How do we know climate change is caused by humans?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- 🤓Expand your scientific horizon on Brilliant! ➜ First 200 to use our link brilliant.org/... will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
In this video I summarize the main pieces of evidence that we have which show that climate change is caused by humans. This is most important that we know in which frequency range carbon dioxide absorbs light, we know that the carbon dioxide ratio in the atmosphere has been increasing, we know that the Ph-value of the oceans has been decreasing, the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been changing, and the stratosphere has been cooling, which was one of the key predictions of climate models from the 1960s.
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com...
In this video I explain how the greenhouse effect work in much detail: • I Misunderstood the Gr...
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #shortly
PLEASE do more content like this--how did we learn X, how did we come to discover X, how did we figure out X. It is so good and it is a type of content I've been looking for for years
or maybe you should go to school
@@michaelmr101except they don't teach you that stuff. They only tell you definitions, give you formulas etc, but rarely will they give more details. Let's be real, it would take too long or to advanced for the students to learn at pre college level
Agree, it's actually hard to find condensed explanations like this that you could convey to someone else easily. Same with the flat earth thing, I don't actually bother debating those people, but it's actually surprisingly hard to cut through the crap they believe with some simple facts when you haven't got them at your fingertips.
solve for X
What's causing global warming? Explained in less than two minutes.
th-cam.com/video/sKDWW9WlPSc/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=CarbonBrief
I have heard the phrase "carbon dating" for YEARS and never once made it into a pun. I feel ashamed and bow at the snarky genius of Sabine.
There's a radio ad in GTA San Andreas that's based on this pun, so the idea is definitely not new.
What is the IDEAL TEMP? What is IDEAL CO2 level? What is biggest green house gas? WATER VAPOR by many factors greater than CO2.
All of CO2 only 2% is man made. About 0.04% of atmosphere CO2 and the man made. CO2 is 0.0000008% of atmosphere. CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN HIGHER IN PAST AMD IT WAS COLDER, BEFORE HISTOR OR MAN... SO WHAT...
Hoax because of the POLITICAL POLICIES and obfuscation, outright LIES. Yes CLIMATE is changing, always has always will. HOW MUCH IS DUE TO MAN? ??? 1% 2%. GIVE ME A NUMBER!!! HONEST SCIENTIST SAY WE DO NOT KNOW, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.
If no fossil fuels useful by man today. EXPERTS WITH MOR PHD's THAN YOU say yemps might drop 1 degree? Yawn. What is the IDEAL temp? WHY DO YOU NOT MENTION SOLAR ACTIVITY, PLANETARY ORBIT VARIATIONS THAT REALLY CHANGE TEMP??
I too have the experience that it's not always easy to find satisfying answers to my questions on the internet. When it is about climate it is extra tricky because it is hard to tell opinions apart from facts.
It's hard to tell if alleged facts actually stand up to scrutiny. Anyone can show a graph, but how do we know its source evidence is accurate? What parameters are there to show its significance. Does a decline of 0.06 in the pH scale (at Hawaii, not elsewhere) mean anything? What factors are missing? Contrary to the impression given by TH-cam clips, science is complicated, and hard.
@@fredneecher1746 Good on you. Do not listen to the "I know more about climate change than you do. It's too complicated for your pea brain." Do your own research and if you can, read the reports and thesis yourself. I have read 28 of them and seen quite a few errors in them. Almost all ignore the #1 gas that effects global warming - water vapor. The oldest one I read says that the earth will fail because of all the coal being used and that if nothing is done within 20 years, it will be too late. Punch line? It was written several years before the Titanic sunk. Yeah, that Titanic.
You should become familiar with Steve Koonin.
I agree Frederick. Sabine approaches this as a case to make, rather than a question to answer. I would rather listen to a good scientist who thinks it through critically.@@fredneecher1746
@@christopheryellman533 Steve Koonin - "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters"? Got it in my library.
The Skeptical Uncle recommends a video titled "10 Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change".
did you fact check their claims?
@@Aanthanur Did you watch the video?
@@mikewagner8458 nr 10 is already a lie.
archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html
and irrelevant to AGW.
9 is irrelevant again, we have other methods to estimate the temperatures fom before we had thermometers.
tell me one reason why i should keep watching?
its just the same old denier myths.
name his best point and i look at that.
@@Aanthanur #10 is a myth?...we are not in an ice age?
I don´t get a couple of things and hope you can clarify:
1. If we burn fossil fuels which shifts the C12/C13 ratio. Doesn´t that mean that we are restoring the ratio how it was in the past?
2. All graphs were from after the industrial revolution kickt off. Do you know where i can get pre "industrial revolution" graphs for CO2 levels in the athmosphere?
3. How many % of climate change can be attributed to human activity (Controlling the data for other variables like sun activity, measuring in urban vs rural areas ect)
What do you mean ratio as it was in the past? Which exactly moment in the past? It was changing many times over geologic history? Also, how would that make anything better?
@@KateeAngelhow are things worse? There's no real trend in extreme weather events, except for people not maintaining their damns and building more stuff in flood planes.
Yes, we're digging up carbon that was once in the atmosphere. However, the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unnaturally fast for the living to adapt to the changes. Also, 99% of the species that lived in the world is now extinct. So do you want us humans to go extinct too because it's natural? Or do we do our best to maintain Earth so that we can live longer in a better environment?
The timespan over which bio-organisms turn into now usable fossil fuel is much greater than the equivalent rate at which we are burning those. So yes, we are pumping CO2 back into the atmosphere, as in we are restoring the ratio ; except that we are much overdoing this, which actually imbalances said ratio the other way around.
Basically, we are burning more fossil fuel than is able to naturally generate.
#3 is over 100% of warming is attributed to us releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. If CO2 levels stayed at the 280ppm before the industrial revolution we would currently be in a period of cooling rather than warming.
I set this task to a group of my Level 3 BTEC Applied Science students, because I know that it is not as simple a question as the public believe. I reckon over 99% of people who vehemently believe in anthropogenic climate change, have absolutely no idea at all what the evidence is, they just know that all the experts are agreed. Not one single student came up with the evidence, even when later prompted as to what I was looking for. Rather they just came back with rising CO2 levels coinciding with increased industrial activity, and similar information to your initial searches.
Except… all the “experts” absolutely do not agree.
@@chingron Just the ones who aren't paid off by big carbon.
You would have to conduct controlled prospective experiments on whole close Earth analog planets with large surface oceans to accurately determine the climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The effects are highly dependent upon the initial conditions. If the initial mean surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are suboptimal for plant growth, then raising them is actually beneficial.
@@johngeier8692 for plants yes but what about the unwanted consequences? I find it extremely ignorant for people to say in isolation that increasing CO2 is good for plants. They think they have a gotcha when they are only harping on one side of the story.
Except global warming is not relevant for overall trends toward cooling historically, which is a bigger threat than any warming ever would be. A single super volcano which we are overdue for would plunge us into global winter or a single large enough asteroid. We are concerned about the wrong things. A carbon tax is a ponzi scheme for rich elites and would od nothing but green washing. Electric vehicles do nothing to help green energy because of refusal to use nuclear energy, which is safe, reliable, and ultimate future of energy, but stopped by interest groups and environmental nut jobs.
Never let a crisis go to waste is what you need to know.
Well summed up.
A government manufactured crisis!
To consolidate power and control and take the individuals ability to choose how to spend their money (relentless taxation)leaving fewer and fewer dollars in the hands of those who earned them and transferred to the government!
@@ArcanePath360 Arguments are just removed not repudiated.
Thousands of research studies and 40+ years of quite accurate climate models prove that the climate crisis is real, lethal, urgent and that our emissions caused ~98% of all global warming since 1900.
@@BrinJay-s4v You think it's a YT bot or Sabine? XD
It remains an inconvenient historic truth that our planet has been through many ice ages, while CO2 was higher than today.
I hope, for your sake, that you realize that your observation there is absolutely irrelevant to the scientific finding that human actions - mostly our CO2 emissions - are causing a dramatic global warming. If you think you've produced a defeater of what climate science has found, then you aren't "thinking" at all.
What did fauna and flora look like in these days?
@@jollyjokress3852 Frosty
And ironically -- in light of the overblown hysteria -- we currently live in an *_Ice Age,_* AND the Holocene is NOT the warmest interglacial of the Pleistocene.
Gore's "inconvenient" film tricks many people with correlation but wrong causation. The lack of skyrocketing temperature -- CO2 leaving temperature far, far behind -- suggests that CO2 is wimpy, at best.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
it's another inconvenient truth that more die from cold than from heat. And a further one that the 25,000 per day that die of starvation and its related diseases, is a far bigger number than even the worst AGW estimates predict, and could be solved with a far smaller budget..... not to mention that the increased CO2 increases crop yields... it is almost as though they want to end lives, not save them...
Carbon from plants going into the atmosphere is not solely from fossil fuels but also from soil carbon being lost due to forests and other land being cleared for farming. Still human caused but not just fossil fuels.
Since C14 is almost non-existent in fossil fuel given it's short half life, this alters the ratios significantly (though, the nuclear test stuff I hadn't heard of before) when it's being pumped into the atmosphere. I'm not sure what you mean by soil carbon lost - it shouldn't affect the levels of CO2 unless you mean via microbial action, but even then, when you consider the total biomass in a system and a relatively stable bio-decay rate, there shouldn't be a net increase in CO2 in the system. That said, as the temperature increases, the bio-decay rate will also increase. (I'm using "bio-decay" instead of "decay" to not confuse it with nuclear decay) When deforestation happens, it removes nature's natural CO2 absorbers, however, over a greater time span, there still won't be a net increase in CO2 from this (the wood from trees, eventually decays and any CO2 captured is re-released). The takeaway from this is to stop burning organic compounds trapped in the ground over geologic time scales.
So net zero is just pointless designed to push us into poverty, while the big corporations carry on this behaviour right?.
@@davestorm6718the takeaway is more nuclear and to stop de forestation and plant trees. Net zero just seems tokenism while we are letting governments and corporations carry on doing this. The biggest countries who pump co2 into the air are China, Russia and America... China is trying to offset some of their emissions, but really fundamentally I don't see America or Russia giving a fk.
Good thinking, but i think the effect is minor, due to we burn way more fossil fuel than taken down trees.
MinutePhysics video once talk about the carbon we throw into atmosphere per year is 100x of total mass in biosphere.
th-cam.com/video/SD9yVca6hHI/w-d-xo.html
@@fakestory1753 Sorry but that is not even close to being true. For the atmosphere: current CO2 = 3,200 gigatons approx. CO2 emitted by humans since 1850 = 2,400 gigatons approx. Emissions last year approx 40 gigatonnes. Biosphere breathing effect: 436 gigatonnes per year. I struggled to find a good source for total biosphere carbon but its enormous relative to above figures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20estimated%20that,over%2040%20gigatons%20per%20year.
This point about the carbon isotope ratios was completely new to me - great information! I did not expect to really learn something new from the video but yet again I did.
There's always more things to learn! Like sea levels rose 400 feet over the last 20,000 years.
I commented on it in the previous video. We verify the ratio in the atmosphere using tree rings
I've been telling people this for a while (since it's not a well known fact) - and it's such a damning piece of evidence.
Anyone realize global cooling is more a threat than warming? An ice age is easier and more likely than a runaway greenhouse effect. Historically, ice ages and global winters were more devastating than warming periods for life on earth aside from few notable exceptions. Cold is the enemy not warmth.
For me the thing about Stratospheric cooling was new to me
Just a genuine question, where have sea levels risen? I haven't seen anything on the news. Have any low lying islands or countries been swamped?
Worldwide.
The Gulf of Mexico is strongly affected.
If you watch Fox News, you'll hear nothing because they think it's a hoax. Then again Fox owner Rupert Murdoch co-owns a fossil fuel company, Genie Energy, and sits on their board. Can you connect the dots?
In fact, sea level has risen 4.37 inches since 1993, and its rate of rise has doubled, according to NASA. According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen an astounding 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. Last January Maine suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages. Louisiana and New York are spending a combined $100 billion to mitgate the problem. The Maldives, meanwhile, are spending half of their national budget on rsising their islands with sediment dredged from the sea floor. They've already lost over 90% of their fresh water sources due to salt water intrusion. Odisha State in India reports losing no less than 16 coastal villages to the rising tide.
No
Globally. Everywhere. It's up >20cm since 1900. And it's accelerating, currently increasing by around 3.6mm per year
i suppose this is why financial elites still invest in coastal homes ... Doi! Dear energetic theory, i want you to meet inscrutable planet
Sabine, I enjoy watching your channel and have learned much. Regarding heat (IR) absorption by C02 at 14.97um: It needs to be clarified that the absorption maximizes out, or is saturated, at low concentrations of C02 (< 100 ppm ) just a few meters from the Earth's surface. That means adding CO2, or 'carbon,' to the atmosphere is not going to increase the amount of heat that is absorbed at this wavelength. The greenhouse heat by CO2 is already fixed. Other CO2 absorption wavelengths such as near 2, 3, and 4um and the p and r 'sidebands' around the main 14.97 band have negligible contributions to absorption. This is Beer's - Lambert's law, and studies from about 50 years ago by H. Hug using FTIR characterize this effect. Also, Michel van Biezen has a good lecture series on TH-cam that provides detailed data and insights on this topic I am wondering why you or other global warming supporters skip this basic physics fact and proceed to discuss postulated back-end hypotheses that violate the basic premise? Sincerely, Don Kloos, retired chemist.
