Yeah. And so I've watched all these interviews with him or whatever. And in one of them, he's like, where does the tree come from? It comes from the air. Yeah. And he goes into this whole description of the carbon cycle and how it knocks the molecule apart and whatever. Yeah. Yeah. That's a, yeah. I mean, it's something I found really good. Go ahead, Randall. Well, I'm just going to say it. It's, it's a, it's an amazing process. I mean, carbon dioxide takes, you know, it's, it's catalyzed by sunlight. Right. And it's sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide. And that's what the entire canopy of vegetation is created from. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So that one, uh, maybe it was even from the 1600s. The guy, uh, grew the tree and it went from whatever, 12 ounces to 70 pounds. And it only, you know, depleted like two ounces of the soil. Yeah. So it's totally building itself from the carbon in the air. Yeah. It's incredible. And that's happened in planet wide, mostly carbon and water. And then a little bit of micronutrients from the soil. Right. Right. And sunlight. Yeah. Amazing process. Let's make more. Kind of, yeah, that was kind of where we were winding up. We'll see the, it was kind of steering into a new direction. So yeah, let's get there. Well, we talked about, you know, at one point, remember we, several episodes ago, well, probably more than several episodes ago, but we talked about the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide. I'm not, we won't get into that tonight, but that would be worth revisiting. And there's a lot of additional material on that that we didn't get into. Um, but basically, you know, the idea is that, you know, the predictions are based upon positive feedback, which is basically water vapor. So it's even, even the modelers acknowledge that carbon dioxide alone is not going to have a huge effect on temperature. It's what they have to do in the models is they have to amplify that little bit of a, uh, a greenhouse effect initially by an order of magnitude. In the century, that's what they, they, they amplify it by using water vapor. However, water vapor is pretty much already saturated that window that allows the, the, the, where the thermal capture is taking, which is roughly in the, in the neighborhood of 15 or 16 microns. Um, and that window, if that window is already filled by water vapor, carbon dioxide is effect is going to be minimal. You know, we should do, let's do this. We'll put up a reading list somewhere on the website, somewhere with the articles I've referenced that, uh, in, in our podcasts and others where if people want to go and actually dive into the science that is not being reported through mainstream media, um, they'll have an app, a place to go, um, without having, there are other websites. That will have, that have some of that stuff, but particularly, I guess I'm thinking, you know, the, the, the things that we're specifically talking about, the papers that we're discussing and the specific research and so on that we should, we should put a list with links to make that available. Um, so yeah, I mean, we're, we're kind of at that stage where we see now with the, with the pandemic fading into history, they're ramping up the whole climate crisis thing again. And that's the new phrase now, climate crisis that's been around for a year or two, but you know, it went from, what was it? The last one was at the climate emergency or is that the new one now it's climate emergency or, or they're happening in the same climate crisis and climate emergency. Um, the, uh, going back to some of the early, when I first started really getting interested in studying the climate, which was pretty much late seventies, you know, after I really started diving into the ice age stuff. Um, seriously, uh, that's when I, at the same time, pretty much alongside of that is when I really began reading and, uh, studying and researching climate change, because obviously shifting from a glacial to an interglacial would qualify as, as climate change. I would think when we look at the, when we look at the events of that transition period, what comes to my mind is when we're looking at the younger dry us and we're looking at the, uh, the changes in temperature, um, that is an example of an authentic climate crisis. The younger dry us would qualify as if I have it handy. There was a study that I, it was a borehole study. Uh, this was a study published in Quaternary Science Reviews, uh, and it was looking at the Viking society in Norway and it was, this was published in, uh, February 15th of 2022. So it's pretty recent, uh, climate adaptation in, of pre Viking societies. And, uh, so the study focuses on the first millennium of the common era. What they did was they extracted bottom cores from the bottom of a kettle lake, uh, in Southern Norway. Do you know what a kettle lake is? Isn't that when, uh, like a stranded iceberg or whatever, dead ice melts and leaves a hole? Yeah. You'll, you'll have a layer of, uh, a glacial hill and then the iceberg will be sitting in that and it'll be embedded in it. Right. So then when the iceberg melts, you've got two things. The, the iceberg provides the depression, the depression, the basin, and then it also provides the water that fills the basin. So that's a kettle lake. Okay. So this is what the author is saying. They're studying in the Northern hemisphere. Numerous studies point towards a cold climate anomaly centered in the mid first millennium. The period term, the Dutch. So this is, um, well, yeah. So the period termed the dark ages, cold period, 300 to 800, roughly of the common era. Um, um, it's also referred to by historians, this period. Um, so it's the dark ages, cold period within the natural sciences and then, but in, within historical sciences, it's simply referred to as late antiquity. So late antiquity preceded the, the, the, the Gothic middle ages. Um, so the late antiquity, uh, yeah. So then you had the medieval period that's generally between eight and 900 AD and 1300. So that's medieval. Then you had antiquity that would have encompassed Rome. And then you had late antiquity that would have bridged that gap between Roman, Roman times and medieval times. So both of the Roman and medieval periods are well-known. Now I'm reading here from the article. Both the Roman and medieval periods are well-known for their expanded society and their respective warm climate. Um, so we have the Roman warm period, the medieval warm period. Roman warm period is oftentimes, uh, abbreviated as RWP. Medieval warm period is MWP. Um, however, less is known about the societies that evolved in Scandinavia between these more temperate periods. The term dark ages reflects the fewer available written sources and other historical accounts. So quote, subquote historians were not able to shed light on it. Between 300 and 800, uh, of the common era, a globally cold period referred to as the late and late antiquity, little ice age has recently received more attention. The L a L I a late antiquity, little ice age, right? Started around five 36 of the common era. Remember that year? Talked about that year that's been estimated by some climatologists have been the coldest year of the last 2000 years. So the little, the L a L I a started around five 36 of the common era driven by a series of unidentified large volcanic eruptions. 