350ppm or 450ppm, what is best CO2 target?

[scalbers]

So what would be best for the planet? Supposedly the 2C warming level would be set at 450ppm, though I personally would prefer a stronger limit of 1C warming and 350ppm. However if the recent Hansen study is correct (a reasonable debate at this point), and climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling (long term) is about 6C instead of 3C, then this means we'd need to halve the CO2 excess over pre-industrial values. What are the scientific arguments about the climate sensitivity estimates? In other words, would CO2 at 350ppm still yield 2C warming anyway?

 

What should the warming limit be in terms of both CO2 levels and long-term temperature rise?

 

There is also a "safe" limit for ocean acidification as per this article:

 

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/18/world%E2%80%99s-oceans-turning-acidic-faster-than-expected/

Edited December 26, 2008 by scalbers

[JohnB]

However if the recent Hansen study is correct

Do you mean Hansen 2008? Strikes me more as a large OpEd piece than a study.

The implications are profound, and the only resolution is for humans to move to a fundamentally different energy pathway within a decade. Otherwise, it will be too late for one-third of the world’s animal and plant species and millions of the most vulnerable members of our own species.

Hmm, act within 10 years or one third of the plant and animal species and millions of humans will die. Now why would anyone possibly think he might be "alarmist"?

What should the warming limit be in terms of both CO2 levels and long-term temperature rise?

TBH, I'm not sure. Part of the problem as I see it is that even if we reduced the human population of the planet to 10,000 living hand to mouth the world temps would still vary by rather large amounts, just as they have historically done.

 

During previous times of change, The last Ice Age, the Younger Dryas, etc we have coped. I think the question might be more along the lines of "At what point will we be generally unable to cope with the changes?" rather than picking an arbitary CO2 value and trying to justify it.

[npts2020]

Do you mean Hansen 2008? Strikes me more as a large OpEd piece than a study.

 

Hmm, act within 10 years or one third of the plant and animal species and millions of humans will die. Now why would anyone possibly think he might be "alarmist"?

 

TBH, I'm not sure. Part of the problem as I see it is that even if we reduced the human population of the planet to 10,000 living hand to mouth the world temps would still vary by rather large amounts, just as they have historically done.

 

During previous times of change, The last Ice Age, the Younger Dryas, etc we have coped. I think the question might be more along the lines of "At what point will we be generally unable to cope with the changes?" rather than picking an arbitary CO2 value and trying to justify it.

 

Ok. So at what CO2 value (all other factors held constant) will we be unable to cope with the changes? Are you claiming CO2 concentration is irrelevant?

[JohnB]

Ok. So at what CO2 value (all other factors held constant) will we be unable to cope with the changes? Are you claiming CO2 concentration is irrelevant?

In order. I don't know and No.

 

My point was that it is better to work out the value where we would generally be unable to cope and use that as a target to avoid rather than picking a number and hoping. I don't know what that value is and I'm not sure anyone else does either. That's why we do research.

 

I don't see how you could think that the CO2 concentration is irrelevent as that is what we are discussing. Numbers pulled out of a hat are irrelevent as they have no basis. We should decide the value on a scientific basis, that's all. We might find the number is 423 ppmv or it might be 672 ppmv, or somewhere in between.

 

If you have a number in mind and can justify it rationally and scientifically, I'm all ears. If you can't justify it, then you are guessing.

[scalbers]

Do you mean Hansen 2008? Strikes me more as a large OpEd piece than a study.

 

Hmm, act within 10 years or one third of the plant and animal species and millions of humans will die. Now why would anyone possibly think he might be "alarmist"?

 

TBH, I'm not sure. Part of the problem as I see it is that even if we reduced the human population of the planet to 10,000 living hand to mouth the world temps would still vary by rather large amounts, just as they have historically done.

 

During previous times of change, The last Ice Age, the Younger Dryas, etc we have coped. I think the question might be more along the lines of "At what point will we be generally unable to cope with the changes?" rather than picking an arbitrary CO2 value and trying to justify it.

 

Hansen 2008 is both informed opinion and scientific study. He makes scientific assertions about short-term and long-term feedbacks that I was wondering about. I also applaud him for connecting the dots and explaining the relationships between the climate, environment, and society. I think that's fair game for climate and other scientists to be more interdisiplinary. Too many stovepipe specialists in society can be blinding.