This inconvenient fact does seem to get overlooked by the castastrophists.
Should be no shocker you have no answer yet... and I doubt you'll get one from Der Propagandist.
Thanks for your comment. Helpful.
Still waiting for Sabine’s answer.
She literally did whole video debunking this moronic nonsense about IR absorption maximzing out th-cam.com/video/oqu5DjzOBF8/w-d-xo.html
This is perfect. I've had that exact problem you described at the start of the video- finding the actual scientific evidence rather than just someone saying it's true.
She just said it was true. She knows better and is lying.
@@jamesmcginn6291 prove to us why we should believe u instead
@@jamesmcginn6291 She did not just say it was true, she explained in some detail how we know it is true.
@@jamesmcginn6291 If you're so sure that she is lying I'm certain you can easily point out which point or points that she mentioned are incorrect and I am sure you can also point us to the relevant scientific literature that supports your claims!
She's literally telling what has been said and asserting it as fact.
I'm just a trade worker, not a scientist and I gave up studying the sciences when I ran into some personal life difficulties that forced me out of college some years ago but your informative and fun videos have made me fall in love with science again. Even though it pains me greatly that I'll likely never be a scientist myself or contribute anything to research I can still enjoy catching up on the progress made by others.
I was a machinist. During my career I invented a modification of the Boeing 777 that made it the safest airliner in history. 1800 flying. No mass fatality accidents in 30 years. An acrylic submarine nose I made is in the opening credits of Star Trek Enterprise. The Atlantis resort is made of many acrylic aquarium panels, and tubes I made. I made the heart of the Large Hadron Collider. Made it 10 times better than expected, and was thanked personally by the engineers. I was told because of my work it effectively increased the power 10 times. Instead of expecting up to 100 years to find the first evidence for the Higgs boson it was expected to take as little as 10 years. It took 8.
In my free time I solved dark matter. It's ordinary matter. I solved global warming. It's not caused by fossil fuel. invented a widely popular 3d stereograph pinup collection. I invented a flying car system in conjunction with a city architectural technology never seen before. Buildings, and cars float in an oxygen, and Sulphur hexafluoride gas mix in a domed city. I designed a electric catapult space launcher that's much more practical, and economical to build, and operate than any other design, and I solved the landing problem of SpaceX. Increase roll authority to minimize roll. Eliminated nearly all crashing, reduced fuel required, and increased payload by several hundred pounds.
You can still contribute. There's a lot of low hanging fruit of problems to be solved, and inventions needed to solve them.
@@dpsamu2000 Agreed. I'm currently working on a way to teach accomplished machinists humility online
@@SnackPatrol How's that workin' out for you? Loser.
@@dpsamu2000 Laughing my bolls off. Well executed.
@@MuffinologyTrainer Too bad nobody else gets to see it. Some loser deleted it as usual.
Thanks!
A good summary Sabine. All of this is uncontroversial i.e. most skeptics agree that CO2 is rising and the additional CO2 derives from fossil fuels. The controversy is about what happens in the future. How much temperature rise would a doubling of CO2 cause and how does this factor alongside the natural temperature cycles? Would this on balance be a bad thing or a good thing and what we should do to mitigate any negative effects? It’s about feedbacks, particularly whether the CO2 rise drives an increase in water vapour in the atmosphere and whether or not the models provide a reliable forecast of future temperatures. This is a lot more complex.
definitely a bad thing ... seen the floods ? then there are increased temperatures when its not raining .Then you can also get steam bath conditions . If the temperature reaches 35C and 100% humidity then humans cannot ..repeat .. cannot survive ...because we cannot release body heat and so like a car engine without a radiator we overheat and die . A medical FACT not a climate science fact . And that has nearly happened a few times recently ..This is why there are climate refugees ...even internally displaced climate refugees
This.
Ugh, just stop. You guys were wrong before about climate change not happening, and you’re wrong now about it being a good thing or stopping it being impractical or whatever flavor of denialism you prefer. Don’t you guys ever get tired of being wrong? I’m gonna drop a fat “i told you so” now, and maybe in another ten years I’ll see you in the comments again and I can drop another one. Lying stupid assholes who aren’t willing to make any sacrifice for the greater good. Ten years dude 👀🫵
water vapor concentration in the atmosphere is directly related to temperature, so while other greenhouse gases have a much smaller impact, they increase the concentration of water vapor, accelerating the warming effect. other greenhouse gases removed, water vapor would be stable.
The issue is CO2's saturation point doesn't allow any more heating once it's reached. And we've already pretty much reached CO2s max saturation point when it comes to heating.
As it stands, we're much closer to having too little CO2 than too much.
Fantastic synopsis. Extra credit for not making it 20 minutes longer than needed or ranting and postulating. Much appreciated.
Except she "forgot" that the Milankovitch Cycles are the primary driver of the Earth's temperature changes, as agreed by Climatologists. One has to pretend they magically went away in order to blame man for the temp rise.
"Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."
science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Watch "a climate conversation" and then think about this topic again when you see the true data
@@7x779 The true data is that whether you use the less trustworthy/useful raw weather data or use the adjusted climate record, humans are not just rapidly warming the planet, we are doing so at a lethally-fast pace.
My uncle came back to me. He still thinks it’s a hoax 😂
Because it's unmanly to change your opinions based on what someone else tells you. Especially if it's a woman 🙄 What a goddamn doofus.
He is right you only have to look at historical data from millions of years of CO2 levels and temperature and you will notice that they dont follow each other. You know when we had dinosaurs the temperature was way way warmer then now and the planet was much greener.
@@tomtetomtesson2477 yes, it probably was warmer. But the rate of change wasn't nearly as high as now. Also, why do you think a climate that's good for dinosaurs is good for humans?
The whole point of action against climate change is to keep our atmosphere livable for humans, not dinosaurs. Also, the heat isn't gonna be the thing that kills us, the aftereffects will. And even then, not all of humanity will die, only the less fortunate.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 Did I say its good for the humans? We are no where near 12 degrees but telling the most adaptive primate on earth that we are doomed over a couple of degrees global warming (which we also aint nowhere near) is just fearmongering. History shows the opposite that when its warmer we thrive better and plants just love more CO2 also which actually has been dangerously low for plants recently but no one wants to tell us that. What scientists can do is to measure the temperature outside of city centers and the tell us how much the earths has become warmer before they start fearmongering. After around 30 wrongly predicted doomsday scenarios the last decades its getting tiresome to listen to another doomsday MODELLING scenario.
@@jonnevaalanti4949 You know that we are in a ice age period right now and no matter what we do we it will get warmer sooner or later anyway and telling us humans cant live under when temperature changes is like saying Africans cant live in colder countries. Colder climate has been proven to be more dangerous than warmer climate historically so why would it be any different now? Never trust a scammer who tries to silence opposite scientific views like the so called consensus on climate. They did the exactly same thing with Covid but they have been doing this for decades with climate. Every single scientist, media or politician who have accepted this kind of behaviour should be fired immediately. The thing with historical data is that it shows that temperature and CO2 level has not been correlating before but suddenly it does?
I am a uncle, and I strongly refute that I am thus prevented from being able to critically assess things that people tell are pure science!
Do yourself a favor and look into the “pure science” methodology and lack of research… settled science is just misogyny.
I think Sabine did a good job demonstrating that the measured increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels and so caused by humans. Did she address the connection between CO2 and climate change? I'm not sure she did. It may be true sea water acidification is an effect of increasing CO2 levels. But its connection to climate change? Drawing correlations to CO2 levels (acidification) does not draw the same correlation to earth temp. increase. Increase in sea level? That is very difficult to measure in part because of the accuracy and precision of the measurement required but also because of the lack of a real baseline. Extreme weather events? I'm not sure about this one but I suspect the correlation between extreme weather and CO2 increase is primarily supported by atmospheric modeling. I don't know, have any of these computer models been validated? Say, by using historical data to predict the present state of the atmosphere? Again, very difficult and a question that should be asked. We do know and have measured with great accuracy and precision the interaction of CO2 and radiation across a broad frequency range in the laboratory. I guess that is a start but I doubt it is the end of the story.
She did though, the evidence pointed out here was Stratospheric cooling, which exactly fits the models of what CO2 does in the upper atmosphere, which suggests the model's predicted effects in the lower atmosphere - which is more complicated to entangle due to it being much more chaotic - are correct.
Given the short-form video, you can't really expect more to presented on that, but there's plenty of such evidence. Effects like the strengthening of El Nino/La Nina and other such weather oscillations driven by temperature have been well documented, as well as comparisons to historical and geological records of extreme weather events. By the way, sea level and global surface temperature measurements have improved enough with satellite technology that the effects are *very* evident even in the short period we have been able to measure them with that level of precision.
Agreed. It wasn’t a good video at all. Definitely won’t convince any uncles.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
@@tomfeng5645It wasn’t a good video, nothing in here would convince a sceptic uncle. Most of the stuff she says here is more like “trust me, bro”, rather than clear, evidence based cause and effect.
Explanation for science illiterates. In science nothing is PROVEN. It's either supported or not supported. There's no "trust me bro" nonsense here. She just presented supporting evidence (as opposed to the crap climate deniers come up with). In that respect, it did what it was supposed to do.
On a long enough time line, the earth is cooling to absolute zero.
You win my award for the most useless comment to the topic that was addressed in the video.
Congratulations!
And, on a much shorter term, you too will be cooling to zero.
but first it's gonna be swallowed by the sun, which will be a considerable warming
I am not sure about it. Is not the sun swallop up earth during it final stages? Than earth would not exist any more after such time. Than earth will never cool to absolute zero.
You are wrong on many levels. Earth will be long gone ( I mean reeeeeally long gone) eons before the average temperature of the Universe reaches anywhere close to that. If it does so. Actually, we have no model for the matter at absolute zero whatsoever. Matter only exists WITHIN movement. If it doesn`t move, no properties can be inferred, by definition. So.... nope !
0:39 the fact that we can’t get a straight answer on this issue without doing a tonne of digging is a problem in itself, especially for those who are on the fence or simply wanting more information to confirm the narrative about climate change. Unfortunately, we tend to get a lot of narrativeand ideology
Starting at 1.22:
1. CO2 absorption spectrum
2. Atmospheric CO2 level
3. Ocean acidification
4. Carbon isotope ratios
5. Stratospheric cooling
And then y'all just lean to "well I guess it's not real!"
The same way we were once told smoking was good for our health.
You can't get a straight answer on a lot of things like this. Also, you can. Like anything, you have to be willing to actually learn how things work or trust that someone else is factually correct and telling the truth. Most of what we "know" is based on trusting other people to tell the truth and to be right about it. If you really started learning about things on your own, you'd start to get the idea that your entire life has been a lie and that nobody has been telling you the truth. There are people with bad intentions who want you to believe certain things. There are people with good intentions who desperately want something to be true.
Like Covid, my uncle doesn't question the existence, he's skeptical of the response
I seem to remember you did another video on why CO2 causes heat trapping, and how it's really quite a non-trivial reason. It might be a good idea to put a link to that video in the info beneath this video, because it goes into a bit more detail on the radiation and trapping.
Good idea, will do!
Yes that video put a whole new meaning to what we are doing. In other words what is really needed is depopulation.
If done in a responsible way which means some will lose out on reproducing then so be it.
@@Vile_Entity_3545 Why do you believe depopulation is a responsible way to counter climate change? I would like to understand your logic behind it. You do know people are a form of carbon sink, don't you? Where would those carbon go if people are depopulated?
Carbon dioxide doesn't trap infored it's to dense and reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate
@@SabineHossenfeldercarbon is more reflective. Venus has a 90% reflection rate and is internally heated. Your thinking of carbon monoxide. Also needs to transfer heat or else it would make things cooler
But my uncle sits at home on his couch sometimes and feels things. Are you sure we're not tunnel visioning on evidence and physics at the danger of disregarding the emotional outbursts of my uncle?
My uncles did their own "research" which involved:
- Ignoring PhD's and other degreed persons as they were "brainwashed by the system".
- Only accepting results that agreed with their preconceived ideas.
You address a real problem and I think it's a difficult one. I think it's human nature not to want to hear that we are causing a catastrophic problem and that we need to change our behavior. Also it unfortunately doesn't hurt that it makes people feel superior when they think they have the truth and the experts are all just lying to them.
Honestly, I don't know how to get through to people like your uncle.
In that case just ask his wife, if she could do you a favor and talk to your uncle on any second day how these emotional outbursts hurt her feelings. She should mention that the stress is such high that she can't do the chores until she calms down and that include 2 hours of intensive talk about her feeling. It is just a shoot in the dark, but i guess it takes less then 14 days before the emotional outbreaks of your uncle disappear like magic.With good connection to the church they might even accept it as a wonder.
It's termed Bias Dismissal
I like Sabine, but this sounds precisely as what she did in her research :). @@davidg4288
UC Davis has had posted on their University website for years a long article about nitrogen in Boreal Forests. They say that past rapid CO2 rises on Earth were sequestered by the Boreal Forests absorbing the CO2 into increased forest growth, naturally sequestered CO2! And the reason the Boreal Forests can do this is because they have excess nitrogen in their soils which the forests can absorb more rapidly than is normally thought to occur in nature and that this phenomenon deserves further study.