536, 540, 547, and 574 continuing till around 660 of the common era. This was like the end, the whole, this was, this brought the final curtain down on the Roman empire. It was a period of pretty much social chaos. And, and remember 542 was the Justinian plague. Yeah. And that just annihilated huge percentage of the population of Europe. I don't know how far it went beyond Europe, but it certainly decimated Europe. So going on with this reading from the article, reported impacts suffered by society include crop failure, famine, and farm abandonment. In Estonia, the population was reduced and did not recover until the ninth century. In reviewing the studies performed prior to this publication, the authors note a number of trends. Farms that survived were reduced in size. What the authors refer to as a division of farms into smaller production units. Pollen studies from Estonia, Sweden, Norway, Lithuania, Denmark, and Poland all show a decrease in human activity and an associated expansion of forests as agricultural land was abandoned. Interesting to note that there was less impact on societies that relied more on hunting, fishing, and animal husbandry, and less dependent upon crop production. So this, this new study, they extracted two cores from the bottom of this kettle lake at about a 50-foot depth, which was the deepest part of the lake. The primary productivity of the lake depends upon the local climate and nutrient availability. So changes in these factors are used to reconstruct temperature. So upon analysis, the biogenic sequence in the lake, lake bottom cores showed that the temperature was higher between 200 and 300 of the common era, and also higher in the period 800 to 1300 of the common era. On the other hand, it was lower between 300 and 800 of the common era. So it was warm, then you had the medieval, the dark ages cold period, and then you had the onset of the medieval warm period. The third century, in the final phase of the Roman warm period, the vicinity of this particular lake, which I cannot pronounce, it's in a Scandinavian... Yeah, you're going to look at that. Just do it. I'll come back to that. Do it as fast as you can. Whatever I do, it's going to completely butcher it. But I will get it. I'm going to look this up online and see how to pronounce it. You just have to make up some vowels. Yeah. So the third century, in the final phase of the Roman warm period, in the vicinity of this kettle lake, it was warm enough to permit the cultivation of barley and wild oats. Microscopic fungi associated with feces of herbivores was concentrated in the lake sediments during the warm period, implying that grazing activities were taking place around the lake. So isn't that something, though? You can look at microscopic fungi that are associated with animal feces, and then know that there were animals grazing around the lake, even probably the species of animals, that they were herbivores. During the Dark Age that followed, there is sediment within the lake that came from the cultivation of hemp, which lasted from about 400 to 700 of the common era. So here's quoting now back to the article where the authors are summarizing their findings. The transitions from cold to warm periods show the resilience of society and onset of cultivation of cereals and hemp. The interval from 310 to 580 of the common era appears to be the coldest during the period between 200 and 850 of the common era. Finally, the change in agricultural practices can reflect an adaptation of society to the climate variability rather than social instability. The Viking Age started with warmer climate in Scandinavia, circa 800 common era, which allowed rapid development of agricultural practices. The Viking Age to the High Middle Ages was a period of expansion with the Viking diaspora, increasing trade, food and goods production, and the establishment of Scandinavian towns. This period also sees a rapid increase in population and settlements, mainly due to a relatively stable, warm climate. Then they conclude by saying this, overall, these findings suggest the temperature was the main driver of agricultural practices in southeastern Norway during the late antiquity. We conclude that the pre-Viking Age society in southwestern Scandinavia made substantial changes in their way of living to adapt to the climate variability of this period. Important lesson there. Number one, the climate's changing naturally, regardless of what people do. To be successful and prosper, you adapt to the changing climate, because it's going to change. And then, of course, what we see, though, is an expansion of society, an upgrading of society when the temperature gets warmer. So the findings of this study are consistent with a wealth of other evidence showing that times of global warmth are generally times of prosperity and social advancement, while periods of global cooling lead to social instability and breakdown, primarily because of the effect of climatic cooling on agriculture and the crop failures which result. Food shortages, if sustained for more than a couple of seasons, lead to famine. And that, in turn, leads to the onset of epidemic diseases. Around the year 541 Common Era, the Justinian Plague followed in the wake of decades of cooling related to climate instability and did not finally exhaust itself until around 750 of the Common Era. So did you say that this era was, they think it's due to an unknown volcanic eruption? Yep. That's what it said. Modern, how old was that determination? Well, that was... How new is it still accepted? How recently? Oh, yeah. This research was published in 2022. Okay. Have you heard the... There's like this new idea that they have about what caused the Little Ice Age? Anthropogenic cause? I don't think so. What? Did I give you a... Should I find it? Yeah. Please do. So the... I heard this on the Joe Rogan podcast. And pull the episode if I need to. But basically, the newest idea is that the Little Ice Age was actually caused by humans in the sense that there was this huge population of Central and South American people. That were wiped out by diseases that were spread by people coming over from Europe. And all of the fires, cook fires and things that those people had been burning had been actually causing global warming. And when they all died, the Great Dying, they call it, then that actually resulted in a cooling event that is known as the Little Ice Age. Well, the Little Ice Age... I mean, the Little Ice Age starts, phase one of the Little Ice Age happened in the late 12, early 1300s. So how many centuries is that before Europeans would have theoretically brought diseases to the Western Hemisphere? Do you think this might bribe them to be willing to accept the idea of earlier contact? Well, I think that there was probably contact going on much more prolifically than has been recognized up to this point. Yeah, I think so, too. Yeah. Which then, to me, calls into the question that if there was, you know, greater interaction and contact, then what happens to the model that the inhabitants of the New World were then completely unexposed to these diseases? Right. Yep, yeah. You know, because that's the model. There was no pre-Columbian contact. That was the idea. So now when... This is the new idea coming down the pike. Oh, really? Anthropogenic Little Ice Age. Yeah. Loss of campfires. They weren't burning enough wood. Yeah. Okay. Let's look at another. This was a study that came out in 2021. It was published in Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. The title of the article, How Much Has the Sun Influenced Northern Hemisphere Temperature Trends? An Ongoing Debate. So here's just... We'll do a quick summary of it. So this was 23 authors, 23 researchers, experts in solar physics and climate science that collaborated on this study. So it was a major study. It was a comprehensive analysis, 16 published solar output data sets. Okay. It was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. The data sets were compared to 26 different data sets of estimated temperature trends since the 19th century. These included the data sets used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some of the data sets seem to indicate little to no role for the sun in causing planetary warming, leading to the assumption that carbon dioxide dominates the post-industrial temperature increase, consistent with the conclusions of the IPCC. But others clearly point to a dominant role for the sun. So how can these divergent data sets be reconciled? So one of the things that became evident during analysis of the data sets is that the ones attributing no role for the sun assumed that the global temperature records are not affected by the urban heat island effect. And so all temperature records, whether urban or rural, were given equal weight, leading to low variability models of solar output. On the other hand, data sets that correlated with long-term changes in solar radiation utilized only rural temperature data, which then yielded high variability models. The IPCC chose only to use the low solar variability models in its assessment reports, including the most recent six assessment report. The high variability data set, on the other hand, is used by the team in charge of NASA's ACRMSAT Sun Monitoring Satellite. ACRMSAT stands for Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Satellite. Got that, Kyle? I got it. Okay. We can move on then. It must be kept in mind when carbon dioxide-induced global warming became an issue in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the data from solar observing satellites was, of course, limited. Since that time, at least 15 satellites have been deployed by the United States and other countries that have yielded an enormous amount of data relating to the behavior of the sun. So, bear in mind... The old sun probe. Yeah. Bear in mind that most of these satellites that have been monitoring the sun were either not deployed or just becoming deployed, so there was not a comprehensive database to look at when the whole global warming scenario was launched in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And the basis for excluding the sun was the model of an invariable sun. In other words, the sun didn't vary enough. The steady-state sun. Right? That was the image that came from the mid-20th century, pretty much the idea of an unchanging, invariant sun. Not really changing. And because it's not changing, we don't need to factor that into our models. Okay? Anyone who thinks the sun is invariant doesn't know anything about fire. It's constantly changing. So, here's Dr. Ronan or Ronan Connolly. He was the lead author of this study. And this is quoting from him now. And it helps to put this into perspective here. The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. That's his first comment right out of the barrel. It's mandated. In other words, they were given a mandate. Find a consensus on climate change. Right? I understand the political usefulness. Because this is what he goes on to say. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn't work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature records. In the conclusion of the article, this is what the authors as a team state. By reviewing the literature and available data, we identified 16 different estimates of how the total solar irradiance has varied since the 19th century and earlier. Although some of these estimates are very similar to each other, others imply quite different trends and hence can lead to different conclusions. The IPCC Assessment Report 5 appears to have tried to overcome this problem by ignoring those data sets that give conflicting results. Worryingly, it appears that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project modeling group have been actively encouraged to consider only one estimate for total solar irradiance for the period 1850 to the present. Hey, we've got a storm cell right over top of us. We probably should take a break just in case we lose power. I know it's a little early. Sorry to interrupt it, but the lights just flickered. So we should take a break. I hear it. There's one more sentence to end this quote. Okay, sorry. Go ahead. In terms of scientific objectivity, this seems to us to have been an approach that is not compatible with the results already published in the scientific literature and even unwise relative to the results highlighted by this paper and of other recently published works. We made it. We made it. Okay. All right, let's take some thunder coming through there. Yeah, let's take a quick break. And this should blow over pretty quick, but just in case we don't want to lose the whole show. Sure. Okay. All right. We'll be right back. Yep. Pause. And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, to Cosmographia. We took a two-day break. Two days. There was a thunderstorm and the power went off. And so, yes, we had put the show on hiatus, but we are back. And we're going to try to continue exactly where we left off. Right, Randall? Yeah, I believe I would. Yeah. We're going to try. I don't know how successful we're going to be. I don't know if anyone noticed we're all wearing different clothes except Brad. At 98, we all rotate. Yeah, I brought the same shirt back. Fresh out of the wash. Sure. Sure. Don't listen to him, folks. He's on the road. He's been wearing that shirt for three days. He's been wearing that shirt for a week. Every freaking day. So, yeah, we've been talking about the carbon fertilization effect. Is that what we were talking about? What were we talking about? Were we talking about the sun? Where were we? Two days goes by. I don't know. You know, my short-term memory maybe isn't what it used to be. You were reviewing some of the articles that you wrote up for the newsletter, and you had read multiple examples. And I think the last one was from some French scientists, but tell me. Yeah, you were quoting something when I said we needed to stop. Okay. At that point, I was not paying attention because there was thunder. So, yeah. My notes, let's see if I can actually revisit my notes. Read Renova, IPCC consensus mandated. Oh, yeah, that's right. Yep. You were talking about how the, yes. My last piece of note before the storm hit. That the goal was to reach consensus. Oh, yeah. Well, that was, yeah. That was the mandate right from the outset is we need to have a consensus, and the consensus is we're at fault. I mean, it was that simple. Of course, it was couched in a lot more, you know, political language and diplomatic language. But that was the essence. And so every scientist that signed on knew implicitly that that was what it was, was about, you know. And so this is why the way the whole system works, it's based on consensus. And so think about this. The science part of it, you know, there's the summary for policymakers, which is the political part of it, which is what all the politicians and bureaucrats and regulators, all of those people, all, you know, the heads of the environmental groups, that's what all of those people are reading is the summary for the policy. Yep. The summary, now, the way it works is you have the actual science is released into the summary group. They write their summary. Then the summary goes back to the scientific group, who then rewrites and modifies the scientific part to conform to the summary. So it's really ass-backward. And that's how they do it. And then so, and what they do is they hash out things as if you're, you know, in a political debate. And they'll hash things out, and they'll have the representatives of the different countries there. And they basically don't leave until they're all agreeing to the same thing. Well, and that goes back to the cherry-picking, right? Well, we'll pull these parts of it out in our summary that is directed to what we want you to understand about this big report that you're not reading. Yeah, and the other thing you had talked about, I think you had finished up with it, though, was the cooling period. It was, I think it ended in 500 to 600 A.D. Yeah, the Dark Ages Cold period. Yeah. Yeah. And that's a very, very interesting time. Not only because of what was going on in the natural world, in terms of, you know, we mentioned, okay, so it's coming back to me now. We did mention that there was four or five unidentified volcanic, very large volcanic eruptions. Right. Unidentified because they found the ash layers in the geochemical signature of the volcano. In Akata Lake. Like, yes, but not, they didn't know, or maybe I assume they still don't know, but maybe, you know, there's been a few years, so maybe there are volcanologists now that have a better idea of where, what the source volcanoes were. But at the time, the paper that I was quoting from was written, they didn't know which volcanoes were erupting. But it was a series, so that's interesting because it does show, from the record, that there are times when you have these clustered volcanic eruptions. And so, in a sense, what happens is you get one volcano, and it'll put junk into the atmosphere that will cause cooling. And if you don't have another one after, you know, three to five years, that atmosphere is going to clear out, and there's not going to be any opacity to the sun, to the sun's rays. But if you have a succession of them, it's almost like each one builds on the previous one. And that is apparently what happened leading up to that 536 period. And what I should do, actually, I've got the studies on. I should pull those together. I think I'm going to make a note right now that we should actually dive into that because there's some really interesting research. And then we could tie it in, really, because, you know, what else happened around that period of time? I know Brad knows, so just hold it, Brad. And then when nobody else can answer it, then you can answer what else happened between 536 and, say, 542 A.D. in that era right there in that window. Was that a plague or something like that? Well, you're on the right track. You're on the right track, Kyle. A bottleneck? And I don't know. I guess the Justinian plague. Yeah, that was 542. Yeah. And that just decimated the European population. But it was something else. And Brad is going to fill us in on that. Or just... What else was... Well, the classical stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table began right then. Oh. Yeah. A wasteland. The wasteland. You got it. Isn't that interesting? Parzival. Mm-hmm. So, I'm looking to see if they've found any more information about... People have proposed different volcanoes, but no one has... There's no, you know, there's no agreement. Okay. One... Let's