 

What if the alarmist things are largely true, are they still alarmist? Let's address the facts here, are the species at risk?

 

CO2 values and temperatures now are heading towards values warmer than any time since when many of todays' species even evolved. Combined with habitat loss they may indeed be in danger.

 

I define coping as the ability of various species to avoid major population loss or extinction. Having a CO2 goal is useful to come up with a rational strategy. If we're not exactly sure we can pick the best guess now and refine it later. It might be arbitrary whether it's 350 or 360, but 350 vs. 450 is a significant choice.

 

If the CO2 doubling sensitivity is 3C, then 450ppm should be a top limit (or perhaps less). If the CO2 doubling sensitivity is 6C, then 350ppm should be a top limit (or again perhaps less). I would suggest ultimate warming should be kept at today's values (about 1C), so with the 6C sensitivity possibility I would arrive at a safe value of about 320ppm.

Edited December 28, 2008 by scalbers

[JohnB]

And if doubling sensitivity is 1.3 degrees? Your 3 degrees is some 25% higher than the IPCC estimate. As for 6 degrees, would you care to elaborate why Hansen is right and the IPCC is wrong?

Hansen 2008 is both informed opinion and scientific study.

If that's a scientific study he's introducing some new ways of writing them.

Is this the picture of our generation that we want to be remembered by?

we can still preserve creation and serve humanity worldwide.

It is worth imagining how our grandchildren will look back on us.

My favourite, I wasn't aware that imagining future opinions was in any way part of the scientific process.

 

I don't know why the link to the paper didn't work, I must have stuffed up. Here it is.

 

I use the term "alarmist" in this case because his comment;

the upshot of crystallizing science is that the “safe” global temperature level is, at most, about 1°C greater than the year 2000 global temperature.

If the dire predictions were true, then there would have been mass extinctions etc coinciding with the previous times temperatures reached unsafe levels.

As can be seen from the Vostok core record, the current Holocene temps are significantly below those of previous interglacials. Where is the mass extinction of 130,000 years ago when temps were (it would appear around) 3 degrees higher? It didn't happen.

 

If it didn't happen at 3 degrees warmer than today, on what logical or evidentiary basis can someone claim that it will happen at 1 degree warmer?

 

To be blunt, the more I read of his prognostications, the more I am becoming convinced that Dr. Hansen and logical reality are no longer on speaking terms.

Edited December 29, 2008 by JohnB

[npts2020]

I don't know what an acceptable goal for CO2 concentration is either but it seems like some value that requires any major reduction from current levels of emission is going to be fought tooth and nail over. IMO the standard should be very conservative, the possibility of catastrophic outcomes cannot be ignored and outweigh any possible benefit of continuing as we are.

[Chris C]

John B,

 

the global temperature was not 3 degrees warmer than present day until millions of years ago...you're looking at Vostok, not the globe. More importantly, rates of change generally matter much more than absolute numbers. The global warming situation today could hit 3 C in a century as opposed to glacial-interglacial timescales which take thousands of years. There's also a lot of differences in the background extinction rate due to humans and the amount of human settlement, coastal infrastructure, and the necessity to maintain the status quo. As far as societal and ecological impacts, there's really no good past analog.

[JohnB]

Hi Chris,

you're looking at Vostok, not the globe

1. Fair enough, any idea where I can find some good global long range reconstructions? Most I've seen are for the past 2,000 years with some individual series going back around 7,000 years. Vostok and Greenland give us longer series for hundreds of thousands of years, but the only graph I can recall seeing that covers millions is that one that compares CO2 to temp back to the year dot. Like that one on page 26 of the Global Warming thread.

 

(Looking for the graph I realised I hadn't read those two papers you recommended by Dana Royer. My apologies, I'll read them now and get back to you)

 

2. Who is going to tell Al Gore that his favourite graph is from Vostok and is not representative of Global temperature change?

 

While extinction rates differ over time and it is hard even impossible to put an accurate figure on it, don't you think "preserving creation" is a bit over the top?

 

Just quickly, from the abstract of one of the Royer papers.