Observations show that ocean levels and climate change has fluctuated so much it is reliant on when we pick our climate change points on. Earth temps have changed since the beginning of time. There are far greater things to worry about such as tyrants and totalitarians. We have plenty of time to find alternative energy methods for transportation and manfacturing without shutting down and starving the population. Funny they never point to China's carbon production.
@@kellyfutrell6832 I mean yes tyrants are a problem, but the climate today has one large issue.
Yes there are natural means of compensation. The issue is... humans. Do you want to give up your house to grow a forest there? Like yes vegetation will increase if CO2 levels rise and will absorb a lot of it. Unfortunately the forest area on earth is shrinking, not increasing. The planet can only compensate for the increased CO2 production of humans if we let it. On top of that most of those fluctuations where fairly slow. We currently see changes even just in decades. We do not really know if the mechanisms that worked in the past would be able to work here.
@@kellyfutrell6832this is like saying that because we're about to hit a tree anyway, we might as well hit the accelerator in the car.
@@georgesimon1760 I think it is more appropriate to say:
"there is a tree 60 miles ahead that I might run into in one hour of travel time.
But there are massive sinkholes in the road immediately ahead of me that I should worry about first."
Yes, taking care of our shared home (the planet) is an issue to address.
But the time to real consequences of getting the climate problem wrong are on wildly different time scales than many of our other more present issues.
@@williamrgrant that's just an excuse to do nothing. There's no reason to wait on climate mitigation while we work on other issues.
Interesting that most charts go back to 1980, when 1979 was the coldest year in recent record. If you go back to 1900 when good temperature data existed in the developed countries, what does the warming look like? In the USA where the best temperature data exists, the 1930's appear to be much warmer.
*Interesting that most charts go back to 1980, when 1979 was the coldest year in recent record.*
1965 and 1964 were as cold or colder, so yes, 1979 was a "local minimum", although nothing special looking at the temp record as a whole.
I hope by "interesting" you aren't implying the common - and idiotic - denier claim that there's some attempt at deception. The end of the 1970's was when the satellite temp record became available, so many charts of climate data start around then.
*If you go back to 1900 when good temperature data existed in the developed countries, what does the warming look like?*
There was a fairly sharp cooling for about the first decade of the 20th century, and similarly for the 2nd half of the 1940's, but otherwise it's mostly been a wobbly non-stop rise, especially since the mid-1960's.
Google: data . giss . nasa . gov / gistemp / graphs_v4
and look at the graph under "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change".
*In the USA where the best temperature data exists, the 1930's appear to be much warmer.*
Yes, the contiguous USA warmer in the 1930's than the global temps then (though it was NOT warmer then the recent global & American temps).
From the same link as above there's a graph called "Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States".
@@mathboy8188africa was hotter 1000 years ago 😂
@@Capdub How old are you?
Good job! You seem to be exactly the right person to make this video. I think it's astonishing that you have a bunch of people in the comments who identify themselves as 'that uncle', but instead of angry diatribes, I see people mostly exchanging opinions in a rather calm and civilized manner. With this topic and on this platform that is quite the acomplishment in itself!
These "uncles" gather at Sabine's channel because they, due to their issues, see her as "the one showing the finger to Them", which she isn't. The issues these people have are they are narcissistic and have low amount of knowledge, and that's a deadly combination behind so many antiscience movements today (antivaxxers, flatearth morons, chemtrail idiots, etc.).
Next, watch a video entitled " a climate conversation " so you have a more well-informed balanced perspective
@@7x779 Or Dr John Robson.
Uncle: "Scientists say what their bosses tell them to say.", or "According to scientists in the 1970's, the ocean should be 200 feet higher now".
The scientific community intensely debated the issue of global warming with much back and forth for decades. Global warming caused by humans was accepted as an established fact by the scientific community in 1995.
Nobody said that. Strawman.
According to scientists in the 1970's, we should be heading into an ice age. There are numerous archived articles about it.
"Scientists say what their bosses tell them to say."
unironically this, idk why people think that scientists are immune to taking bribes
and the scientists who actually do science stuff (not just make a paper based on what the real scientists said) are very few and easy to control groups
for example think about the scientist who take ice core sample from Arctic, very few do it and its a group easy to control and bribe but we base a lot of stuff on their research
@@patrickconley2091 Not earlier? I thought it had been established at least by the second half of the 1980s.
Would it be getting warmer even if humams didn't exist? Yes. Is it better for life if it gets warmer or colder? Warmer. The question is, what percentage of the warming are we causing.
The question has been answered, for the changes since 1980.. almost all human, because the things happening without humans doesnt happen within 40 years but within many hundrets of years.
@@georgelionon9050 it's gotten on average 1 degree warmer over the course of 100 years while in an interglacial warming period. We are in an Ice Age. The Altlantic ocean is widening due to continental drift faster than the oceans are rising.
@@merc9nine "on average 1 degree warmer over the course of 100 years" not true, you are missing a zero there.
@@georgelionon9050 you truly believe that it's gotten 10 degrees warmer?
@@merc9nineno 1K change over 1000 years was at most interglacial effects.
Funny how the weather is so much more destructive on the telly screen these days but is exactly the same in my yard as it has been my entire life. Take a walk, people; trust your own senses. The box on the wall is not a faithful representation of reality.
Your yard is not the globe.
@@rps1689 you may be too young to remember the prediction that england would never see snow again after the year 2010.
@@axhed Not a prediction from mainstream climate science.
I'm old enought to remember TV broadcasted in black and white.
IPCC AR6 was released in 2021 and the following are classified as "low confidence" that they have changed significantly in the "modern era" which means from 1850. "Low confidence" means there is little or no evidence they have changed.
The AR6 reference is Table 12.12 regarding “Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)” from Chapter 12 of Working Group 1 of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report,
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions)
Aridity
Avalanche (snow)
Average rain
Average Wind Speed
Coastal Flood
Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought)
Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought)
Erosion of Coastlines
Fire Weather (hot and windy)
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods)
Frost
Hail
Heavy Rain
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms
Landslides
Marine Heatwaves
Ocean Alkalinity
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface
River/Lake Floods
Sand and Dust Storms
Sea Level
Severe Wind Storms
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets
Tropical Cyclones
This is directly from IPCC AR6, and so Sabine many of the things you say proves climate change are contradicted by AR6. Remember this is not my opinion, it is from hundreds of IPCC authors.
However, the summary for policy makers also contradicts much of the above.
120,000 years ago global temperature was 2-4C hotter than today and seas 5-7 Metres higher than today. There was no Arctic ice for at least 1000 years and somehow the planet didt incinerate and polar bears become extinct.
In the dinosaur era, CO2 was 4 times higher than today but the oceans didnt turn into a seathing cauldron of acid.
1000 years ago Vikings farmed parts of Greenland that are permafrost today so we know for a fact it was hotter than today. From 1300 until the late 1800's was the Little Ice Age which was the coldest period in the last 8,000 years. So our current warming cycle is just the planet bouncing out of the LIA and past interglacials show this is perfectly normal.
Global sea level has risen 130 metres since the last ice age 20,000 years ago and tidal gauges with histories of 100 years or more show that sea level has been rising steadily at about 2mm/year and this was recorded as early as 1810 which was before AGC could have made the slightest difference.
The Central England Temperature database started in 1659 and shows that from 1690 to 1730 temperature rose an astounding 1.2C, then dropped and has been been rising sporadically ever since.
Glaciers which had advanced at a rapid rate during the LIA started receding around 1750 which was well before anthopogenic warming could have had the slightest difference.
So Sabine, just parrotting climate cult propaganda is contradicted by history and IPCC AR6.
And that leaves out the question of what should the “correct” temperature should be.
"120,000 years ago global temperature was 2-4C hotter than today"
This is laughably false.
I love how you cite scientists who would all blow your argument out of the water if they were to read it.
@@hrlincoln9873 Maybe not laughably????? From: GROK:
@grok
120,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period known as the Eemian, the global temperature was warmer than it is now. The exact temperature difference is difficult to determine precisely due to the limitations of paleoclimate data, but it is estimated that the average global temperature was around 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 Fahrenheit) higher than it is today.
This warmer climate resulted in sea levels being 4 to 8 meters (13 to 26 feet) higher than present-day levels due to the melting of ice sheets. It is important to note that this period was characterized by a different distribution of solar insolation due to orbital variations, which played a significant role in driving the warmer temperatures.
Quote
@@hrlincoln9873 hahahahahhaaa LAUGHABLY
In my experience, scoffers are almost always wrong
"[carbon 14] is really good for dating organic stuff, tho I'd recommend you leave it at home for the first dinner"
that's hilarious 😂
two (or even three) jokes in one, that's genius! :D
It's not even remotely funny.
@@hime273they are bots trying to legitimise the agenda😂
Dammit. It flew right over my head.
@@DCM8828 I still don't get it
Not so fast Sabine. If you want an excellent summary of the earth's increase in CO2 concentration and how we can prove, with direct measurement, that the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels then this is your video. However Sabine, you very much did a wave of the hand of "How do we know climate change is caused by humans" or more specifically how do we know increased CO2 concentration causes global warming. A few sentences concluding stratospheric cooling is the simple explanation of why increased CO2 increases the earth's temperature doesn't answer with any specificity the relationship between CO2 and global temperature. The prediction of stratospheric cooling in the 1960s done by Manabe & Wertherald is a mathematical model and not a direct measurement. You can watch your previous video on the Green House Effect to get your detailed explanation of stratospheric cooling but there is plenty to debate when you examine the details of stratospheric cooling and the impact of CO2 concentration on global temperature. My point is not to prove or disprove that increased CO2 causes global warming. My point is you described "How we know CO2 change is caused by humans" and not "how we know climate change is caused by humans".
Yes there is a second part missing...
Yup, well said. Catastrophics is not a branch of real science; just ask John Kerry while having dinner with him at Davos. That is, if Bill, George and Klaus will let you get a word in.
There are additional CO2 fingerprints in the warming.
Nighttime temps are increasing faster than daytime temps consistent with additional retention of heat, but not increasing inputs.
Increasing ground level IR in the bands CO2 absorbs, with decreasing IR in those bands observed escaping to space by satellite.
These were predicted based on the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas prior to being observed. The physics of co2 as a greenhouse gas was worked out through observation 150+ years ago.
By Tyndall, Arrhenius, and others.
We also have 50 year old predictions for today's global average temps based on the CO2 emissions scenario as it played out which proves correct, but they didn't just predict THAT it would warm. They predicted precisely how much it would warm. To put that into context Earth hasn't been this warm in 125,000 years. Clearly one of the greatest predictions in the history of earth sciences.
@@revivalcycle Do you think the moon wasn't created in a massive planetary collision? Do you not believe in the Missoula floods?
@@IAMACollectivist What does that have to do with you giving evidence that dead animals make oil? You politicize science. I did not bring up worldviews. I asked for evidence that petroleum can be made from dead animals. Why can you not defend the WEF myth that you advance? Who's payroll are you on?
It's easy to demonstrate that CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels does in fact warm the planet. However, it's harder to say by how much exactly since estimating the influence of climate feedbacks is difficult.
I would love to see you go into detail about Climate Sensitivity, how it is calculated, and some of the current estimates for its value.
This is where looking at stratospheric cooling comes into play - this effect seems to only be the result of CO2 and we can measure it as a point of comparison.
@@robnotwicz7002 "this effect only SEEMS to be the result of CO2" -trust us bros, because we really need that to be true so only certain people can drive cars and fly on private jets
Climate science can be both easy to understand and hard to understand but it is correct
There is a good paper by Hanson and others from November 2023 on this. It is publicly available.
As parts of the earth heats up during the summers, doesn't that cause increases in cloud coverage and rain in many of those areas? Can you imagine trying to accurately measure that seasonal change in every single spot in the atmosphere and then mathematically model it? Now add in the earth's wobble, rotation, poler shifting, and the effects of geo electromagnetism from the sun and our own core, just to name a few, and take a wild-ass guess at the average annual earth's temp. It's obviously much easier to just run the wild-ass guess formulas on the computer until it comes up with the numbers you're looking for. Then have your buds peer review your conclusions. How would you even determine the potential statistical errors? Wants you start even asking some basic questions, of the government's alleged "experts" their absolutist claims start looking foolish.
I planted a tree 🌳 so I did my part. You're welcome 😊
Accepting what you say which I definitely do, how then do we account for climate change in the past - i.e. since the end of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of our 'civilistation'? Glaciologists, dendrologists, geographers, historians, archaelogists, etc all concur in there being quite significant variations - for example, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period' or the 'Little Ice Agent' which followed it. I have never heard an explanation of why these past variations have happened.....it would be great if you could explain! I have total faith in you Sabine to explain all things scientific that interest me.......if only you had been around when I was a kid!
'Little Ice Agent' lol.
Those darn little ice agents 🤣
You must have Google Gboard..
Unfortunately Dr. H., whine I love dearly, neglected to address other factors that can contribute to warming of the lower troposphere and cooling of the upper atmosphere:
1) increased water vapor, which has an even greater effect than CO2,
2) changes in global cloud cover,
3) changes in solar activity, meaning sunspot and coronal mass ejection activity, not solar irradiance,
4) natural cyclic fluctuations in ocean currents having periods from decadal, to multi-decadal, to century, and even millennium and longer,
5) and even changes in cosmic radiation.
The UN IPCC’s climate model regime has been repeatedly falsified; repeatedly shown to run to warm, about double what has been credibly observed (you know, actual science).