see. Some people have proposed the... I don't even know how to say this. You know, Pongo Caldera? I don't know. But yeah, I'm just reading different articles in the Wikipedia on it, and it looks like there's still a big debate what it could be. But, you know, there is also evidence, not proof, but evidence of a couple of major impacts around that point. One off of New Zealand in the Pacific Ocean, and another one off the coast of Norway. Yeah. Right. Yep. Icelandic volcanoes, based on the shards from a Swiss glacier, they're saying. However, cryptotephras dated exactly to AD 536 are geochemically distinct from those. Other people have suggested Krakatoa, but they ruled that one out. Somebody else suggested the Rabauul in New Britain and Papua New Guinea. But this eruption is now thought to have occurred much later. So, yeah, there's still a debate. Okay. Well, yeah, so... Some of the... Sorry, go ahead. Well, I was just going to say, yeah, because I hadn't heard anything otherwise, so... Yeah. Well, I was just going to say some of the strong evidences in the tree rings, the dendro-chronological studies that have been done. This is interesting. Geochemical analysis of AD 536 cryptotephras distinguishes at least three synchronous eruptive events in North America. Wow. Three synchronous events. Yeah. So maybe there are impacts and then sets the stuff off. I don't know. Well, that's... Yeah, I mean, that's a very plausible idea. Yeah. Because that's a lot of energy injected into the system instantaneously. And there has to be some kind of a response, one would think. Yeah. Further analysis correlates one of these eruptions to a widespread monocraters tephra identified in Northeast America. The other two eruptions most likely originated from the Eastern Aleutians and Northern Cordyere in Volcanic Province. Hmm. So, what we can say with pretty much certainty now, though, is that there was, that was a true climate crisis. And, I mean, yeah, millions of people were starving to death because they didn't have food, because crops weren't. And this is something that's rather interesting to me that I think we could talk about, something I want to talk about quite a bit, because it's really important in my mind, and that is the whole question of carbon dioxide fertilization. And so, in the paper that I wrote, Redemption of the Beast, I covered that quite a bit. So, I think we should review a little of that, because it has relevance to all of these demographic catastrophes that we're talking about here that result as a consequence of natural climate variability. See, this is the thing that's getting lost in the discussion, is the issue of natural climate variability. And now, the typical response, the promoters of the climate crisis hysteria, they will, their typical response, if you bring that up, of course, you immediately get pigeonholed as being in the right, you know, or you're a Republican, right? Although that has nothing to do with it. If you bring up the fact that the climate has changed naturally, which, of course, you know, anybody who looks at it and spends a few hours looking at the history of climate change knows that the climate of this planet is extremely dynamic, it changes all the time, and that if we look at, you know, from an annual basis to a centennial basis to a millennial basis and beyond, we cannot find a single time frame in which the climate is not going through some kind of a change. Okay, so, here, they want you to believe that they have some control over it. Well, yeah, I mean, yeah. If it's out of their control, they don't want you to know about it. It's too big. Right. We can't consider that level of events. But, yeah, if it's human-based or human-caused, then we can put some controls in order and keep the people down. Yeah. I'm sorry. If the climate isn't the same as if it was in the summer of 1968, then it's all a disaster. That's good. It's good to hear you say that, Mike. All right. Now we have the baseline, 1968. Yes, we do. That was a big year. Yeah. It was a good year for me, for the most part. First, the second half of the year was awesome. Yeah, I did my very first ever psychedelic trip in 1968. Martin Luther King was assassinated, and then Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. I know, in the public sphere. I was born right between those two events. Mike, what happened to you? Did you have, like, a Coca-Cola or something? I would venture to say that in 1968, my life was probably a bit more exciting than Mike's. Mike. I was trying to think of something very normal that you did that year. Graduated high school. Okay. See? I got thrown out of high school in 1968. So, there we go. That's abnormal these days. Maybe it was normal in your high school days. Yes, that was the normal thing back then. Oh, yeah. Gosh, 1968. Exciting year. 1969, also. Someday, I have stories about 1969. Apollo moon landing. Okay. Can I say it, guys? Okay, boomer. Hey, I'm proud to be a boomer. I think we boomers are far superior to everything that's come since. In the same way that my grandpa was far superior to the boomers. Man, those, yeah, I tell you, my grandpa's generation, unbelievable. Yeah. Yeah. Hardy souls, for sure. No kidding with those two. I mean, yeah. Nope. My grandpa couldn't speak a word of English. He walked out of the woods of Sweden and got on a cattle boat and rode across the Atlantic Ocean in a cattle boat. He had just turned 16, got to America, couldn't speak a word of English, and went to work and then worked for the next 60 years. Quite a man. Yeah, up in the trail we've been on here, following the Snake River, and now up to the Columbia, you got the Oregon Trail, and then the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and you just think what all those people went to to get around and get across this country to find a new and better life. Right. Ever since the generation of the Depression, World War II, we've all been a bunch of pussies. Mike is on fire tonight. I don't know. I feel like I was kind of a pussy compared to my grandpa. Absolutely. Particularly my grandpa from Sweden. So he got over here, and he went to work for a sash and door company and worked 10 hours a day, and then he would hurry. He bought a plot of land, and in Minnesota, when you build a house, all the houses have basements. Right? So he would work 10 hours a day at the sash and door company. Then he would hurry home, and until dark, he would hand-dug the basement excavation for the house. Wow. And then he didn't complain about climate change, probably. No, and he wasn't too concerned about his pronouns either. In fact, I don't think he ever once considered which pronouns. He was a strong shovel. Oh, my God. I told you, I don't even know what to make of this. All right. Back to the science. I'm sorry. I just, you know. Back to the science. Yeah. Okay. I won't go off on that. Yeah. Oh, God. Never mind. Okay. So, okay. Where were we? Before. The climate has always been dynamic. We just took a break. Carbon. Yeah. Yeah, so, one of the most demonized of the scientists that, you know, that the climate crisis promoters don't like is Sherwood Idzo and his son, because, I mean, they are like global experts on carbon dioxide. That's, he spent, the dad spent decades, maybe 40 years, maybe, well, when I first started reading his work was probably late 90s. So, she had already, the dad had already been doing it by then. But, so, let's see. Go back to a paper here. Let's see. How far should I go back here? Ah, yes. Here we go. This was, I'm going to go back even a little further. Okay. By the early, listen, pull it over. Come on. Okay. So, by the early 1980s, the first signs of what could potentially be a planetary scale response to carbon fertilization was becoming apparent. In 1984, the work of Valmore C. LaMarche, Jr., and his colleagues with the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, on rates of tree ring growth in sub-alpine pine trees in New Mexico, Colorado, and California, appeared in the journal Science. The title of the paper, if anybody wants to go back and find it, Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, colon, free ring evidence for growth enhancement in natural vegetation. The two tree species studied for this research were specifically bristlecone pines that grew near the tree line at altitudes typically around 10,000 to 11,000 feet above sea level. So, following, this followed earlier studies by LaMarche and others who discovered the tree ring thickness and hence tree growth rates began accelerating after about 1840. Coincident with the transition out of the Little Ice Age. So, there's two factors at work. Now, during the Little