A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations,

This seems at odds with the idea that continued CO2 output and warming will put us over a "tipping point" and drop us back into a glacial. If Royer is correct, then the way to avoid a new glacial period is to drive CO2 levels to above 500 ppmv. Thoughts?

 

the possibility of catastrophic outcomes cannot be ignored and outweigh any possible benefit of continuing as we are.

npts, that's an interesting view. While I see where you're coming from, I can't endorse the reasoning because it leads to other funky ideas. Like putting weapons in space.

 

I know this is OT, but please bear with me. From my readings on Holocene impacts and air bursts we can state definitely that there were 2 and possibly 4 airbursts during the 20th C. The largest of course being Tunguska at around 10 megatons, the second was in Curuca, Brazil in 1930 at around 2 megatons. I think you would agree that such an airburst over a major city would be disasterous.

 

To quote from a paper presented at the 100 year anniversary conference on Tunguska (Abstract is on page 209 of the abstract index found here.)

In spite of highly low probability of the similar situation the

cost of the detriment connected with it is very high. So if the asteroid of small sizes (DL40-60 m) falls to Moscow, more than 10 million people will perish and the damage will amount to 200 trillion rubles.

 

While I am opposed to the weaponisation of space, I'm sure you see that your argument "the possibility of catastrophic outcomes cannot be ignored and outweigh any possible benefit of continuing as we are" can be used with considerably more force to justify just that.

 

If you want to get really worried, worry about the possibility of an explosion of Callistos ice envelope according to another paper presented (Page 176)

If the envelope explodes, about 109 icy fragments of C0.3 km size will appear in orbits of SP comets of Jovian family. After several decades, a body causing an explosion with >1 Mt TNT will strike the Earth every day, with >3 Mt once a year, and once in a man’s life, >5 Mt.

 

That we will have trouble coping with. [/OT]

 

Back on topic.

I don't know what an acceptable goal for CO2 concentration is either but it seems like some value that requires any major reduction from current levels of emission is going to be fought tooth and nail over.

Quite probably, however if the figure is the product of science rather than picking an arbitary number out of a hat, the opposition has far less leeway.

 

To say "Here is the figure we arrived at and here are our methods" forces the detractors to argue from a scientific standpoint. To simply say "We think it should be 450 ppmv" leads to the quite reasonable question "Why?".

[npts2020]

Well IMO there is a far greater possibility of catastrophe in the next century or so (on Earth anyway) from global warming than from any astronomical event. While it is true that a strike by some massive celestial body is virtually inevitable, the likelihood of it occurring during the lifetime of any person now alive is exceedingly low. On the other hand, when it comes to global warming, I would say that anyone alive even fifty years from now will see noticable effects. We can argue until then about what those exact effects will be but I can't imagine that the most sudden shift to a warmer climate in the history of the planet will be a net positive thing.

[JohnB]

Well IMO there is a far greater possibility of catastrophe in the next century or so (on Earth anyway) from global warming than from any astronomical event.

Given that I've shown 2 such events in the last hundred years, how do you come to that conclusion? It is only by the purest blind chance that we have not had entire cities wiped out. (While the Vitim Bolide of 2002 was only a paltry 1,000- 1,500 tons of TNT equivalent, I would suggest that such an explosion over a populated area would definitely lead to great loss of life.)

 

Please note that these are the two major ones we know about. Airbursts over the ocean have a far lower possibility of being detected.

 

Back on topic.

I can't imagine that the most sudden shift to a warmer climate in the history of the planet will be a net positive thing.

Sorry, but no, it's not. The entry and exit for the Younger Dryas period was far faster. The Greenland cores show a temp rise of between 12 and 15 degrees over a 40 year period.

 

However, be that as it may. Any limit you wish to place on CO2 "conservative" or not should have a thorough grounding in science. Anything else is opinion. And while you certainly have a right to your opinion, it does not make others wrong when they disagree with you. (Nor, BTW does it make them deniers, shills for big oil, blinkered, stupid or any one of many other adjectives, it just means they disagree with you.) Or aren't others also allowed to have an opinion?

 

Pick any concentration you want, but the burden of proof is on you to justify it.