The good doctor is out of her wheelhouse. Climate is a massively complex chaotic system. It’s not enough to show that hydrocarbon fuels are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; one must also show that the extra 0.0001 portion by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of not just warming, but dangerous warming.
The best measure of reality is to look as changes in sea level as registered by paleo geological science and by tide gage records. Do not make the mistake of combining or concatenation either with satellite derived sea level. They are not the same measurement, and the satellite derived data is HIGHLY manipulated, unlike paleo geology and tide gage records. When you do that, you’ll find no acceleration or unusual rate of increase in sea level.
You can also observe the polar ice, both ocean and land borne. We have written records going back over a century for that. And we have ice core proxy records from both a Greenland/Arctic’s glacier, and an Antarctic glacier What we’ve observed recently is nothing new.
The data doesn’t lie, but government bureaucratic scientists do.
We CAN account for climate change in the past. That doesn't mean that currently it's the same causes.
we do have a pretty good idea what caused some of those climate events, the problem is, as always, there are too many variables, and one or all of them could be the responsible for those events. the difference with anthropogenic climate change is that we have a pretty good idea of all the other variables for global average temperature increase, and the only one that aligns neatly is the CO2 released by humans.
Next, I would like to see a video that looks at how and why and when the narrative changed over time. When I was young, we were all being warned of a coming ice age. Why was that? If if the scientists were wrong about that, why were they wrong, and how did they happen to incorrectly reach that consensus?
I remember this 30 years ago: The coming ice age then they switched to heating. As if they need a global catastroph to push through the world government..
@@peterlustig8778 Now we have the warmest whatever on TV while freezing off our ass in a cold wet winter-spring.
The narrative never changed. This very idea that "the narrative changed" itself is a modern invention put out by climate change deniers to just discredit scientists and this so called "consensus" about global temperatures falling in the future was not a real thing at the time in the 60s-70s like these people say it was.
The actual reality was that even in the 60s and 70s it was clear beyond dispute that greenhouse gases we emit will lead to global warming. This is was already well understood and accepted by the relevant scientists in the 60s. What happened is that there was a separate, unrelated question about the net global effects of putting so much aerosolized materials into the atmosphere and what effect this specific increase in aerosolized particles would cause. And, reasonably, it was thought that the net effect would be a cooling one as light from the sun is reflected away more by the increase in aerosolized particles in the atmosphere.
And it was correct. But that was an entirely different question. Their was indeed a very small cooling effect, BUT that has nothing to do with the warming caused by the greenhouse effect, which obviously way way overwhelms any cooling effect so the net effect together is still perfectly consistent with temps rising overall.
So there was no conflict, no "change of narrative". They were two related things, and scientists were correct about both... both in the 60s and now. There is no contradiction, no "change".
You just heard that somewhere and so assumed it was true, because it's a common made up talking point made by people trying to discredit climate scientists. But it's based on nothing real. There was no "change in narrative". There was no change at all. Its been consistent the whole time. What you need to do now, is realize how many other climate change talking points you've just accepted just as easily are also based on nothing/misunderstandings/outright lies.
@@clray123 warmest since 1913 means it was cooler between 1913 and now. So many are unable to understand this.
It's all driven by political and economic vested interests.
There is no genuine science involved.
The end.
Why was the climate warming before humans raised co2 levels?
sshhhh! you'll stop the money train.
Because the earth was recovering from the Little Ice Age. I don't think scientists dispute that the earth has natural slow periodic weather changes. Just because there is a natural warming trend does not mean that AGC could be making things worse. The question is to what extent and what should we attempt to do to mitigate external forcings?
It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existence of humanity. These cycles show that CO2 has always lagged temp changes, at least for the last several hundred thousand years. They are accepted scientific fact and have been proven true repeatedly over the last 100 years, with every prediction matching reality. The climate faithful always "forget" to mention these cycles.
@@littlefish9305Make your checks payable to John Kerry and Al Gore !!!
It is, but way slower
My uncle is greatly relieved that the USA has rejoined the Paris Climate Accord. He’s been able to get off his blood pressure and sleep aide medication since we did. Prior to that he was so stressed out that the world was going to end in 12 years. He’s resting easy now! He also is doing his part by becoming a vegetarian to cut down on cattle flatulence and the damage its methane is causing throughout the globe.
So happy for your uncle!
@@JeffBetkerThank you, appreciate it! We at least can find some comfort in knowing my uncle feels better, since anyone who really knows what’s in the climate accord would realize the world isn’t getting anything else out of it!!
Vegan!!
Great comment
WOW - this is a level of insanity I didn't know existed.
When I saw the headline, I was sure the comments would have been turned off.
Then how are you making this coment
@@definitlynotbenlente7671 Do you understand English? English is my 2nd language and I completely understood what Mike wanted to say.
And, do you live in our world or under a stone? It's a common habit to turn off comments when it comes to topics that only allow for "one correct" opinion. And this topic is such one.
@@bjornna7767 she almost never disables the coments on there video and mabey hard for you to understand but not every thing you dislike is propaganda to controll you
Check out my comment. I debunked her nonsense with facts!
@@bjornna7767 I think you understand science as well as English.
TBH I never heard that carbon isotope explanation before, and this is both a great scientific evidence and a easy one to understand. Thanks Sabine for exposing it in such a didactic way.
My uncle says her isotope correlation is unsubstantiated.
John replied about how the isotope correlation is unsubstantiated. Which is correct but I dont think is helpful So let me try to explain
C12 is the Carbon in the CO2 we exhale, as well as the CO2 that plants use, and that fossil fuels produce.
C14 is radioactive and there are small amounts of it on the planet which lest us do carbon dating of ancient items.
C13 was produced by the testing and use of atomic weapons 80 to 90 years ago. We dont know if there was a baseline of C13 before that so it could have been 0 before we started using atomic weapons.
Measurements of the ratio of C12 and C13 in CO2 show C13 declining over the last 50 years. This could be because we are producing more CO2 or it could be because it was created 80 to 90 years ago and is slowly working its way out of the atmosphere. We don't know for sure.
@@GrandpasPlace C14 is the isotope created from nuclear bomb tests, not C13
@@GrandpasPlace further to that plants do use C13, the utilisation differs whether it is a C3 (wet and cool type plant) or a C4 (are dry hot climate type plant). This is well known even in anthropology where they test ancient collagen for what types of plants the creatures ate or in the case of carnivores what the animals they ate did eat.
A decline could be described as going down if plants of the type most likely to take in C13 also increase as was shown by NASA satellites showing a vast greening of the planet.... largely by C4 types of plants.
The acidification aspect was equally dismal. You have three states, Acidic (Below 7) Neutral (7) and Alkaline (above 7) so if you move from one state towards the other without crossing Neutral it is Neutralisation. Seawater is generally around 8.1ph (alkaline) and the amount of CO2 to neutralise it from 8.1 to 8 is staggeringly large and with each subsequent change is larger than the last meaning it is logarithmic (about 10 times) so to change from 8.1 to 7.8 would be about 110 times more than 8.1 to 8.0 and we are taking about changes in the error bands here so nothing to see with this anyway. Another aspect is that the ocean is outgassing CO2 meaning there is less because temperature also plays a part in this, the ph can change purely from temperature in this case.
Also if CO2 was the driver it would not follow the temperature record by 800-1200 years in the proxy records...
@@GrandpasPlaceWhat about the influence of forestry and forest fires?
This was quite interesting for such a short video. I was aware we could tell the CO2 was from burning fossil fuels, but I didn't know exactly why.
Also hadn't heard of Stratospheric Cooling
didnt you learn in school that CO2 is plant food ? essential for photosynthesis? earth at its greenest was above 2000 ppm right now its 400 ppm ,Dunning Kruger cant science
There is also the masking of warming by "global dimming" [cooling] by atmospheric particulates. That's a thing, and a changing thing.
Have you heard of geoengineering and HAARP?
@@kenwoodburn7438 or stratospheric aerosol injection ?these folks will limit their breathing to save themselves from dangerous CO2 😂 the same CO2 thats pumped into greenhouses to maximise yields and save water .These people forgot what they were taught school that CO2 is essential for photosynthesis.
@@kenwoodburn7438- Geoengineering has been used for decades to create weather extremes that can then be falsely ascribed to fossil fuel emissions. The agenda behind the weaponization of geoengineering is as obvious as it is frightning, and of course Sabine doesn't have a clue about it, being the poorly informed climate alarmist that she has become.
It's really disappointing that she seems so ignorant about the sinister climate change agenda and its well-documented history. I guess it is time for me to unsubscribe from this channel.
This is so incredibly clear. Thanks Sabine. It's sad that this is probably only going to be watched by people who already know this (albeit maybe without this clarity).
I don't understand why no one talks about all the trees that have been cut down for shopping centers, more housing, and parking lots. Growing up I lived an area with lots and lots of trees. We had lots of undeveloped land with trees. I still live in the same area but more than 80% of the trees are gone. They have been replaced with abandoned shopping centers. They build a shopping center and then a few years later they build a new shopping center nearby. The merchants abandoned the old shopping center in favor of the nearby new one and the cycle continues. They don't go back to the abandoned areas and redo them, instead they just devour untouched land. This has also caused flooding as the water they used to go into the ground must now be handled by the sewer system which was never designed for the increased load. I have kept the trees in the back of my house but in many of the houses in my area they have taken down the trees because the people under 40 do not like to rake leaves in the fall. No trees = No leaves to deal with. Unless I have been liked to all the years in school, trees used to take in CO2 and give off O2. I say take down some of those abandoned shopping centers and plant trees there instead.
The Earth has more trees now than 100 years ago. Look into it: The Greening of Earth.
Yeah. Where I live in the Northeast US, the region has over 95% reforested in the 100 years. This is largely the result of farms leaving for the Midwest.
@@jehl1963 but the Amazon has less…
@@donnasummer6285the planet overall has more, we are talking about a global phenomenon are we not?
Trees are the best method for carbon capture.
I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ago. Even if we are one or two degrees off, it changes everything by an order of magnitude. I'm sure we can get a 'reasonable' idea but we've only been measuring weather quite recently. Also, many have criticized how many temperatures are taken in cities instead of the countryside - where cities are usually a degree or two warmer due to concrete, etc. I'm not saying cliimate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans, but I really question how accurate we can get with this.
"I have doubts about how accurately we can measure temperature and 'extreme weather events' from 500, 1000, 5000 years ..."
==
Did you watch the video?
Which part you didn't understand?
@@allgoo196 It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existance of humanity. So that brings in the only question that really matters. What percentage of the warming is caused by humans and what percentage by the Milankovitch cycles? Is it 1%, in which nothing we do will matter? Or is it 99% in which even small changes will make a big difference?
This is something no one seems to be able to figure out, yet it is the most important part.
@@cybrsage
" It is established science that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless....."
==
Link?
Do you have one?
@@allgoo1990 Yeppers, here you go, from NASA. I have also linked to a simplified graph showing that CO2 increases have always lagged temperature increases. Forgive the extra writing on it, I could not find one stretched out wide enough to show that on increase in CO2 is due to warming of the Earth, and that a cooling of the Earth always preceded a decrease in CO2. The orbit and rotation of the Earth are primary drivers in the temp of the Earth which is the primary driver of the Earth releasing CO2 when it gets hotter and absorbing it when it gets cooler.
jimdo-storage.freetls.fastly.net/image/272748462/2ad28bb9-bea9-401f-865b-730f7e68e06c.jpg
From NASA
" In 1976, a study in the journal Science by Hays et al. using deep-sea sediment cores found that Milankovitch cycles correspond with periods of major climate change over the past 450,000 years, with Ice Ages occurring when Earth was undergoing different stages of orbital variation.
Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitch’s work, including research using data from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."
science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
@@allgoo1990 my post appears to have vanished. I will recreate it.
I see a lot of complaints about "smoothed" observation data. Maybe a video comparing raw to adjusted data and discussing the adjustments would be helpful. BTW this was a great summary without a wasted word.
Good luck with that.
Smoothing is just taking a moving average, isn't it?
Perhaps you're talking about homogenisation. The placement of meteorological stations isn't the same over time, some are shut down, and some new ones are installed. So a continuous curve has to merge time series.
What percent of global warming is caused by human activity? Couldn’t it be that global warming is caused by both human and natural causes? How can one be confident that the majority of warming is caused by fossil fuels?
@@stuartkim4857 That has been quantified to between 80% and 120% of the warming since the last half of the 19th century, if I remember correctly. I don't have the reference in my head, but I remember Simon Clark discussing such a quantification or attribution in one of his videos.
@@stuartkim4857 Fossil fuels, land use change and livestock. Rice paddies and ruminants emit methane. Deforestation releases CO2.
All you have demonstrated is a narrow time frame of the increase of CO2 but then jump to a conclusion that ‘this must be the culprit of climate change’ the problem you have is one of logic, causation and correlation. Previous warm and cold periods are a matter of record, but industry and humans were not involved, so?
On the societal level, never were so many controlled (obey you climate denier!) and impoverished by the few (WEF / Ruling Class) with so little (truth) to make so much money and concentration of power. Genius!
Nobody claims these past changes were caused by humans...
That is like saying animals were killed long before humwns existed, therefore they cannot be resposible of animal killings now.
We know what is causing the warming. The physics involved are known for over 150 years.