Ice Age, colder temperatures, tree line is, you know, hundreds of feet lower because of the cold weather. So, you've got a contracted growing season as well, right? And carbon dioxide levels are down at about 280 parts per million. So, it was assumed that this was due simply to the warming climate. However, later studies up to the 1980s showed continued accelerated growth rates in spite of the fact that the climate began to cool during this period and continued to do so during the 1960s and 1970s. And you guys may remember that. It did actually cool, you know, after the hottest period of the 20th century was the 20s and the 30s. And then in the 40s, it began to cool. And it cooled over a period of about 30 years. I can pull up a graph here. I think I've got one here. Yeah, I think we looked at those a while back. We have. Yeah, yeah. And I made the point that, you know, when there was two things that were actually legitimate, and a lot of the conservative critics of, you know, the climate change politics is that, you know, oh, well, these were back in the 1970s. They were saying we were headed for an ice age. But there were two things that kind of legitimized that point of view. One was, you know, we've talked about the energy paradox and the realization by the early 70s as a result of radiocarbon dating that things had happened a lot faster and that the intervals between glacial, full glacial periods was actually quite short. And along with that, the realization that they didn't seem to be any longer than the Holocene, if not shorter. Okay, so that's number one. This realization that, oh, well, we're not looking at a climate where you had 50 or 100,000 years of interglacial warmth. It was just the opposite. You had these long periods of glacial cold interspersed with shorter periods of interglacial warmth comparable to the Holocene. But none of these appeared to be longer than about 8,000 or 10,000 years, given the resolution that was available, say, by the mid-1970s. So that was the first, that was one thing. And then the other thing, the fact that the climate was actually cooling, and it spent a quarter century cooling, and then in the 80s it started warming up again. So there was a legitimate thought that, is this cooling going to continue? Is it going to, are we going to just slide down back into the Little Ice Age again? Could it be that, you know, the Holocene warmth has run its course? Nobody really knew, right? Now, of course, once it got out into media and it became, it came, it got out of the, you know, the testing laboratories and out of the, you know, the halls of academia, it sort of took on a life of its own, and media over-dramatized the effect. But it was really a legitimate concern for a while. Could it be that, you know, we're in a state of cooling? If we don't see any interglacial warmth longer than, say, the 10,000 years of the Holocene, and we've been 10,000 years, does that mean now that this period of interglacial warmth is over? Well, and then the climate starts cooling off in the, you know, from the 40s, the 50s, and the 60s, which is interesting because the climate goes through a quarter century of cooling exactly when the carbon dioxide starts increasing. So one would expect, you know, when you're coming during World War II and coming out of World War II, and the proliferation of the automobile industry and the huge number of cars and planes now that were being flown and all of that, really, we don't see a significant amount of carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere until World War II. Before that, it was so minuscule that not even the pro-warming scientists like Michael Mann and the guys with the climate lab in England, those guys didn't even think that there was going to be a noticeable signal prior to World War II just because there wasn't enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to register. Is it possible that we were headed for, like, a cooling, but then because the carbon dioxide was increasing so much that it actually stopped it? Well, that has actually been proposed. Yeah. It has. It has. In fact, I have an article here. I could pull up a paper where the team led by, I can't remember her name. It was years ago, five or six years. The paper came out. But it was basically saying that 500 parts per million may be the cutoff point, that you couldn't have an ice age with over 500 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. I'll try to dig that up. That was a good one. So anyways, so they had two tree species. One, you had the bristlecone pine that grew at 10,000 or 11,000 feet above sea level. They had discovered that the free ring thickness was directly related to tree growth rates. So this is now from the abstract of the article. And remember, this is from 1984. Okay. Quote, a response of plant growth to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, which has been anticipated from laboratory data, may now have been detected in the annual rings of subalpine conifers growing in the Western United States. Experimental evidence shows that carbon dioxide can be an important limiting factor in the growth of plants in this high-altitude environment. In other words, not enough carbon dioxide, and you're not going to get, you're going to get retarded growth of the plants. That's the idea. So then they go on to say, the greatly increased pre-growth rates observed since the mid-19th century exceed those expected from climatic trends, but are consistent in magnitude with global trends in carbon dioxide, especially in recent decades. And then I think what I'll do here, I have some interesting looking graphs. Get this open here, and then I will do a share screen. So look at this one, top one here. We'll go from 1800 up to, what is that about? Yeah, 1980, right? So this is the ring width indices for limber pine, Mount Jefferson, Nevada, showing rapidly increasing growth since the 1960s. So you can see this is, they're plotting here your index of the, which is basically just a measure of the tree ring thickness. And then what you see here going along at the mean, which they've established as 1.0, and then it starts climbing and stays above that line after 1920, but then it really starts taking off. In other words, these trees after 1960 are really doing well. They're prosper. And we scroll down, you've got similar graphs in these other trees. You can see that after, you know, as we get into the 20th century, they're doing better. So sheep mountain and Pito mountain. So these are the growth records for bristlecone pines sampled from the White Mountains, California. They are typical of all samples gathered and studied by this team. Growth rates at the sheep mountain site increased by 106% between 1850 and 1883. And the Campito or Campito, Campito mountain site, they increased by 73% during the same time interval. So then after considering all the possible explanations, this is what the authors say, quote, we believe from the evidence now available that subalpine vegetation generally and upper tree line conifers in particular could now be exhibiting enhanced growth as a direct result of increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. So in conclusion, they say that although high altitude subalpine forests constitute only a small fraction of the earth's standing biomass, increased CO2 uptake and storage could now be occurring in these habitats. So then three years later, another paper is published by the Royal Society of London, which is also considering the, the enhanced effects of carbon dioxide and forest growth. The author here was Paul Gordon Jarvis. He was a forester and an ecologist with the department of forestry and natural resources at the university of Edinburgh. It was clear to Jarvis that plants and vegetation must be taking up increasing amounts of carbon dioxide. And this was published in the philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1989 title of the article, atmospheric carbon dioxide and forest growth and partitioning quote to the roots of seedlings and young trees generally increases in response to a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Experimental results are very variable because of the differing length of the experiments, the artificial conditions and the artifactual constraints. At larger scales, direct measurements of responses to increase in atmospheric CO2 are impractical, but models of canopy processes suggest that significant increases in assimilation will result from the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And so it goes on. We may have covered some of this, but I think it's valuable enough to kind of revisit it a little bit because