[scalbers]

An impact large enough to disrupt ecosystems and climate on a global scale probably comes only on the time scale of millions of years. The percentage of Earth occupied by large cities is small enough to it would take a fair number of Tunguska level events to hit the "target". How often do Tunguska level events occur somewhere on Earth? I've asked this to Clark Chapman who is an expert on this and he said around 1000 years, though I personally do think it may be less than that.

 

Regarding land vs ocean impacts, I think an ocean event might still produce a damaging tsunami in coastal areas. Here is an example of one possibility:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/nyregion/30tsunami.html

 

There is a certain qualitative difference between a human caused event vs a non-human caused one, though admittedly a good subject of philosophy.

 

By the way it seems the Greenland temperature change in the younger Dryas could have been greater than the overall global rates of change.

Edited January 1, 2009 by scalbers

[npts2020]

I would like to add that a meteorite the size of the one that fell in Tunguska might destroy a city and its surroundings but global warming will affect every location on earth. I will have to read more about the Younger Dryas Period but it seems as if it was a sudden and short-lived (on geological scales) cooling from an overall warming trend. In addition, the warming that caused the end of it began at a significantly lower temperature than we are beginning with today. From what little I have read, the time period of the warming is somewhat under dispute although everyone seems to agree it was fairly sudden. For someone who disagrees with the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, JohnB, you seem to have a lot of confidence in this one debatable fact. Even if that was a period of faster warming than we are now experiencing the rates are very similarly fast. I would like for anyone to explain to me how this is going to be a net benefit for a majority of the denizens of this planet vs. how they will be harmed by trying to keep CO2 levels below their historic levels during Earth's warmest periods.

 

BTW I find it highly unlikely I ever used any of the adjectives in JohnB's post to describe anyone in this forum, but if I did, I apologize.

[scalbers]

Hot off the press, an impact explanation for the Younger Dryas...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/02/comet.diamonds/index.html

 

Was this the cause of the extinction of the mammoth? If so, it was apparently from the smoke from fires rather than the ongoing temperature changes.

 

As for present climate, I agree we are in a warmer regime as the starting point than we were during the warming at the end (of recovery) from the Dryas period. This is a reason why the present human caused warming is of particular concern.

 

Here's a good Wikipedia article on the overall picture of impacts on Earth:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

Edited January 2, 2009 by scalbers

[JohnB]

Firstly, apologies to npts. I did not mean to imply that you had used those adjectives, I was trying to generally head off their use. Looking back, it wasn't one of the best ideas I've had. Sorry.

 

Concerning the YD. Scalbers article is further proof in favour of the hypothesis that's been doing the rounds for some time. I have no problem with the YD being instigated by a cometary impact or airburst, however that does make the exit from the period more interesting.

 

Under normal conditions we would expect the temps to dip and return to normal after a few years. (In the case of a large event, it may take decades to recover.) What we don't expect to see is a large drop in temps, followed by some 1,300 years of stable low temps and then a sudden rise.

 

I've yet to see any "dispute" about the timing, BTW. Anyhoo, the whole point of bringing up the YD was to specifically counter the claim;

the most sudden shift to a warmer climate in the history of the planet

 

Even though there would have been high latitude amplification, 12 - 15 degrees in Greenland strongly suggests 3 - 4 degrees at lower latitudes. Even 3 degrees in 40 years is a far higher rate of change than the .7 degrees we've had in the last 100 years. (By roughly an order of magnitude.) On that basis, I would hesitate to call them "similarly fast".

For someone who disagrees with the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, JohnB, you seem to have a lot of confidence in this one debatable fact.

I thought we were discussing Hansens idea that sensitivity could be as high as 6 degrees for a doubling of CO2. This is far higher than anyone has suggested before and is not in line with IPCC estimates. Is Dr. Hansen a "vast majority" of 1? If you believe Hansens figures, then you believe the IPCC to be wrong. If you believe the IPCC figures, then Dr. Hansen is wrong. You can't have both.

 

Would someone care to provide some supporting evidence that he is correct?

 

For that matter, as I said earlier, the burden of proof concerning "safe" levels of CO2 is on those who are advocating a set figure. Can someone provide some?

 

Honestly, I don't know if there is a "safe" level or not. I'm quite willing to be convinced, however. I'd just rather see some proof as opposed to rhetoric.