@@old-pete You're already misled by thinking you know there is warming. The data has been falsified. The original US temperature record shows no such trend, until "adjustments" made by NASA/NOAA in the later decades of the 20th century.
The same goes for proxy data going back thousands of years. The original analysis of that data shows no such alarming trend. That's why Michael Mann had to fudge the data to produce a hockey stick at the end.
So no, the fuels God gave us to heat our homes and improve our lives aren't killing us all. But governments / billionaires surely will if you allow them to control you with their lies.
@@destroya3303The are hundreds of meterological organisations with data that is checked by tenthousands of people. And I experienced myself how the climate changed over time.
If you believe in fuel gods, then the fossil fuel industry succeded in brainwashing you.
You expected Google to answer your question 😂
nowadays google isn't helping anymore 😔
@@everluck35 nowawdays? try 20 years.
Not without the misdirect to an advertisement.
This is more disturbing than funny. She's never strayed from her lane apparently.
Google is an advert spamming site for various billionaires and wef.
Fun fact: In 1976 Vangelis released the album Albedo 0.39. The albedo is the fraction of light that a surface reflects, and back then that's what the earth's albedo was. As of today, that figure has fallen to about 0.30 which is a pretty big change in less than 50 years!
One of the first albums I ever bought - still love it.
Didn’t realize that albedo had changed that much in 40 years. Now I have to check on the other terms. What’s going on with the obliquity of the ecliptic?
After 5 minutes of googling, I think Vangelis used a wrong value. The current estimate is 0.30 but it hasn't moved at all during last 10 years.
@@Milan_Openfeint it really is a bad measurement, from what I can find online, albedo has decreased by around 0.05 since 1850, and only about 0.02 since the 80's with more accurate measurements, maybe the 0.39 comes from a different way of taking measurements that have not been accordingly modified
lol what the fuck kind of credit does a musician have in making that assessment?
just defer everything to everyone and never question it... lol
Time to talk about the greening of Africa. Geologic evidence shows normal CO2 levers are usually 600 - 1200 ppm
that would be when humans weren't around ? I wonder why
there is no such a thing as "normal CO2 levels", it changed widely throughout earth's history. the problem is that we adapted to the earth we live right now, and changing it, specially this fast, could have dire consequences.
or might not@@danilooliveira6580
What were sea levels when CO2 levels were that high? Would it suit 8 billion people?
Historical records of temperature and atmospheric CO2 correlate in a cyclical pattern. We broke the cycle. The data are literally off the charts.
All the data I've seen is that sometimes temperature rises before CO2 rises and sometimes before. How does that make any sense.
Source?
@@jonedmondo8806 We have caused a rise in c02. Because obviously in the proccess of burning fossil fuels you produce c02. So even if the natural cycle at the moment was producing more c02 we would still be producing a ton on top of that
NASA also says that planetary warming can be seen in EVERY planet in our solar system, except for Mercury, which is too close to notice any changes....so how does human generated CO2 affect all the other planets?!
There were some studies from the early 2000's that claimed to identify evidence of climate change on Mars, however they were found to be localized weather events. Since that point no evidence has come to light that Mars is in a warming cycle. I tried to identify any other evidnce that you claim about every other planet, but haven't been able to find any studies or even random reports about this claim. If you have another source that purports this, I would love to see it.
Climate is probably the most complex phenomenon we study outside of biology - although in some aspects you could argue it is even more complicated than biology. The only thing that is certain is we don’t know much about what’s happening with the climate and why. Anyone who tells you we understand it or says the science is settled has certainly bought into an ideology.
Climate and biology are both so intertwined with carbon that the distinction between them is futile .
Maybe machine learning can help us understand the climate better.
Bless your heart, child.
Yes, science is never settled. However, it can make predictions to test hypothesis and if 2+2=4 then that is more useful than contrarian rhetoric or better science that has not refuted the overall understanding we have of climate.
@@ricinro Well that’s just the point. Our climate models are trash at making useful predictions about the climate. Check out John Christy’s work at Alabama, Huntsville.
Ok, now do "How do we know warmer weather is bad?"
have you ever heard about agriculture ?
@@nicejungledo you have evidence warmer temperatures are bad for agriculture?
@@senorjp21
have you ever heard that growing plants need water ?
@@nicejungle do you have evidence that warmer temperatures cause drought?
@@senorjp21 lol
Have you ever heard about evaporation ? 😂
Alright so, it's carbon dioxide. Was there any part of your findings that showed that the oceans emissions may be significant in comparison to humans?
Also, CO2 is 0.O4% of the atmosphere; that's the size of a football left on a rugby field. Little impact?
Also, plant death occurs at 0.015 ppm CO2, usually during ice ages in which we are in one and having a slight warning spell. I vote for a larger buffer to supply food for the current world population than have a shortage during the next cycle of freezing check your iceage cycles and frequency viewers.
Finally on that point, plants thrive in a higher CO2 environment, animal life and humans therefore do too! Actual greenhouse growers USE CO2 to increase the strength, size and vitality of their plants. CO2 is plant food. Photosynthesis 101: CO2 + water + sunlight = Celulose the building block of plants which animals and ourselves eat. CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is not a villain. CO2 is LIFE. We are a carbon life form and we use CO2 to eat.
Yes, actual pollutants come with this fuel source but with the help of the powerful base load energy of fossil fuels themselves we smart humans are reducing these pollutants.
NASA tells us that the earth has greened 15% in as many years. That's good. Good for agriculture, feeds more of the worlds people.
The world continually goes thru cycles of CO2 absorption and emission, as warming and cooling occurs due to the Melancovic cycles (that's a beauty) notably from the oceans (do the research here) and not necessarily from man (there have been larger variations and levels of CO2 even before man's 2nd industrial revolution got started in the 1800s).
Turn around and look from a different perspective. Break free of the doomers and gloomers. Breathe the air don't be afraid of it
Plus, freezing is a far greater killer than warming x 4 times.
Who wants some CO2?
The ocean today is a net ABSORBER of CO2, not a net emitter. With a bit more warming, however, that will reverse. That's when we'll really be in trouble.
0.04%? Yes. Understand the physics. In the atmosphere, CO2 molecules act like crazed pinballs. They're constantly crashing into other molecules and exchanging their heat (absorbed from longwave radiation rising from the surface) in all directions, including back toward earth. CO2 doesn't need to fill every micron of space because its constant exchange of heat fills the gaps between molecules, creating the greenhouse effect. Spectroscopic analysis clearly shows us more heat returning to earth at the wavelengths CO2 traps and less heat leaving earth at the wavelengths CO2 traps, so we know it's happening.
Think of how a single drop of ink can permeate an entire glass of water with color. The drop is a fraction of the liquid volume, yet the power of diffusion allows it to penetrate and pervade every inch of the glass. Think of CO2's heat distribution the same way.
In order to bring down CO2 to dangerous levels, we would have to eliminate 8 billion humans burning up gigatons of resources every year. We'd have to shut off all of the volcanoes, all of the wldfires and prevent the deaths and rotting processes of trillions of living organisms. There isn't the slightest chance that any of that is going to happen.
For the 800,000 years leading up to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 never got above 300ppm and mostly hovered around 250ppm. The planet didn't die. This is the time when megafauna like mammoths and mastadons thrived and humans evolved. Beware of fossil fuel industry scare stories that try to convince you that we're somehow in mortal danger from low CO2. We're not.
The next reglaciation isn't due for 50,000 years. You really mustn't lose sleep over it.
High CO2 actually depletes staple crops like wheat, rice, potatoes and soybeans of their zinc, iron and protein content, making them less nutritious for human consumption. We literally have to eat more of them to get the same nutritional value, thus cancelling out any extra growth from CO2. (The CO2 dilutes the nutrient content with extra sugar, by the way.) It's the same for pastureland forage, forcing cattle to eat more of it to get the same nutrition.
While high CO2 is great for making pot plants and flowers in a greenhouse more lush, it's an entirely different story in the outside world. In the outside world, the warming that accompanies rising CO2 increases crop-decimating heatwaves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and wildfires. Crop losses due to heatwaves and drought have TRIPLED across Europe in the last fifty years, according to a study in Environmental Research Letters. Farm productivity, in fact, is 21% LOWER than it would otherwise be without the extra warming, according to Cornell University.
Luckily industrial farming has kept us ahead of the losses, but it has come at the cost of small farms, which are falling like dominoes worldwide because they can no longer afford crop insurance to protect against those growing losses.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Curt officially ruled that CO2 is indeed a pollutant. That's because in EXCESS, it can cause all kinds of environmental damage.
All three Milankovitch Cycles have been in cooling phases for thousands of years. We're supposed to be cooling, by roughly 0.08C per thousand years, a temperture drop that began about 6500 years ago and continued right up until the Industrial Revolution, when our emissions overwhelmed those much weaker cycles.
Today a lot of people think the weather is crazy but they haven't been alive for the storms we had in 1938 and in the early 1950s. The weather moderated after 1980 and it's been relatively calm since.
Interesting.
I live on by Nepean River and there has been this historical sign from 1921 about a giant flood that reach the level of the sign.
It's so far up the bank I would think it's impossible for the water to reach so far, it would flood half, if not all the city. Anyway that flood was 100 years ago and the river level has never been near it since....
Then between 2018 and 2022 that sign has been under water 3 times. Once in 100 year floods became almost annual events.
or the great Dust Bowl. Some estimates find that weather in US was most extreme in the 1930's. And how can we measure 'extreme weather' from 1000 years ago?
Now go and look at graphs, made from ice-samples which show the atmosphere from over 1000's of years. You should see a flat line in CO2 and temperature, then a sharp up-shift about 150 years ago. But instead, you see massive up-shifts, then down-shifts in every time in history. What we have seen since the industrial revolution, is a massive reduction in deaths from climate related events and a greening of the Earth.
Yes, and the upshift# and downshifts in CO2 follow temperatures rather than the other way around.
The reduction in deaths since the industrial revolution has nothing to do with atmospheric physics and the warming effect of CO2.
An interesting theme occurs in these graphs and charts and numbers. Climate (temp) is usually measured with the GMT30, "Global mean temperature 30 year average".
However, repeatedly we are shown graphs which barely cover 30 years and are asked to interrupt the data 'within' it. If you use the data within the 30year period, you are not longer working with "climate", but seasonal and yearly variations. The same variations that using the 30year average is mean to stop miss interruption from.
I know you can plot "years" on a 30 year average, however with a ratio of 30:1 in the intented accuracy and the "point value" ... not much should be taken from it.
Yet, why do the media and even Sabine (although at least hers' has units!), keep showing us 30 year average data over less than 30 years. It's dishonest.
And often that 30-year period is decades old, like 1951-1980 or 1961-1990.
Provide source of your claim or you just cannot read data 😂
www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Problem is that Uncle can barely read, much less understand isotopes or anything about chemistry and I imagine he would think your three types of carbon is some kind of hoax. Wait till he finds out how many kinds of water there are.
Yea, but at least he has a bit of common sense.
this is the problem some won't believe in evidence no matter how strong, and prefer ideology
Would you be able to explain why the warming effect of carbon dioxide is so big while the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air is only 0.04%
Stop asking sensible questions. The religion can't cope with them.
It's like the masks: the holes are too big, but if you didn't wear one anyway... Come to think of it, that'll probably be up next: "Wear a mask to contain your expelled carbon dioxide! Nevermind how big the molecules are! Just do it or you're a denier!"
It isn't "big" per se its a few kelvin difference, but it makes a very noticeable impact. And about the 0.04% do not have an impact.. you think drinking a 0.04% solution hydrocyanic acid would have no impact on your health?
@@georgelionon9050 hydrocyanide is not carbon dioxide......this does not explain why such a small percentage has such a big effect
@@helenvanginkel7910 Again, it’s not a big effect in absolute terms. It’s only ”big” relative to living species.
What caused the last warming and cooling. Ice core samples show far higher co2 levels in pre history.
th-cam.com/video/wkqDJwTIg_E/w-d-xo.html
Your quizzes are perfect. I often want to relay your information to friends and family, and with other channels I'll be like "Uuuh, wait well... just watch the video". But when I take your quiz it forces me to make a hard memory about the topic points, and gets me to rewatch certain sections. Then when I'm transcribing from memory, I'm representing the information accurately :)
Why did you skip a step between explaining that the internet doesn’t readily show the causality of climate change, and then explaining how we’re tracking CO2 without defining the significance of CO2 in relation to other possible causes?
Climate is clearly changing but an additional question that needs to be addressed is the actual effect of CO2 on warming. I think all agree that it does absorb heat as Sabine describes, but I have also heard arguments that it isn't a major driver in warming. These claims are that other molecular content like changing water vapor ( & other) content in our atmosphere have much more impact which still confuses our ability to conclude that the changing weather is human-caused. These changes could still largely be due to natural processes. While it is becoming apparent that we are contributing to rising CO2 levels, is there a way to further prove what is actually the cause of warming?
Because of the behavior of our politicians, I have zero trust in their policies. If they truly believed that this is a near-term existential threat as they claim, we would be seeing many different (& more effective) actions. Instead, they talk a lot, push EVs but then go about things in their normal way. If they were being honest, why aren't we seeing all options being pursued - like also working on adaptation to changing climate? Adaptation would have much lower impact on the poverty stricken countries while also being a much more effective way to minimize impact of changing climate on humans. All I can really conclude is that we are spending a LOT of money (and who is profiting?) with almost no guarantee that there will be any impact on global warming.