there's been new research. Yeah, I do remember going through like the difference in the tree lines and we looked at various different trees and how they responded. Like I remember something about pine trees specifically responding much, like very vigorously to increased CO2 levels and stuff. So this is all part of what you're calling carbon fertilization. Carbon fertilization. That's the phrase to take away because it's a real thing. And if we go through these papers, what we see is that a tentative acceptance of it, that it's real, that it's occurring and that it's the result of carbon dioxide. And yeah, there may have been a summary within the Redemption of the Beast article that Randall wrote, but yeah, maybe going a little bit deeper here. Yeah. So if, in fact, we kind of should have it right handy here. This is, this is from the directly from the NASA website. Okay. And this is still up there was posted in 2016, because by the time we go from when we were talking about these articles here, 1983, 1987, whatever, by 2016, after arguing back and forth and looking at all the evidence, it pretty much was unavoidable. Conclusion was that, yes, we're seeing the effects of carbon dioxide fertilization. So here is, this is, this is, this is quoting directly from NASA's website now, April 26, 2016, carbon, so study finds carbon dioxide fertilization, greening the earth. from a quarter to half of earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years, largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. According to a new study published in the journal, nature climate change on April 25th, an international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort. which involved using satellite data from NASA's moderate resolution imaging spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's advanced very high resolution radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index or the amount of leaf cover over the planet's vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the area of the continental United States. So it's weird because the, the, the narrative about like really when, you know, what the narrative is about, uh, the dangers of global warming are basically three main things. One is, you know, they say, Oh, increased storms and severity of storms, right? Which we've gone over that. Yep. Uh, and then they say, Oh, obviously rising sea level rise. Yep. Is the other one. The third one is they talk about, uh, increased deserts in places that are just too hot for people to live and that, that kind of stuff. And I see that a lot, it, especially in our field, you know, in we're, we're great farming, right? Yeah. I go to these trade shows and we go, you know, we go to classes and learn about stuff. And so often I hear that like, Oh, we got to look at climate change. Cause we're going to be like, not able to grow stuff. So that's, I, I see that one a lot. Well, yeah, I mean, the contrary to completely the follow the science, follow the science. Well, I'm going to raise my hand in those classes and be like, I want more CO2. Yeah. Um, yeah, so, but here's the thing. Think about now this, if you haven't been reading this in the newspaper here or hearing it on, uh, you know, CNN or MSNBC or NPR, but, uh, get this though. The Western U S has had a historic winter this, this past winter now, right? The 22, 23 winters are more severe. Yeah. And global record breaking cold spells to unprecedented amounts of snow. So this has been a memorable cold season starting with the cold. And according to data from the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, the U S has set seven all time low temperature records so far this year compared to just, and this is as of April 24th. So a few weeks old, right? But, uh, seven all time low temperature records so far up to April 24th compared to just one heat record. while 321 monthly lows have fallen in April alone compared to 66 heat record. And then in regards to snow in the official books, going back to 2001, the largest area ever covered with snow and ice in the Western U S at the beginning of April. So far was in 2019 with a million and 30,000, 820 square kilometers. But this year, okay, so, so write this down as you can see it. One zero three zero eight to a one million 30,000, 820 square kilometers. That was the largest area ever covered with snow since they had actually been able to accurately measure it going back to 2001. Okay. And that was in 2019 that, that, that that record was set, right? This year, uh, satellite imagery showed that it was 1,149,960 square kilometers of the West was covered with snow and ice in April. And by comparison, the average snow pack in the Western U S at the end of March is 242,000 square miles. So according to the, um, N S I D C, what is that? N S I D C. Um, I'll look it up. Yeah. If you could look it up there. N S I D C, um, national's dorm, uh, national snow and ice data center. There we go. National. Yeah. I was just about to get it. National snow, snow and ice data center. According to their data data, snow pack. This season was well above the April one average in all Western States. And, um, I think I'm going to do here, screen here, pull up this graph. So the graph is always helpful. All right. Are we seeing the state percent of average snow cover? Yep. There we go. Percent of average snow covered area. And here you see the States. And so these, every one of these is a record for the state. Where's Texas? I don't see Texas in there. Uh, probably should put Texas. I mean, I mean, Texas has had some snowfall, hasn't it? We have. Yeah. And how much. It does seem to have increased in, uh, frequency, our snowfall, you know, uh, sure. Percent of average, no covered area. So yeah, look at Arizona, 350% of the average. No covered here. California. What's that? About 170%. Yeah. The lowest one on here is Washington at more than a hundred percent. So that's not quite, uh, what Al Gore was predicting. I hate to say, but they say, I mean, yeah, they kind of say that like everything is more severe. Yeah. More severe winters is a sign of climate change, right? This is. Yeah. But see, see, here's the thing. you guys know the falsification principle in science. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. You claim that everything supports it. Then there's no way to falsify it. And it's just, it's crap. Yeah. It's bunk. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You have to have everything is, is now being invoked is proof. Yeah. You have a theory you lay out, you lay out, uh, things that the theory suggests will be true. And then you go and look to see if they're true. And if they're not, then you falsify the theory. Yeah. Or, or you, or you can also lay out things like if these things are found, to be true, then it's definitely false. Definitely not. Yeah. The theory is not correct. Yeah. But when everything supports it, it's, it's too vague to be a theory. Yeah. Yeah. In this second paper here, um, by this, uh, the atmosphere, carbon dioxide and forest that appeared in the philosophical, philosophical transactions in the Royal Society of London in 1989. He, uh, he says, uh, he says, okay, quoting here, uh, in all cases, the rate of growth of dry matter. Uh, well, okay. So he, he conducted a number of firsthand experiments on the effects of carbon dioxide enrichment on young trees, one of which involved approximately 30 each of both conifers and broad leaves. The experiments range in duration from a few weeks up to two and a half years. In all cases, and this is quoting from his paper, the rate of growth of dry matter. The rate of growth of dry matter was increased at the higher CO2 concentration, the increase being in a range of 20 to up to 120% with a median of about 40%. In most of the experiments, there were increases in the mass of leaves as a result of increases in the number area or thickness masses of both fine and coarse roots were also increased. Now that is important. If your roots are deeper and thicker and more anchored to the earth, that makes the trees more resistant to wind and to fires to a considerable extent, an increase in ambient CO2 concentration was effective in compensating for lack of light water or nutrients. Young trees growing in situations of low nitrogen or phosphorus or on small volumes of nutrient poor soils nonetheless showed increased growth in response to a doubling of ambient CO2 concentration. A scarcity of nutrients does not prevent a growth response to increase in carbon dioxide concentration. He then goes on to say that forests accumulate large amounts of carbon in woody branches, stems, and litter. However, the standing crop of dry matter may typically