 

Re Tunguska, it almost certainly was not a meteorite. It was an airburst from a comet. Except for ground damage, these leave little evidence of their passing. As nothing actually impacts the ground, it is unlikely that they would cause a noticable tsunami.

 

Scalbers, from my general readings on the topic, it would appear that estimates of airbursts are largely underestimated. Megaton yeild does not require kilometre size asteroids, such yields are available from much smaller objects.

[iNow]

Why wouldn't zero ppm (from human sources) be the best CO2 target? Isn't that inline with what is "natural?"

[npts2020]

Why wouldn't zero ppm (from human sources) be the best CO2 target? Isn't that inline with what is "natural?"

 

You don't know how much I hate disagreeing with this but if humans were all replaced by some other animal there would still be CO2 emissions. IMO this is what the "natural" level would be. I'm not even sure what relevance any so-called natural level has, since the levels have varied pretty widely over Earth's history. What everyone is looking for is a level we can live at and deal with the consequences. Having said that, I would think someone actually doing climate science (not myself) would have tried to figure out what CO2 levels were during time periods when the climate was most like whatever target we want (presumably similar to today's). This is likely how Mr. Hansen arrived at his number but I couldn't say for sure.

 

JohnB;Not to worry. Apparently, the Younger Dryas lasted so long because massive meltoff of glaciers flooded the North Atlantic basically shutting down the gulf stream. Here is a long-winded but informative treatise on the subject. We can disagree about whether there is much difference between 40 and 100 years on a geological scale but there is some disagreement as to whether much of the world outside Europe and Eastern North America suffered nearly the temperature change indicated by the Greenland ice core readings (see the same link above).

Not being a scientist myself, I would like to know what methodology you would find acceptable for determining what our goal should be?

[iNow]

No, that's a very worthy clarification, and a good point. Taking your comment into consideration, I'd suggest between 200-250 ppm, since that's where we were before the industrial revolution. Note, however, that this is both natural and anthropogenic combined... not just human additions.

[JohnB]

npts, while I'm sure that iNow might be greatly surprised, I actually tend to agree with him to a great extent.

 

One of the difficulties in these debates is the very point you raised. "What is the "natural" level? This applies to both CO2 and temperature.

 

If there were only 10,000 humans alive on earth living in stone age conditions, the temps would still change. Cold and hot spells would come and go, Ice Ages would come and go. Sea levels will rise and fall.

 

What is the "natural" temperature of the Earth? Are we getting too warm? If so, compared to what?

 

If we were able somehow to reduce the ppmv to iNows 200-250 and then the amount started to rise due to natural means, do we try to stop it?

 

When we take out the science, there seems a lot of rhetoric. One thing in there is the unspoken assumption that there is some sort of (especially in the case of temp) "normal" for the planet. This assumption is just plain wrong.

 

I'm sure that if they had been aware of the situation 12,000 years ago, there would have been the same debates about "Climate Change" as Og and Ug watched their village sink beneath the rising waters.

 

As to what I would accept as a methodology. Anything that is open with all data, codes and methodologies publicly published where it can be examined by scientists from other disciplines. If someone arrives at a CO2 level and expects the rest of the world to follow his advice, then he should be willing to back it up publicly.

 

The link to UMich was an interesting read, however it raises some points. I note it uses the word "suppose" a bit. (Which is fair enough in the context of not actually knowing what went on back then.) The postulate that the Atlantic Conveyor shut down is fine, it's also one the current bogeymen. However, is there any actual proof that this is what happened? You'll notice that they have a different theory from the "meteor impact" group.

 

So are we to decide our future actions based on which theory we happen to like?

 

I must add that I do find logic in the arguments of Dr. Pielke as to the effects of changing land useage over the last century.

[npts2020]

I am sure you can gather from my previous posts that I do not believe in a "natural" level either, however, that is not to say there is no desirable level. I have been interested in the environment since before the first Earth Day and have read many volumes of information about different related topics including global warming. Hard numbers for any discussion of this matter are exceedingly difficult to come by, even for experts in the field. My take on all of it is that, in general, the "environmentalists'" position makes far more sense than any arguments I have seen for not being concerned. This is what makes me say we need to be conservative about our assumptions and conclusions. In addition, it will be far easier to add CO2 if we want a warmer climate, than it will be to remove it if the levels are too high. IMO the system is so complex that we may not ever have computer modelling perfected to the point of removing all uncertainty and to wait to do something about the changes which we know should occur, is foolish to an extreme.