CO2 does not absorb "heat". CO2 has a very high emisivity to IR. That is why it is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. And you cannot "trap"" "heat". Heat is not a "thing" that you can trap, it is a result of the state of energy and vibrational state of molecules. Further, no gas can "cause" warming, just like pouring 140F coffee into your cup, no matter how much coffee you add you can never get above 140F. "Heat" cannot "pile".
I don't understand your comment. We know for a fact that big companies in industries that contribute to CO2 levels have, by their own admission, tried to steer the narrative about climate change using propaganda for decades. Those same companies are leading the charge right now to influence politicians to deny the existence of climate change (see: project 2025's backers and its goals). And yet, you think that looking for sustainable energy is a world-wide conspiracy that other countries outside the United States (like China) invest heavily in?
I agree that there are people pushing a narrative for profit. But it's way simpler than you think it is, and it's not the people who advocate for planting trees, creating better public infrastructure, or trying to preserve the environment.
Its a reducing effect after the first 20ppm so little significant rise in temperatures above current levels.
@@BrinJay-s4v - not possible. CO2 has absolutely NO warming "affect" whatsoever. In order to make warmer, you need more energy. Where does the extra energy come from? .. Pouring more 140F degree coffee into your cup will NEVER get your coffee more than 140F, no matter how much you pour in. The other question you need to ask yourself is, why is CO2 the most widely used industrial COOLANT in the world? .. Why do ice-skating rinks use CO2 to freeze their rinks? (spoiler: to save 60-70% in energy to do so). The bottom line, you cannot, under ANY circumstances, violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. The entire premise of a "greenhouse effect" absolutely violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. No gas in our universe can cause atmospheric warming, no matter the concentration.
@@squidly2112 We use CO2 ice as a coolant because its freezing temperature is very low, so the frozen CO2 is much colder than for example water ice while it melts absorbing the heat from the environment. It has nothing to do with its properties as a gas, absorbing infrared radiation to heat up.
The warming effect is the absorption of infrared energy from the sun. Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere the atmosphere will heat up in the process instead of reflecting radiation back into space. This is the warming effect. Yes, the energy (radiation) must come from another source, but the effect of the absorption is a warmer air. This is what is meant.
Sabine needs to read and understand Steve Koonin's "Unsettled" !!
Phew, I almost subscribed to this channel.
shame, would have been a good decision, but you are not that important luckily
That same uncle would also fail a grade school exam even if his life depended on it.
The problem is the actual recorded temperatures from the 1930-1980's have been "adjusted" to show those temperatures as being 5 degrees F lower than they actually were. This is because the NASA people and NOAA people think all the people worldwide didn't read their thermometers correctly. Look at the actual temps from any city in the US and compare it to what NASA or NOAA says it was. Even the four recording stations in Africa have been given this treatment by the "scientists" today. No one on any continent could apparently read a thermometer.
This woman talks out of her backside,you are 100% right,Hansen et al. altered the data.
the problem is you're not paying attention and you've been misled.
@@GregQchi Instead of making a personal attack on me why not investigate it yourself? Bring up any US city during the 1930's and look for yourself at what the temperatures were. Read the newspaper accounts of the time about the heat.
they have been adjusting the data gradually on a regular basis. the adjustments are always cooling the past and warming recent measurements. these adjustments perfectly match the rise in co2. it looks like fraud. there is no downward adjustment for urban heat island effects which is a substantial heating effect during the 20th century and nothing to do with global warming. The mann vs steyn court case has just started and is revealing quite a lot (climate change on trial podcast).
@@Spritsailor that's not climate science ya plumb.
A Masterclass on how to cherry pick a few facts, ignore all the counter science and come up with the pre ordained conclusion (It woz us).
Thank you for proving you have no counter facts
@@nicejungle Counter fact 1. Current CO2 level. 400+ppm. Dinosaur times 6000ppm+. No runaway Green house then, none now, ipso facto. Counter fact 2. H2O drives the greenhouse effect. IPCC WG1 report says so. CO2 is not even top 5.
@grindupBaker People like you run out of thumbs when mathematics is required. I'd suggest doing research, but your comment shows you can only compass received wisdom from your local priest.
@@nigelwoods6979 obviously, you.ve never heard about rain
@@nicejungle Rain is weather, not climate. Just one more thing you're ignorant about. Oh, and the net change in precipitation (see, I know the scientific term you're too ignorant to use) levels over the last century? Zero.
Is there good evidence to support the idea that the majority of oil is fossil fuels? I am not asking disingenuously. A long time ago I went on a geology trip across the US where we visited oil refineries, and I know that there is indeed oil that comes from fossils from various time periods (especially in the US). However, I have also heard of the Russians having a theory that (some? most? I don't know) oil comes from deeper in the Earth's crust and is the result of some unknown production process deep inside of the Earth (i.e., not from plants). They came to this conclusion after revisiting old oil fields that had mysteriously refilled themselves. Not necessarily good evidence of oil not being a fossil fuel on its own, but it did plant a seed of doubt for me... do we actually know that all or most of our oil *is* a fossil fuel, or is that an assumption we have made because we've definitively proven that some oil comes from fossils, and made an assumption that this is the case for all oil everywhere?
Not that it changes the climate change debate any, but if oil is a fossil fuel, it is finite, and we have even more reason to switch away from it. If it comes from deep within the Earth, however, that leaves the question of "how much oil remains" open.
Complex hydrocarbons cover the entire surface of Saturns moon Titan. Not a fossil in sight at less than -300 degrees fahrenheit.
If the Russians do have that theory, then that would be a massive insult to Russian science.
As for why an oil field might "refill itself," they are not like giant fuel tanks that we fully explore, they are holes deep in the ground that liquid comes out of until it stops coming out. We mostly have to guess at the actual structures in there, but there could easily be a case where a pocket of oil exists, and they empty out that pocket to the point that it no longer flows smoothly, and declare it "empty," but there is another pocket of oil nearby that slowly seeps into that now empty cavern, slowly refilling it, and allowing it to flow again. This is not an infinite process though, it's just one finite reservoir refilling another, until both are depleted.
Besides which, "whether oil is finite or not" isn't the actual problem, the problem is the harm caused by burning it, and that would exist even if oil were somehow infinite.
*abiogenic petroleum origin theory
Oil deposits do not refill, they can just draw from other wells elsewhere. They are not a spherical, self contained bubble, they are a network of caves filled with a liquid, and you can drain all the liquid that is easily available, and declare a well "empty," but then a separate cave nearby can slowly trickle into it, refilling it. This does not mean that the oil is unlimited, it just means that you have multiple finite reservoirs.
@@levyroth It's bizarre that I can read your comment and the original poster's comment, yet my comment and another person's comment is hidden. Maybe YT doesn't like the idea that complex hydrocarbons are found on a moon where there has never been life ?
I can no longer believe scientists and experts anymore.
Good luck getting help from unprofessionals.
Toothache? No experts! Better see a plumber.
Financial trouble? No experts! There is a guy downtown who will lend you money for a good rate, completly trustworthy!
"I can no longer believe scientists and experts anymore." I see what you mean--their predictions and warnings keep coming true--why trust experts who keep on being right??
The modern world was built on the minds of scientists. Look around you and count the miracles they've brought us.
Your typing this on a device thanks to the work of experts and scientists
@@greaterglider That's fake news. ;)
this video should show in the very first google search results on climate change
ahh, the narrative crafting algos are all online! check.
No, it should be retracted as it is just another big climate lie.
@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite and being tuned. War is peace.
"the situation is catastrophic but not serious" ~Slavoj Zizek
hey Sabine, please make an in-depth video on Milankovitch cycles...thanks.
Wanted to ask for this too! These cycles are almost always missing from climate change discussions, yet they are such an important factor.
@@timpaling4077 Ask for clouds, they are missing too.
True, the cycles are important to ever changing climate, but not on the time order of 200 y which is mostly what climate scientists are concerned about. The older data cited are simply for reference to place the extreme recent changes into broader historical context. There are great vids out there on the cycles to watch. Our, best yet... Get a textbook... That's always the best way... Hope that helps... Be well.
@@petersherman4318they are not the main cause of short term climate change
I wouldn't let her teach science to my 6 yr old grandson. CO2 driven warming remains a hypothesis. Here is information she left out. Yes CO2 absorbs in the IR spectrum. But if you looked closely at her graph, you saw water vapor overlapping much of CO2. And the portion of the spectrum where they don't overlap is near saturation. Meaning you get very little additional warming for each additional molecule of CO2. Then there is proxy data. Ice core samples show that CO2 increases in the atmosphere lag increases in temperature. Which makes sense if you bother to look at Henry's and Beer's laws. She didn't bother to note that the correlation between current temperature rise and CO2 emissions is breaking down. Over half of all CO2 emitted by human activities since the start of the industrial Age (1750's) has occurred in the last 30 years. If CO2 were the primary driver we should be seeing a corresponding increase in the rate of warming. Yet over those 30 years what we saw were two significant pauses in warming. But for the sake of argument, let's assume she is correct. Where is the crisis. Provide the data that supports a gradually warming climate represents a pending catastrophe. By data I mean empirical data, not the output of some model.
Spectroscopic analysis`clearly shows heat passing through CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and radiating back to earth. That's not a "hypothesis."
CO2-driven warming accelerates evaporation, which fills the atmosphere with additional water vapor which then works synergistically with CO2 in a feedback loop to warm the planet further than either could do on their own. It doesn't matter that CO2's power to trap heat diminishes because as it does its feedback effects take over; water vapor, methane, and the most powerful climate forcing of all, reduced albedo from melting icecaps.
CO2 can both lag and lead temperature. Fossil fuel industry propaganda only tells you about the lagging part. In earth's past Milankovitch Cycles increased solar insolation in the northern hemisphere, causing ice and permafrost to melt, which released CO2 and methane, which trapped heat and warmed the planet. In those cases, yes, temperature LED CO2. Yet it's important to note that CO2 went on to lead temperature for thousands of years thereafter, throughout the majority of every warm-up period.
Today the Milankovitch Cycles are all in cooling phases and have nothing to do with today's warming. It's our own emissions causing the greenhouse effect and warming the planet. Thus CO2 is LEADING temperature.
And your temperature lag? Temperature lags big CO2 pulses by multiple decades, according to the data, which you can see in the study by Zickfeld et al: "TIME LAG BETWEEN A CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION AND MAXIMUM WARMING INCREASES WITH THE SIZE OF THE EMISSION," in Environmental Research Letters, March 10, 2015.
I'll give you the data on our increasing climate damage in a future post.
Absolute sea level, as measured by satellite altimeters from the middle of the ocean, has risen four inches since 1993, and its rate of rise has DOUBLED, according to NASA. (See NASA SEA LEVEL RISE). According to NOAA, high tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has risen 400% and 1100% respectively since the year 2000. (See NOAA HIGH TIDE FLOODING). Maine is uplifting land from glacial rebound yet in January suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages. Louisiana has already lost over 8800 acres to permanent inundation in its Lower Breton Sound area, acording to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's part of the reason why Louisiana has a new $50 billion flood mitigation project in the works. So does New York, with the borough of Queens already flooding on a regular basis. Annapolis has its own problems, as one of its neighborhoods closes streets and businesses 60 times a year due to flooding. Miami Beach has raised 105 miles of roads. Meanwhile, globally, Odisha State in India reports losing 16 coastal villages to flooding. Shall I go on?
According to the EPA, heatwaves have TRIPLED since 1960. The increase, along with increases in drought duration, drought intensity, and extreme precipitation events, is why farm productivity is 21% lower than it would otherwise be without global warming, according to Cornell University. See CLIMATE CHANGE CUT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY 21%, Phys.org, April 1, 2021. See also SEVERITY OF DROUGHT AND HEATWAVES CROP LOSSES TRIPLED OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES IN EUROPE, in ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, Jun 10, 2021.
In 2015, the Amazon suffered a record drought that killed an estimated 2.5 billion trees and plants and millions of animals. It was supposed to be a once in a thousand year event, yet in 2023 it happened again, only worse, killing even more flora and fauna and igniting 26 million acres with out-of-control wildfires. Rain forests are normally too wet to burn. It's important to keep in mind, too, that the Amazon supplies the world with a substantial portion of its oxygen.
According to NOAA, Atlantic hurricane intensity has increased 8% per decade for the last four decades. Warming temperatures increase wind speeds, lightning strikes, wave heights and storm surges. A Taiwanese study of typhoons shows the same increase. Arctic cyclones too.
Marine heatwaves have increased 20-fold, according to the University of Bern. A marine heatwave off Alaska two years ago killed an estimated 10 billion snow crabs. Meanwhile warming waters off New England have collapsed its shrimp fishery while warming waters and overfishing have destroyed its cod fishery.
The damage is everywhere. You just need to open your eyes.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I checked your reference. Interesting that the higher number came after a "recalibration". NASA can't explain why satellite and tidal gauge data differ. However trying to calculate a global average isn't easy with either data set. The satellite record indicates 3.3 mm/yr increase. Tidal gauge data shows 1.7 mm/yr. Even if we go with the higher number we are looking at 8" per century. And I've read the Nerem paper and follow on papers challenging his finds. It's been pointed out that the acceleration claimed could be a product of how it was calculated. Nerem et al also made widescale use of climate models. One of the biggest issues in climate science is how many researchers treat the output of a model as if it were data.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Correct, how a GHG works is proven science. What remains a hypothesis is that CO2 is the primary driver. From the beginning the IPCC started with that premise and has worked backwards. If you have been around science (good science) one of the things you notice is how much uncertainty is highlighted. Not so much with climate science. Too many, like Ms Hossenfelder, speak with great certainty. Yet what we know about planetary climate is still in its infancy. And we have nowhere near computational power necessary to model that system at anything but the most gross scale.
Subsidence and land uplift from glacial rebound are two of the most common variations that can make coastal measurements differ from those from the middle of the ocean. Sun et al. 2023, "Causes of Accelerated High-Tide Flooding in the U.S. since 1950," uncovered the contribution of subsidence to the increase in high tide flooding observed in the U.S. since 1950. For the Mid-Atlantic region from Cape Hatteras, NC, to Woods Hole, MA, roughly half of the increase in high tide flooding during 2011-2020 was from land subsidence (Fig. 6c in their paper). For the U.S. Gulf Coast and Southeast Coast as far north as Cape Hatteras, only about 17% of the increase in high tide flooding during 2011-2020 was from land subsidence; this fraction was less than 5% along the U.S. West Coast.
When subsidence and rebound are accounted for, both satellite and tide gauge methodologies match: Merrifield et al. 2009: Church and White 2011: Jevrejeva et al. 2014: "There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yr-1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yr-1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993-2009)." "Dangendorf et al. 2017: "Here we present a 20th-century GMSL reconstruction computed using an area-weighting technique for averaging tide gauge records that both incorporates up-to-date observations of vertical land motion (VLM) and corrections for local geoid changes resulting from ice melting and terrestrial freshwater storage and allows for the identification of possible differences compared with earlier attempts whereas our estimate of 3.1 ± 1.4 mm·y-1 from 1993 to 2012 is consistent with independent estimates from satellite altimetry" Frederikse et al. 2018: "Since 1993, both reconstructed sea level and the sum of contributors show good agreement with altimetry estimates." Dagendorf et al. 2019: "We also compare the GMSL of our HR to satellite altimetry observations and find good agreement between the two data sets." www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8
More accurate to say that humanity is influencing climate change that changes with and without us over centuries and millenia. We are nowhere near the hottest or coldest or stormiest weather that previouly existed on earth. I agree that we are now a new player in the 100 factors that impact weather.
The planet should be cooling very slowly towards the next full glaciation. We're causing the exact opposite to happen.
Most studies say that we have been slowly warming over the last few thousand years and are still at the tail end of the last glaciation. I did not say that we are not an influencer, just that lots of factors influence global weather. One could also blame grazing mammals for a huge increase in greenhouse gasses. I am more concerned with the dramatic rise in human population over the past 100 years. If not stopped we'll soon hit an unsustainable need for food. @@Richard482
Thanks as always Sabine. Always a pleasure tuning in to your newest post. See you tomorrow. Hugs!!
I'm the uncle you refer to. Thanks for a great video. Now if they could just come up with a workable solution to it that doesn't cause more harm than GW I am all ears.
The cure will be much worse than the ailment. There are far worse issues than Carbon.
I am also not opposing change in energy production.
But the funny thing is that we will not stop using old and gas for a very long time.
Oil and gas are used for many things, not just as an energy source.
And I strongly oppose the super expensive, super wasteful, super polluting, poor performing/unreliable draconian approaches taken today!
It just needs to stop before it kills half mankind.
@@TheEVEInspirationso far we aren't doing anything at all.
@@fischersfritz468 You need to go out more, windmills and solar panels everywhere. That is fine on roofs and such, but the big installations on Sea and near towns are really problematic.
Besides, they are far more costly to keep operational and so they never truly pay for themselves. Huge upfront costs and energy waste and little benefit.
@@TheEVEInspiration those big installations are money printing systems. Nothing is cheaper than offshore-windmills.
When people get tetchy defending speculation, the suspicion arises that they're not as confident in their conviction as they're making out. Predicting the future has never been set in stone. Chaos equations are chaos equations, irrespective of what they're applied to (weather, or climate)
So when people get irritated by flat earthers, it is a sign that flat earthers are right?
We get tetchy when people completely untrained in climate science profess that they know more about climate change than PhD-level climate scientists. The arrogance of the ignorant is appalling but, far more egregious, it infects the voting booth, with stupidity and with damaging choices that hurt everyone.
Thank you for the video. I heard a lot of interesting correlations, but I didn't hear anything approaching causal evidence (as was suggested at the beginning of the video).
Just for the record, I do believe that human activity is playing a role in climate change, but I'm guessing my estimate of the extent of that role is significantly below Sabine's.
Considering that the sun's output has weakened over the past 40 years (NASA) and all three Milankovitch Cycles are in COOLING phases, and that we can trace the CO2 added since the Industrial Revolution to combusted fossil fuels, what other major forcing agents exists to warm the planet?
YUP
The entire video explains why it was doubtlessly us who released the additional CO2 that is warming the atmosphere. The warming is not created by additional solar activity of the sun. The additional carbondioxide was created by burning fossil fuels that once were plants. So this is not a question of opinion or belief. I recommend to watch it again.
@rayzsome8852 You are making the assumption that the warming observed is 100% caused by additional CO2 released by humans and there are no other factors that contribute to that equation outside the domain of humans.
@@mattclark6482 The sun has weakened over the past four decades, according to NASA, and the Milankovitch Cycles that drove warming in earth's past are in COOLING phases now. Global temperature has risen exactly as our CO2 emissions have since the Industrial Revolution, which is just one of several lines of evidence scientists cite to connect to an anthropogenic cause. The consensus that today's warming is anthropogenic and not natural, is now 99.9%, according to the latest survey of the scientific literature by Cornell University. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.
It’s not a hoax but is it really an existential threat to humanity? No.
If we wait long enough and take zero precautions (which we aren't), it'll certainly be. Like it's starting to
That is, if you somehow think preventable deaths from disasters, extreme weather, resurfacing diseases and population displacements to not be emergencies that can lead up to Anarchy.
I that’s a ridiculous bar. It’s not gonna kill us all but it’s making millions of lives worse and killing enough already.
Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Floridians (to name a few) are going to have a hell of time in the coming decades, because flooding is going to continue to get worse, and so much will be destroyed.
In western Canada, we used to only have to worry about dangerously smoky conditions a few days a year at most. Now it can be WEEKS. It’s not acutely life-threatening, but breathing ASH is absolutely horrible for your cardiovascular system
That's the heart of the issue, is it actually an " existential level" event or happening? Absolutely not , and anyone who says it is , is lying to you. As an aside, our collective Govts have failed horribly at combating hunger, homelessness, and drug abuse, problems FAR simpler than changing a planets climate - what exact part of that fact would lead anyone to believe they can successfully do that? I can not think of a single Govt program that has been so wildly successful that I'd even begin to entertain they can "alter the planets climate".
It’s a threat to biodiversity and ecosystems, a lot of species gone endangered/extinct already, but people don’t feel it so no one cares
Perhaps not to our generation? But I guess monkeys think in the now
I noticed that your temperature chart goes back to 1960. Could you take it back earlier, please, to show the ups and down in global temperature prior to 1960, perhaps into the mid 1800s? Thank you.
A lot of the earlier data is really sketchy and incomplete.
@@maksimsmelchak7433sure it is…how convenient
No, it's not convenient, just real.
@@maksimsmelchak7433 and you know it’s real because they said it
Through what mechanism would you get the global temperature in the mid 1800s? Do a survey of measurements across historical documents, compiled by various people? Inferences from the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE THE POLES MELTED AND REFROZE AND WHO CAUSED THAT????
If you ever show the intellectual capacity to find the "Caps Lock" key on your keyboard - and to realize that 4 question marks is a wee bit of unnecessary overkill - then folks might start taking you seriously.
Scientists can be bought just like politicians.
Yes. The only scientists that deny human generated global warming work for big oil corporations. A consensus of independent scientists all over the world agree that humans are causing global warming and those scientists can not be bought off as their work is published "peer reviewed" which means that any scientist can check their work..
If we can not measure the CO2 in the air [which is true, we can not] then what are the smug checks and CO2 sensors that made many Californians lose their cars to? Corrupt scientists made us believe that bad engines put out more CO2 and that it was kept as a secret from its owner until the next smog check to be revealed to DMV only with no warning to the owners on the dashboard. The truth is that a good engine with proper mixture and compression will break down every molecule of the fuel into CO2 and H2O, if it doesn't, it will put out dangerous gasses like CO. VW and korean automakers directly participated and benefited the most, they dumped their cars forcefully on Americans by leasing [and not selling] them with high interest, many became careless/jobless/homeless. Corrupt and criminal scientists, judges, lawyers and officials received billions of dollars [a portion of the looted money] via "Volkswagen emissions scandal" and they managed to legitimize and legalize their crimes against Americans. CO2 is not an toxic, there is higher concentration of CO2 in our lungs than the air, we pay extra to drink CO2 in soda, clouds are CO2/Dry Ice and we see as cloud is the Carbon atoms and not H2O.
yes, that's probably why the number of scientists agreeing on the best models we have is slightly less than 100%. Cause people who don't want to take on the main contributors to climate change like fossil fuels, because they profit from it, can use that incredible wealth they've extracted from it to fund misinformation.
@@Hugh_I you sound vaccinated
Additional carbon in the atmosphere is a result of increasing temperatures, not the cause.
THANKS A LOT OBAMA
Basic chemistry says burning oil and coal will increase atmospheric CO2. And CO2 absorbs IR light. You are arguing against fundamental chemistry that was predicted to warm the planet more than a century ago.
This should be mandatory viewing for everyone on the planet! Thank you Sabine :)
YEAH like Al Gores inconvenient truth ,,pretty much all lies ,and a HUGE hypocrite
@@billhamilton7524
She's a fraud
th-cam.com/video/oWyxfmHJcd0/w-d-xo.html
Nonsense filled article , starting with fossil word ...
Notice she did not mention the effects of methane in the atmosphere and the new evidence that this has being occurring since the retreat of ice sheets. Lots of data on C02, not enough about new findings. Are scientist always this bias with data presentation to make their arguments? Ice core data Sabine!
if anything should be mandatory viewing it is the michael mann/mark steyn court case.
The floods are coming, and Dr Foochy of the Marine Health Organisation Alliance (MHOA) has said that it will become mandatory to buy a small boat designed for the purpose. Designed, built and patented by Pfoderna an Meizer. The boats will be $2000 (shares very cheap right now)
Any goverment or goverment official who will scare the pants of us to encourage uptake will get a small yacht and some free shares. Oh, and any body left alive, taxes will be now 40%
Ignorance is bliss.
Perfect summary thank you Sabine for this and all your honest thoughtful work which is up to date,human, humorous and always positively adds to scientific debate.
No mention of factory farming and it's horrific contribution to global warming. Disappointing.
How did previous ice ages end? Did temperatures increase linearly over time, or did jump up and down due to other events, like volcanic eruptions or maybe excessive vegetation growth etc?
linearly.
A bit disappointed that a scientist would describe the oceans as "becoming more acidic" when they are not acidic at all. You could say, "less base", perhaps. But this is secondary to my main comment.
While oceans do absorb CO2, when they warm, they in fact outgas CO2.
Are we fully considering these two counteracting processes when we talk about the effect CO2 has on the oceans?
Couldn't it be just as likely that on a warming planet, the oceans are contributing more to the increase in atmospheric CO2 than the other way around?
Given that we know that in past warming cycles, CO2 has been the trailing factor, with temperatures rising hundreds of years before CO2 does, could we be trying to put the cart before the horse here?
This is an excellent point. The question it raises is, "Which isotope(s) of carbon are in the CO2 that outgasses from the oceans?" I read somewhere that the single largest source of atmospheric CO2 is also the largest repository of CO2 on the planet-namely, the oceans. Anyhow, for me the C13:C12 ratio isn't especially meaningful unless it's placed in context with the long-term historical record.
And even taking it as a given that the warming is happening, and that some portion of it is anthropogenic, it's still a major leap from there to predictions of existential catastrophe. That conclusion comes from finite algorithms that attempt to predict the behavior of a complex system...which is generally a success-proof endeavor, notwithstanding the complicating factor of politicized bias in the models themselves.
This much we know: the Earth was much warmer in the past, and the ecosystem didn't collapse. Then the last ice age brought The Big Chill. Everything has been warming up since then, and will continue to do so until the the next ice age approaches. For my part, I'm betting on intrinsically safe Generation 4 nuclear energy technologies to tide us over until we figure out fusion, and then we're home free. The doomsayers will have find another boogeyman...and they will.
Good argument. In fact, regions with warm water outgas CO2 and regions with cold water absorb CO2. In average, globally there is absorption of about 20 percent of the CO2 emissions.
I'm 70 years old. Unlike most people in the USA, I've lived almost my entire life in one small town in Upstate NY, and WITHOUT air conditioning for either my house or car, and throughout most of my employment. So unlike most people, who go from an air conditioned home to an air conditioned car, to air conditioned workplace, I've been very aware of what has gone on my entire life. If climate change / global warming is a world wide phenomenon, why haven't I experienced it? If anything, the summers and winters have been milder. Storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts slightly less frequent. Where are you taking your readings, near big city heat sources? How do you weight the readings? Seriously, if you spend your life in air conditioned comfort, how would you know what the temperature is doing? Yes, temperature readings. But I say again, where do you take those readings, at what times, and how do you weight them?
My 80+ year old cousin is a mathematician and earth scientist. He has been studying lakes and bodies of water for municipalities for DECADES, to develop pollution controls and abatement. He says he has not detected any significant temperature changes in his work, which continues to this day. He says unless he publishes papers supporting man made climate change he loses funding for projects.
Let's assume the climate is changing. Do you trust our scientists to create a good plan to address it? During the early 80's governments banned R-12 refrigerant and freon propellants to "fix" the ozone hole. People raced to dealerships to spend hundreds of dollars to convert their cars to R-134, an "ozone safe", but less efficient refrigerant. I called six dealers asking about the process. Capture systems being expensive and hard to come by, they actually VENTED the R-12 into the atmosphere! Likely this was going on all over the world. Yet amazingly, despite what was probably a massive release of R-12, the ozone hole closed quickly. The reason was revealed a couple years later in major news magazines like Time and Newsweek. Scientists drilling ice cores at Antarctica determined that the ozone hole was a cyclical, natural event. Those reports have long been suppressed.
What did the ban do? By my rough calculations, the use of the less efficient R-134 has resulted in over 800,000,000 gallons additional gasoline use!
What about the freon propellants ban? They substituted CO2 In many aerosol cans. The much smaller molecule leaks out of the cans, and goes up into the atmosphere, where many of the same scientists say it causes global warming. Every year, millions of cans of paint, oil, hair spray, glue, etc., go to the landfills, their contents intact for lack of pressure. The cans are crushed and the contents eventually find their way to the aquifer, where they poison our water.
In the 70's the scientists were telling us we were entering an ice age. They said population growth would outstrip the supply of food. They said the oil would only last five years. They have been caught doctoring the previously recorded temperature data, too. I believe they have lost all credibility.
The incandescent lightbulb ban is another fiasco. They complained about the wasted energy (heat). Never occurred to them that the heat isn't always wasted. It used to be common practice to sit under a warm incandescent bulb reading a book or watching TV. Now that we have "efficient" LED bulbs, we have to turn the thermostat up on the whole floor to get warm! The lightbulb ban also made many specialty bulbs once made on the same assembly lines scarce. For instance, bulbs for ovens. I searched the internet 8 hours unsuccessfully to find a bulb for my mother's oven. I put 100 miles on my car until I found her a couple dusty bulbs in a now closed Mom and Pop hardware store. People said I should just buy my mother a new oven. Tell me... How many kilowatt hours of energy does it take to dispose of the old oven, roll the steel for the new oven and bake the ceramic coating on? How many years before the LED bulbs' energy savings pay off?
People are being asked to discard their vehicles for questionable technology. They're expected to rely on solar panel facilities for electricity, when it is obvious a snow storm could shut down the power!
Allow PEOPLE to make the decision for themselves.
As you wrote, it happens world-wide, not just in your backyard. If you want to know how your backyard is affected, you should ask your local weather station.
Not all places are affected equally.
Would you really notice a 1.8 degree F increase in temperature over your lifetime? Most of us wouldn't.
The warming trend is three times greater in the Arctic than the rest of the world, which is hundreds of miles from any form of civilization or heat source. The middle of the ocean is also the warmest we've ever measured. There is no heat source there either. In cities, the heat island effect is always acounted for and adjusted accordingly.
Sea level, as measured by worldwide tide gauges and satellite altimeters, is up 4.37 inches since 1993, according to NASA. Would you notice a 1/10th of an inch of rise every year? Most of us wouldn't. But the changes show up strikingly in the statistics, with high tide flooding increasing 400%-1100% respectively across the American south and Gulf coasts since the year 2000, according to NOAA. Last January Maine suffered a record high tide that caused $100 million in damages.
2. Heatwaves have TRIPLED since 1960, according to the EPA. You may have missed these living in the cooler northeast.
3. Extreme precipitation events have also increased worldwide, according to the EPA. Have you noticed a migration of the rain/snow line, with winter precipitation coming increasingly in the form of rain instead of snow? Precipitation itself, whether from snow or rain, has increased markedly in the northeast because every one degree of warming allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor.
4. Category 1 and 2 hurricanes have dimnished over the past four decades, while category 3, 4 and 5 storms have increased, according to NOAA.
Have the scientists lost all credibility? Or have you simply believing propaganda and misinformation across the internet?
No consensus of climate scientists ever warned of an imminent Ice Age. It's internet mythology, repeated so many times by oil industry propagandists and their front groups that millions have come to believe it. The two outlier scientists who started it all were hardly a CONSENSUS of climate scientists. Neither were the sensationalist media outlets that wildly extrapolated from their speculation.
From 1940-1970, polluting aerosols (not CO2) from combusted fossil fuels grew so thick that they actually dimmed the sun, which reduced global temperature slightly. A scientific paper published in SCIENCE in 1971 by Rasool and Schneider predicted that if this form of pollution continued to increase, as was expected, a new Ice Age might be triggered. Here’s an excerpt from their study:
“An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
The media had a field day in sensationalizing that and a second study that speculated that we were probably overdue for a return of a major reglaciation in the next 20,000 years, although some outlets conveniently left out the “20,000 year” part.
Rasool and Schneider had also badly miscalculated the strength of aerosols, failing to realize that CO2 warming would ultimately overpower them, which it has indeed done.
Despite the attention Rasool and Schneider got with their flawed paper, the vast majority of scientific papers published in the science journals of the 60s and 70s warned of global WARMING, not an imminent Ice Age. Look up "MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol 89, No. 9, Sept 2008, pp. 1325-1337 and see for yourself how the narrative has been twisted to mislead the public.
@old-pete I remember my local weather station (a block down the street) saying it was pouring outside. I looked out the window and it was sunny with not a cloudy in the sky. Seventy years old and have yet to experience any climate change.
@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I wouldn't notice a 1.8 deg increase because it's actually gotten slightly cooler over the years.
Sabine, you should do a longer detailed video.
The climate deniers are going wild in these comments with isolated concepts and little 'gotchas.'
They mostly dont come up with gotchas as finding errors in her arguments.. they come up with totally unrelated denial theories..the only thing .. and here I have to agree, is the argument she proofed that CO2 is human made, but not that this CO2 is what has been warming the planet. (it does, but she didnt proof it here)
@@georgelionon9050 Yeah, that's true.
Isn´t it fun? I´m sure, she reckoned that, these guys are like flies being attracted to a heap of shit. She announced a long video about the topic today, and this one is not so bad: 14thousand likes, 14hundred dislikes, and I hope, some of the smarter ones get convinced by this vid.
Calling us names, are you? Typical of fascist Marxist propagandist.
ikr
Nice and clear. Never really doubted it. But that doesn't mean that warming and ALL it's associated consequences is such a bad outcome. Also doesn't mean our reaction shouldn't be simply to adapt to the fact like we adapt to other and more drastic changes in the world (population increase, etc...)
I don't think you have done enough research on the effects then. The issue is not humans surviving. The issue is other animals and plants not being able to adapt like humans can. And that eventually leads to hunger of humans.
@@philosophist9562 And of course, sure, people in the US or Europe will probably be able to deal with it - with more intensive agriculture etc. But the vast majority of the world's population doesn't have the same options (not to mention that they will tend to further accelerate climate change, of course). Humans will survive... but it's also likely a whole load of humans will die and there will be tons of conflict as people are forced north.
So i hope you will be the first to adapt and take on a climate refugee fleeing famines?
Ah Yes Sabine, that picture of the cooling towers emitting ..... water vapour!
Yeah, it's as standard as polar bear standing on a small ice flow.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas you know
@@greaterglider Yes, but they want you to thing that it is CO2!!!! Seriously!
@@BillHickling who said they wanted you to think that. Water vapour has a similar effect anyways
@@greaterglider Because that is the propaganda against CO2. Most people are unaware that it is invisible.
The earth has warmed because cloud levels have decreased. How the heck does increased CO2 cause that?
The earth has warmed because the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere changes the thermal equilibrium point between the planet's climate system and space. "Returning" the system to equilibrium manifests as global warming.
I considered myself quite knowledgeable in a lot of areas of my field of expertise. In 2004 i had an opportunity to attend several workshops and presentations held by actual experts. I came away humbled. I have read enough in the field of climate science to know I'm far from knowledgeable. Listening to other laymen argue against the consensus of expert opinion almost makes me sick. Yes, I've bookmarked this to send some of these folks to, but I'm pretty pessimistic about the good it will do.
The algorithm was promoting one of her more recent videos with her making deceptive claims concerning her only newly coming to put substance to the hysteria being manufactured concerning climate change. It was meant to appeal to people that had not come across her videos previously and been unaware of her narrative themes. I’ve reviewed substantial material concerning the subject. The scientific consensus is that the climate changes and that humans can affect it. It stops there. It would be very alarming and suspicious if the climate did not change.
Science doesn't care about consensus... as Einstein said in response to "100 authors against Einstein"... if he were wrong, one would be enough.
The fact is, the physics of "CO2 driven global warming" doesn't work. CO2 absorbs, and it does it very well. So well in fact that it absorbs 100% of the energy trying to escape the Earth in its absorption bands. If you know of a method that you can get TWO hundred percent absorption of energy, then I invite you to publish your information because that would be a shoe-in for a Nobel Prize in Physics... imagine the things we could build if we could break the laws of physics like that.
I would still encourage you to study the science. That is the best way to distinguish good evidence and good arguments from propaganda. It does require some basic science background and the ability to check whether your sources have conflicts of interest. Doesn't require a science PhD. However, most people don't fact check much. It is important not to take anything at face value and to research who is saying it, and why.
That is all true but can go either way. Who to trust when the 'factcheckers' decide to only use those sources that have been known to lie or spread misinformation. Official institutions are by no means immune from this. In fact, the whole climate issue has so heavily been politicised that it is clear we are being manipulated from all sides.we are all being sold a position. The irony is that institutions like state broadcasters and the likes of WEF are now worried about misinformation and try to control it, completely glossing over the fact that they might have done so themselves. They cant even see the problem. That is how biased they are.
Sabine should know better.
@@russmarkham2197 sometimes the education system is the problem. Look deeper...
The assumption that one's climate change denying relative is an uncle rather than an aunt is indicative of misandry.
If atmospheric CO2 levels are driving warming, shouldn't we have seen an increase in Arctic sea ice melting over the last eleven years? But we haven't. Arctic sea ice at minimum extent 2012 was 3.3 million square kilometers. Over the last three years it's averaged almost 4.6. As per nsidc.
For what it’s worth, here’s ChatGPT4’s answer: According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic sea ice extent has been declining over the past four decades, with the 14 lowest extents in the satellite record occurring since 2007.
@@bishopdredd5349A good demonstration of the limitations of ChatGPT. Unable to do any analysis it misses the fact that there's been no increase in the amount of melting since 2012.
The average Arctic sea ice minimum extent 2007 through 2012 was 4.3 million square kilometers. For 2013 through 2023 it is 4.5 million. Sea ice actually increasing.
@@zstopperuno bullshit. Picking and choosing short snippets like that is dishonest. There are always dips and rises, but stats covering 43 years show what the trend actually is. Average December sea ice extent has gone down from about 13.6 million km² in 1980 to 12 million km² in 2023, and even dipped to 11.5 million km² in 2016. You're trying to sell us mouldy bread by pointing at the small remaining section not covered by green fuzz.
@@JuusoAlasuutari All the Arctic sea ice loss occurred between 1996 ( 7.6 million square kilometers at minimum extent) through 2012 ( 3.3 million). No increase in melting during the eleven years since then ( as per nsidc data).
Looking forward to a more greener earth.
Our planet is greening as predicted by mainstream climate science and most of the current global greening is due to China’s and India’s mega tree planting programs, but it would take 4 times more land than exists on this planet with new trees on it keep up the current rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but most of that land would require irrigation with fresh water.
Be carefull for what type of greening you wish for.
@rps1689 Increases in CO2 help plants be more drought resistant. Hence, semi-arid areas are becoming greener.
@@kellyinfanger9192 Increased CO2 causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of only certain crops, but a decrease in nutrional value. When food is grown in fields at elevated CO2 levels in the atmophere, it becomes less nutritious and lose significant amounts of zinc and iron plus grains lose protein. Because of this you need more fields to produce more volumes to make this up and more greenhouses, as you decrease the amount of nutrition you can produce per acre.
@@kellyinfanger9192 Problem is, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere especially at the current rate favours weeds and less less nutrient crops over staple crops.
Nutrients are already added to top soil in outdoor large scale agriculture and it doesn’t mitigate how higher concentrations in the atmosphere affects crops from accumulating more carbohydrates than minerals. There are solutions to tackle nutrient depletion, but are not that effective at the current rate of warming, as the top soil process changes in organic carbon transformations and nutrient cycling through altered moisture and temperature regimes in the soil. Soils have actually lost 50 to 70 percent of the carbon they once held. A big concern is topsoil is used to grow over 90 percent our food, and it is disappearing faster than it is being replaced.
@@rps1689 OH, so it's not Chinese and Indian trees now. It weeds and less nutritious crops. Nice, quick deflection. I sense some confirmation bias.
If semi-arid plants are increasing, then nutritional value is utterly irrelevant. If plant growth is increasing, regardless of nutritional value, the creation of top soil will increase.
Your doom and gloom attitude is what is on display here.