vary from 100 to 500 tons per hectare. That's tons per hectare, a hectare being 10,000 square meters or 2.471 acres. A stand of 320 tons per hectare of dry matter, typical composition, will have taken up approximately twice that amount of CO2 during its period of growth, thus reducing the content of the atmosphere by that amount. So what is happening here is I think we're seeing nature's regulatory processes at work, because as the biomass of the planet increases, that biomass is now taking up greater volumes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Right. So the noteworthy lesson to be appreciated once more is simply that as plants consume carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis, it is simultaneously being sequestered by becoming a part of the increasing plant matter and is therefore removed from the atmosphere. So the lead author Jarvis goes on to say, if the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is so sensitive to the physiological activities of vegetation, particularly forest, proper consideration must be given to the possible role of vegetation in ameliorating the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. A forest accumulating dry matter of average composition with respect to fats, proteins, carbohydrates, and lignin at a rate of 5 tons per hectare, the approximate average for the UK would assimilate CO2 at a rate of approximately 10 tons per hectare per year, removing carbon from the atmosphere at 2.7 tons per hectare per year. Consequently, an area of such forest of 2 gigahectares would be able to assimilate the 5 to 6 gigatons per year of carbon currently being added to the global atmosphere annually by the burning of fossil fuels. Wow, that's cool. Yeah. The approximate area of Europe is 1 giga per hectare, or 10 times 10 to the 6th square kilometers. Thus, a new, young, actively growing forest, twice the area of Europe, could in principle assimilate all of the CO2 produced through combustion and oxidation at the present time. So, to try to make this a little, end of quote, to try to make this a little easier to understand, the area of Europe is 3.9 million square miles. Twice this amount is 7.8 million square miles. The total land area of the Earth is about 57.3 million square miles. So, if an additional land area equal to 1 15th, the land area of Earth became forested, that forest would consume all the carbon dioxide we humans are putting into it from the consumption of fossil fuel. The hippies were right all along. Them damn hippies. Them damn tree-hugging hippies. Yes, sir. You plant trees, dude. Well, I've always been about planting trees. I love trees. So, uh... That's it. Solve the problem. Kyle loves lab. Now, consider one more thing. The total desert area of the Earth is about 19 million square miles. Which? The desert area of the Earth. Oh, okay. Is about 19 million square miles. Now, you should be taking notes. It's growing. Yeah. Yeah. The deserts? Yeah, the deserts are growing, man. No, they're shrinking. It's about, okay, about 19 million square miles. And that, the total area of land abandon and degradation, according to the estimates of the Global Assessment of Soil Degradation, commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program, is somewhere around 8 million square miles. So, if you put these two together, the deserts of the world and the degraded land equal to about 27 million square miles. If just a little over one quarter of this land area were to revert to forest, it would, again, yearly consume all of the carbon dioxide we humans put into the Earth. So, if you can take the deserts of the Earth and all the degraded and abandoned land and stuff like that, and let them regrow as forest, all you need is one, four, 25% of that area, and that would do it. So, now nature is sucking up all the carbon dioxide as fast as we're pumping it out. I wonder how much the, you know, the agricultural land that has been reclaimed out of deserts and other degraded areas. Because, like, you fly over some areas and everything is desert, but there's these giant green circles everywhere. Because they're irrigating. Irrigating, you know, I wonder how much CO2 that pulls out. Because, you know, it's a lot of plant material crops every year are growing. Yeah. And create tons and tons and tons of biomass. And we cook it on a grill. That's right. Goes back into the atmosphere. So, going back to Sherwood Edson, the guy that the climate crisis people don't like, who's done this extensive research on the carbon dioxide cycle, carbon fertilization, and spent decades doing experiments and things. So, he wrote this paper that I had referenced earlier, where he, and we looked at this photograph, old black and white photograph, where he had orange trees. And you could see grown in ambient concentrations of CO2, and then, I guess, in doubled. And you could see that the tree that was grown under the doubled had much greater biomass to it, like 80% more biomass. Including in the roots. Probably have that. Yeah. And the little experiment that I did, you had roses in there and tomato plants. And the, I mean, there were tons. The tomato plants made way more tomatoes than they normally do outside. And the rose plants had a lot more flowers. They were way bigger than normal. I mean, it's amazing just to see how much it affects the plants. Well, see, and all of this research, and there's been tons of this research on all kinds of different plant varieties, and especially focusing on food crops. And what do you find over and over and over again is that the yield per acre goes way up when you can enhance the carbon dioxide. Your yield's like 20, 30, 40% greater. Yeah. Now, think about what that implies in terms of, you know, the global food supply. Yeah, feeding people. Feeding people, yes. Yeah, you could use less land and feed more people and, like, let more land be natural and not agricultural and feed more people. I mean, it's, yeah. So here's quoting Idso. Consider the fact that CO2 is the primary raw material used by plants in producing organic matter so that the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants can perform this vital function, even under conditions of limiting light water nutrients. This being the case, as literally hundreds of laboratory and field experiments have clearly demonstrated, the CO2 sequestering ability of the world's plant life could rise right along with the CO2 content of the atmosphere. And at some future date, it may be possible that it will have risen high enough to offset man's perturbation of the global carbon cycle and yearly remove from the atmosphere all of the CO2 that we yearly are putting into it, which would stabilize the CO2 content of the air and prevent it from rising further. So, didn't we do a couple episodes back, maybe we talked about the possible saturation point was more like 2000 PPM for plants? Yeah. Yeah. That would be the point to where they, like, once it got to that high, they wouldn't be able to take more out that they would be maxed. Yeah. But at that point, too, you've also saturated the, you know, the absorption bands. So, I mean, it's like, yeah. Yeah. They're almost already saturated anyway. Yeah. They're right. Water vapor almost completely dominates that window, that absorption band window. I don't have my source, but I'm just going to, this is off the cuff here, but I did watch a video of a, of a, you know, anthropogenic global warming, supporting physicist. Okay. And he was talking about how there's this common misconception about the absorption bands. They, they say like, okay, here's the peak and it's saturated, right? Well, he's like, the thing you have to keep in mind is that the band is actually curves that come up. It's not like a sheer point. So as you increase the CO2 concentration, these, these exponential curves that are coming down, those aren't saturated. So you do get, he went through the math. I don't fully understand it, but he did say that you will get an increase of, of, of heat absorption from increased CO2, even though the band that's the, the main, the peak is saturated. So it's at the outside edges of the curve. Yeah. It's at the outside edges of the curve. And he talked about, and it really, like you're saying that water vapor is on one side. So you have the absorption band of water vapor and then CO2 and they overlap, but one side of the CO2 absorption band is outside of the water vapor band. So that side is the one that will, and it's like a tiny fraction, but he's, you know, he went on to say, of course, that that tiny fraction is all it needs for catastrophe. Well, there's, there's the point of contention right there. Yeah. And I suspect you could get a few more physicists that would argue to the contrary. Yeah, I, I, for sure. And I've felt all along that, yeah, I think carbon dioxide has contributed somewhat to the post little ice age warming. Absolutely. And, you know, we looked at those logarithmic curves and what we saw was, yes, that as you increase the concentration, you do continue to increase the thermal capture. But it's the amount of thermal capture diminishes. It diminishes and continues to diminish. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. It starts sharply, but we're way past that point at the amount. Right. Yes. Now it's, now it's a very like a shallow slope. So we're about ready to wrap it up, Randall. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We will wrap it up. We're all going to die. Yeah. We're going to die. That's what I was going to say. It's the, clearly the end of the world is coming. Well, at least, uh, I don't think we're all going to die because of the, uh, we're not going to die. Well, there's another, no, yes, there'll be fire finding our frozen corpses beneath the snow when, in 15,000 years, when the ice age melts. Yeah. Well, yes. We'll be like the guy up there in the Alps. We'll all be in some big white van. We're going to be Ootsie. Oh, in a big white van. We'll all be in a big white van. Randall will have his radio. Yeah. Undigested food in my mouth. It'll be the Encino van. Bag of chips. Bag of cherries on the floor, but it'll be, yep. By the time y'all are watching this, we'll have, we will already be back from the scab lands, but we are about to go. Yeah. Yeah. All of this is about to happen. Yes. Once again, the catastrophe strikes next year, we will be frozen in a white van next week. You mean next week? I'm sorry. Oh boy. Yeah. I saw you sent the itinerary, Brad. I haven't gone over it yet. See if I approve or not, but I probably will. Randall will be making changes randomly. Sorry, Kyle. Yeah. We want to have more time for a discussion and hanging out less, less time in the van, getting to long distance places as excellent as they are. Um, yeah, but wanted to have the, uh, the meal times there for the, uh, you know, the crew that's dealing with the food and, uh, getting all that in the right places for everybody. So that's critical. So that's what that was about. Yeah. I just want you guys to know. Sorry, Kyle. Yeah. We're working on some, uh, replacement tours. Uh, maybe not do the Scablands or Montana next year, but, uh, another, uh, leg of the Ice Age Mega Floods tours going out the, uh, Walla Walla Valley through Wallula Gap, uh, Columbia Gorge, uh, maybe all the way to the Pacific if we can cover that in six days. So yeah, checking that out now and, uh, spectacular landscapes in all directions as our buddy at Nightingale would say 360 degrees of wow. Yeah. Brad's been on the road for a while. You did a recon of the Bonneville flood route. That's right. We wrapped that up the other day. Uh, we just made a, uh, long listing of the places that we visited and it's, uh, way more that can be done for a tour. So, uh, endless possibilities there. And, uh, yeah, we're looking to do both of these in, uh, 2024. So yeah, stay tuned on those. Yeah. That'll be coming soon. That'll be a pretty awesome trip. The Bonneville would start in the Bonneville Lake basin near Salt Lake. Yep. Heading up through the Wasatch Mountains, Red Rock Pass, and then out onto the Snake River Plain, winding along the Canyon of the Snake River. Which was carved and cut by the great Bonneville flood. Yeah. An amazing. Really quite spectacular. It is. And, uh, yeah, we went, we went all the way down. Uh, I know Randall and I did it in, uh, a couple guys and our first trip is three hours in and, uh, minimum three hours out to the end of the road and, and, uh, Hell's Canyon, deepest Canyon on the continent, uh, actually deeper than Grand Canyon itself. And, uh, they do jet boat tours. So considering that as a, yes, that's gotta be in there for the Bonneville flood tour. So yeah, really exciting, really beautiful drive, uh, incomparable to many of the places that I've seen. It's, uh, something to behold. So yeah, we're trying to pull, pull that off and pull that together for, for next year. Cool. Even, I, I just want everybody to know that even when Randall approves of the itinerary that Brad comes up with, when we're there, he's like, wait, yeah, Brad, why aren't we stopping here at this pool? He's nailing him. He's trying to change it every day. Isn't it a moment. It's great to see those guys in action. That's a great problem to have. There's more kick-ass, awesome stuff than we can actually get to. And we're always like, should we get here? Should we get there? Nope. We gotta, we gotta satisfy the crowd and keep moving and make sure they get dinner. Well, I started thinking on this one, um, you know, we're taking everybody around to see all of this stuff, which I love. I mean, I, I, I could not see Graham Cooley or Moses Cooley or any of that too many times. Right. Yep. For sure. But there are some places that, you know, we sort of need to get back to, uh, that we find of neglected a little bit. Um, and some additional places that we probably even haven't seen. Um, is there any like that of that included in this itinerary? Um, no, it's actually paring down to the most important sites and, uh, yeah, we need to get back and do some research of the, the current ripples that have been shown through the LIDAR coming down to Okanagan, Okanagan river Valley. Yep. Um, you know, we need, we need to get out there and identify these, uh, impact sites and stay ahead of the game. Uh, yes. So, yeah, we're gonna, we're gonna have to balance in the next couple of years, the, the tours versus the research expeditions that we did for many years. And, uh, yeah, they stay in, stay in front of the science and, and lead this avant-garde movement toward determining what, what happened at the Younger Dryas and the transition for civilization out of, out of this, uh, period of failed history. Yeah. So by the time this episode comes out, we should be coming right up, getting close to the cosmic summit, which I want to encourage everybody to can't attend in person, do the live stream. And if you can't do the live stream, do the video on demand, um, because there's going to be a lot of good stuff. Um, we lost Graham Hancock, but, but we're still, it's still going to be some really awesome stuff, particularly with some of the comet research guys that are coming out, that are on board. Um, I'm really looking forward to that too. Well, uh, okay. So I guess I'm going to be seeing you guys, all you guys, well, not Mike, but I'll be seeing the rest of you guys next week. Yeah, that's right. Great. Second half of show. Yeah. Okay. Good. Randall Carlson.com sign up to the newsletter to keep track of everything that's going on. Uh, but you can find everything else on the website there at Randall Carlson, including the newsletter, including, uh, future events. There is an events page. So, and I will mention, you know, that, uh, uh, CBD from the gods has an upgraded formula and I'm going to be trying that on the, uh, tab lands tour. You know, I had, I just recently had a bout of insomnia and then I thought, well, you know, I haven't been doing my CBD oil regularly and I kind of don't want it. I don't do anything all the time, regular. I'll do like a supplement for a while and then I'll take a break. Um, every, I think that's the way you're supposed to do it. Uh, I think I've read several different places that that's a preferred way to do it. But anyways, I'm going to be trying the new upgraded formula. Um, and also immune enhanced, supposed to have some better immune enhancing stuff. So anyhow, I just thought I'd mention that. All right. Well, speaking of upgraded, the brothers of the serpent podcast has gone video. That's right. That's. And the, and these guys are doing awesome shows. Uh, so if you haven't checked them out, uh, I wish I could listen more, but I know they're on some great stuff with the trips to Egypt and trips to Turkey and the new geometry on the, the vases. And, uh, yeah, these guys are doing great stuff. So check, check out brothers of the serpent also. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Yeah. We just, we did a presentation. We showed a lot of pictures and video from our trip to Turkey. Yeah. All right, guys. That could be fun. All right. See you guys, uh, next week. Monday. Yeah. See you Monday. Yep. All right. Safe travels, gentlemen. And, uh, y'all missing this one. Uh, come to the next one at, uh, Randall Carlson out in the scab lands and in the field chasing mega floods. Bye. Night.