[scalbers]

I'd suggest the "natural" CO2 level is what it would have been at present without human influence, perhaps at 280ppm. I also think this is desirable. Recall that about 300ppm is the highest level there has been in the history of the human species, and it seems to me we should keep the upper limit from going noticeably above this in terms of climate forcing. Natural temperature levels go in a similar manner, in that we would want to keep our influence on them from going to higher levels than they've been in human history.

 

The rate of warming at the end of the YD may have been comparable to today, though again we should consider the difference of having a high rate of warming starting from the warmer initial temperature of today. Good reminder by npts2020 that it is very difficult to remove CO2 once it is let into the atmosphere, so we'd be best to know what we are doing ahead of time.

 

As for 12000 years ago, I personally would go with letting nature take its course. That is an interesting debate though, similar to whether we should try and intercept incoming asteroids.

 

The present debate though about humans' influence on the Earth, now maybe in the Anthropocene Epoch, is whether we have the moral authority to make major changes in the planet's ecosystems, with the reduction in biodiversity. These changes would affect the Earth for geological time scales in the future.

Edited January 4, 2009 by scalbers

[JohnB]

The present debate though about humans' influence on the Earth, now maybe in the Anthropocene Epoch, is whether we have the moral authority to make major changes in the planet's ecosystems, with the reduction in biodiversity. These changes would affect the Earth for geological time scales in the future.

Just quickly. (It's 1.30 AM)

 

Two things.

 

1. We are not in the "Anthropocene" Epoch. I know the term has been bandied about, but it has not been accepted as an Age or an Epoch yet. There is still some discussion as to when it should be said to start.

 

Personally, I think if we do it, we should truncate the Holocene and start the Anthropocene circa 8,000 years ago. We could then subdivide it into perhaps the "Agricultural", "City State", "Dark", "Pre-Industrial", "Industrial" and "Atomic" Ages. Just a thought.

 

2. We can do whatever we damn well please, "Moral Authority" or not. If we pass, we pass. Short of actually irradiating the planet or physically destroying it, the Earth will not notice our passing. (And something will come along to replace us.)

 

The fact is, even if we become perfect stewards, we will still pass and something will replace us.

 

I wonder what they'll look like?

[iNow]

Before people unleash on James Hansen, they should take note of the active muzzling he experienced from both parties. Watch here:

 

 

 

Funny how the denialists tell us of collusion between scaremongering politicians and money grubbing scientists and yet the reality is NASA's earth sciences budget being cut and political appointees trying to shut scientists up.

 

Okay, not so funny...

 

 

h/t A Few Things Ill-Considered

[JohnB]

Before people unleash on James Hansen, they should take note of the active muzzling he experienced from both parties.

Considering the number of interviews he's given, the muzzling can't have been very effective, can it?

 

Nor has it prevented him from publishing, flying to the UK to testify in court cases or making many and various public statements.

 

From our own list.

Something is probably bull if:

 

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

 

Mind you, someone may have been trying to shut him up. Maybe someone thought having the head of the GISS going around proclaiming the end of creation and comparing coal trains to trains heading for a death camp might somehow, Oh I don't know, reflect badly on NASA?

 

Maybe someone thought it would be embarrassing if it was found out that a multi million dollar government organisation was headed by a fruit loop?

Edited January 7, 2009 by JohnB

[iNow]

United States nominee for Energy Secretary comments on his plans and ideas for steering our country in response to submissions from citizens via the "Citizens Briefing Book."

 

In the upcoming Obama administration, Dr. Steven Chu will lead the charge to find solutions to the growing energy problems we face.

 

Dr. Chu has been following the comments and ideas in the Citizen’s Briefing Book from Americans who understand the scope of these problems, and who are offering bold solutions of their own.

 

In his video response, Dr. Chu goes in-depth to explore several ideas from the community, and discusses the science behind many of the submissions.

 

He gives detailed feedback on issues like rising global temperatures, a nationalized energy smart grid, and a “Manhattan-style project” to modernize green technologies.

 

Watch his full video reaction below: