How do we know climate change is caused by humans?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ม.ค. 2024
- 🤓Expand your scientific horizon on Brilliant! ➜ First 200 to use our link brilliant.org/sabine 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/start_thequiz/...
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.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #shortly - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
My uncle doesn’t think the warming bit is a hoax but he thinks the ‘crisis’ bit is a scam, synthesised to advance geopolitical power, to control the serfs, through unwarranted fear, and to justify and rationalise uncontrolled, ever increasing debt. He says more and more people are coming to see it like that.
No crisis should go to waste. Covid was fantastic, but "sadly" it's over, and politicos need a new scarecrow to explain why taxes should rise a bit more, and serfs have a bit less freedom. You will eat ze bugz.
You might ask him what part of unprecedented wildfires, drought, and heatwaves strong enough to cause fatalities isn’t a crisis? And if he says “Well, I don’t see it” you might suggest that he stick his head out of his little bubble once in a while and take notice of what’s happening in other parts of the world.
Your uncle maybe needs a higher level of education? Conspiracy theories often sound plausible, but reality ensures that most simply aren't sustainable.
@darkwinter6028 while it is certainly possible for this kind of conspiracy to be implemented, there is just NO way to keep the number of people needing to be involved from "spilling the beans".
Exactly!
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
Never let a crisis go to waste is what you need to know.
Well summed up.
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.
@@bobtodd9590 Yes, fellow lemmings, the earth is flat and the sky is falling! Ignore the very basics and follow the piper over the cliff.
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.
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 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.
Hi, Uncle Skeptic here. Earth self-regulates its global temperature. This has been going on for millions of years. Any addition to an enclosed environment will be affected. The question should be is how that environment reacts and over time can it compensate for the intrusion? Now it's always about how soon are we going to die
Exactly. All of the doomsday models assume a conditionally stable system that goes into thermal runaway. But common sense proves otherwise.
@MrRefract there is literally not enough water on Earth to have thermal runaway. It simply can not happen on Earth.
Those who talk about the destruction of the human race are wrong and counterproductive. What they SHOULD be talking about is the destruction of an economy and infrastructure hard wired to the way the earth is right now. That in itself is huge and should not be ignored.
Global warming has killed many species and many going endangered cause of it, human don’t feel it much but if you care about biodiversity then you should wanna slow down the warming, we won’t survive without biodiversity ourselves in the long run. And yes economy will suffer too
@@allenchang6185 what percentage of the warming is due to the always existing natural cycles and what oercent is due to humanity?
IOW, nature routinely kiss of a great many species, so how much of this would not happen of humanity never existed?
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 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.
You missed the most important bit - how sitting in front of traffic or throwing soup at artworks will cause a decrease in CO2 instead of just more green-washing.
Ah, I will be making a joke about this on Saturday, don't want to repeat myself...
@@SabineHossenfelder Planning jokes ahead of time, how delightfully German of you 😂♥
th-cam.com/video/bkrcxLgHn-w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=cPW30FacDJPVFg23
Lol they calculate the impact of their protests based on statistics, it's not as simple as you make it out to be, maybe do some research into them before assuming you know why they are doing it
Pretty simple really.
Car drivers "ah dam,n they're blocking the roads, guess I wont drive today"
co2 decrease achieved
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.
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".
"[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😂
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.
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
What is the ideal temperature for plant earth?
Here in northern Canada I think 72 degrees fairenheight is perfect year round, so we’ve got a way to go.
The temperature you remember and enjoyed as a child is the baseline. Any change from that is a climate catastrophe
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.
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
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.
This lady seems genuine, but she should be reminded that correlation is not causation.
If someone is looking to doubt we are exclusively causing this temperature swing, you need not look very far in climate historical proxies to realize we just have not been taking measurements long enough for our data to mean anything yet.
She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing --it changes things--but that’s been going on in various extremes for as long as this planet has existed.
Turning it into a catastrophe or a crisis is an attempt for some people to assert control over other people. Since modern science is closer to a religion in many fields
I doubt the real scientists are going to stick their heads up long enough to cast doubt on the assertion. “We’re all going to burn to death in 100 years” if they are no longer going to be funded for the real science, they’re doing.
You nailed it. Funding. Whatever your field of research is today, if you sprinkle a bit of climate change over it, you'll get the funding. This is how you breed and groom a generation of docile, ideologically oriented scientists.
"She should also be reminded that a warmer planet isn’t necessarily a bad thing "
This is the stupidest thing I have ever read! First of all - if we continue to burn fossil fuel the planet doesn't only get warmer - it gets hotter and hotter! And it is already a very bad thing!!
Secondly - who with a working brain puts our habitat on jeopardy with uncontrolled terraforming???🤯 seriously, you don't get the scale of the issue, do you?
@@dervideominister I wonder what's the best temperature for life on planet earth. Here at the coast we have 10°C in winter and 20 in summer on average which is not bad although there are a few nights in winter when we go a few degrees below zero and some rare days in summer when we reach up to 40, but I wouldn't mind if temperature where ALWAYS a little higher.
I would ask for 15 on average in winter and 25 during the summertime.
All plants and animals including humans would be happier with 5 extra degrees all the time night and day all year long.
@@josemariatrueba4568 there is no best temperature for life, since life and the whole ecosystem adopted to it. Ask an ice bear, what temperature he needs, and the seals he hunts. Besides that, he needs the arctic ice to get to his prey.
Even with humans it's hard to determine: almost all old civilizations developed in tempered zones, while it seems that innovation and the ability to think forward was more rewarded in slightly colder regions (for obvious reasons).
And now think again: if the temperature rises on the whole planet, there are no more comfort zones. They just move more to the north, while former tempered zones will turn to deserts....
So you rather have less zones that are comfortable
@dervideominister You are right but only up to a certain extent.
I still think that a slightly higher temperature would be very beneficial fot all life on earth, because we do have enough information that colder climate has been terrible, and warmer climate has been great, in the past.
Too many people, animals and plants, suffered during the middle ages around the 6th century, and very much the same happened at the end of the 17th century.
Today, the average temperature above the surface is 14.5°C.
A couple of extra degrees would be very beneficial, like it was when Roman's had an empire 20 centuries ago or Danish sailors went to Greenland 10 centuries ago.
See the history.
There's more than enough information from the last 50 centuries to confirm that 2 extra degrees would be good. Probably 4 extra degrees would be even better.
There must be an ideal temperature for the vast majority of the existing life on planet Earth.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were 5°C more than now, let's say 20°C on average all over the world instead of 14.5, because that's what me, and my cats and plants, prefer.
Indoeuropean migrations occurred in prehistoric ages after some changes in temperature after the last glaciar period that suddenly ended around 120 centuries ago.
My vote for three or five extra degrees, please!
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
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
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.
Most people don't even grasp what temperature really is: the average kinetic energy of molecules! It's the vibrations of the molecules that we feel as temperature. And they also do not grasp that WHY CO2 or other greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation: the specific configuration of the molecule which allows them to vibrate thereby storing energy in form of vibrations, just like guitar strings. If I flick a guitar string (i.e. I inject outside energy into it), it vibrates for a while (i.e., it stores this energy for a while). This is how greenhouse gas molecules are - you flick them (via sunlight) and they vibrate - for a long time - and it's to do with their molecular structure and the tightness/looseness of the chemical bonds.
I had understood it actually, but NOW I want to know: How is CO2 different when it's composed of C12 or C13?
Because all these experts, only until recently have been making a big deal about CO2. Supposedly that's all we needed to know. If they were SUCH experts, why have they bored down on this SPECIFIC detail only now as opposed to explaining it to us earlier on?
Are they just upping their game in the face of challenges, or were/are they merely still pontificating?
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.
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.
Saw a large rise in average temperatures during the later years of WWII. With the massive influx of industrial production, tens of thousands of aircraft, countless fields of crops/town/cities burning.. vehicles gobbling up petrol. Etc etc
Didn't go back down until after the war and not until the 60/70s did it reach similar levels again.
To me that was all the proof I needed.
The global temperature rose from the early 1900's until the mid fourties, from where it fell for the next thirty years,when co2 levels were rising, the opposite of what you just claimed
@@cortical1 Seek out noaa unadjusted data,you'll find that you are wrong.
@@shanecollie5177 State your position clearly, instead of claiming alternative data. Do you believe that the global average temperature has been increasing? And do you believe that this relates to human activity? Just answer yes or no for each of the two questions. We'll go from there. If you cannot have a grownup conversation and show you're incapable of answering two simple yes or no questions, you will be disqualified as a puerile kook. Answer them now.
@@cortical1 Noaa data will show that you are wrong about your assertion as to when global temperatures rose and fell during the 20th centuary. Data does not care about your opinions. I have directed you to the source of the data but you choose to believe something different.
@@shanecollie5177 I actually collect data for NOAA, Einstein, at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. There is nothing you could possibly teach me about NOAA data. 👌🏻
Why should the same people who bungled the pandemic be put in charge of the response?
The weak link in all of this is the effect of CO2 on climate and proof that it is the culprit. More CO2 does not mean it is the cause of climate change, even if humans are responsible for rise in CO2 levels.
Radiative transfer through the atmosphere is a lot more complicated than people think. CO2 is a rather poor greenhouse gas and on top of that, its absorption lines are already saturated - at the saturated wavelengths there are no more photons to absorb and between the lines photons continue to pass "freely". More absorption can only happen away from the line centers and in their weak "wings". This means that more CO2 does not increase absortion linearly, but rather closer to the log of change in the column density.
Even more complicated, once the spectral lines are saturated, the amout of absorption becomes a sensitive function of the line broadening which depends on the temperature and pressure in different ways - and this means that it plays out differently as a function of altitude in the atmosphere, and the detailed structure of the atmosphere in the models matters - one can't simply average it all out. I am not up-to-date with current works, but in the past climte models had a horrible treatment of detailed radiative transfer through the atmosphere. Of course they all claimed "state of the art".
I am not saying that CO2 is not IT - I just say that I have not seen a good physics-based proof that it is it. It just seems like people really want it to be CO2's fault and settle for the weak argument of:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. There is more CO2
3. We run a simulation with a @#$% ton of simplifications and changed CO2 and get some sort of an effect that vaguely resembles what we measure.
4. We can't tell if other things could have caused the same effect.
5. So it must be CO2.
Right, I am no scientist at all, but I also read about your theory before, and I am really wondering not necessarily if but why CO2 influences the climate.
Yes, it's called a spurious correlation.
This is literally What Dr. William Happer has been pointing out for over a decade. But instead of engaging with him on a mathematical level, he is simply branded a climate change denier and NEVER invited to debates. At the fundamental atomic level, CO2 cannot , in any way shape or form, be responsible for the perceived climate change. Until this is adressed by self proclaimed climate experts, i will NOT believe that CO2 has any impact whatsoever. There are WAY too many observations already conflicting this theory. The main one being actual temperature recordings when you dont use urban heat island measurements.
So what, specifically, would constitute a suitable proof for you in this regard?
Nope skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
I'd like to see a video that covers alternative hypotheses for the observed effects, and what evidence has led to them being rejected.
Stop blowing against the “scientific” house of cards
Could be an undiscovered civilization living underground, who have the technology to simultaneously capture all of the CO2 our fossil fuel burning humans do, but themselves emitting an equal amount.
Why do you assume that there are alternative hypotheses in the first place?
It's the sun. The ACRIM data controversy was political garbage.
i can recommend to browse trought www.youtube.com/@tomnelson2080 youtube videos , there are many plausible alternative scenarious from accredited scientist and climate scientist which go against the dogma of the omnipotent CO2 cause and effect hypothesis
Your first pieces of evidence could also be applied to water vapor or methane no ? It’s like looking for the murderer in a room filled with people but ignoring everyone except your suspect exists
Thanks, Sabine. I believe in taking care of our planet.that said, over the past twenty years, I periodically see things in the news such as email leaks documenting data falsification, or articles about improper measurement methods, or government scientists refusing executive orders to release their data for public scrutiny, and I get angry and suspicious.
Second, I see valid questions getting asked (some of which you answered in this video), and the response has (until today) been howling accusations of being "science deniers" and bigots and worse; further, I've seen scientists who asked valid questions get mobbed out of their jobs by their peers for simply asking some of these same questions.
On top of that, when the only actions recommended by the politicians are to actively decrease the population, limit access to fuels that keep the poor alive, strip people of their civil liberties, and line the pockets of the politicians, I become very suspicious that any good science being carried out is being perverted for money and power by political schemers.
Providing clear answers to direct questions is something Western civilization is not good at. And then we wonder why our society is polarizing. If we had more people like you, we might have less bickering.
That said, I still have skepticism for academics,scientists on the government payroll, the politicians that sign their paychecks, the activist groups that push the political campaigns, and the "news" groups that spin the events.
I very much appreciate your contribution to clarity and honest diallogue.
Can we ignore other factors (big and small) such as Milankovitch Cycles, Solar Cycles, Ice Ages - Interglacials ... is the science " settled " concerning Oceans, constantly changing Water vapor in the atmosphere ... what about predicting modeling ...
@FernandoWINSANTO the Milankovitch Cycles show the Earth would be warming right now even if humans never exist. They also show that CO2 level changes have always been a result of temp changes and never a cause.
She ignored them due to them not helping her "prove" her predetermined outcome.
@@cybrsageMilankovitch cycles don’t disprove man-made climate change. The whole point of this video is that different drivers of climate change leave different finger prints and that’s where you may want to focus. It feels like you’re looking for an easy out.
@@Danimalpm1 nope, she did by saying "climate change is man made". That is like saying a pie is home made because you dethawed what you bought in the store. You just "forgot" to mention the store bought part. No deception by you, right? You did not lie by omitting a huge chunk of truth to make people think something untrue, right?
She did not mention the natural warming at all, whilr saying the warming is man made. We know it is a combo of both, yet she "forgot" to mention nature at all. She took the easy, and untruthful, way out, lying by omission.
I want the hard work, the "how much is caused by man and how much by nature" that no one seems to want to tell us all.
We know the Earth would be warming right now even if humans never existed. People then say man is making it hotter. How much hotter? 1% hotter? 99% hotter? It makes a big difference and is important.
Why is it purposely not told to everyone? Why keep it hidden?
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?
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.
Why are you only looking at the data from 1960 forward, if you go back to 1880 when we started recording temperature data accurately it shows we are in a long term cooling trend. Where are you getting your info on more storms and more intense storms? They have actually decreased. Please state your sources.
On temperature, look at NASA website (The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records). This has a temperature record from 1880. Not sure I can see a cooling period since the 1920s? Am I reading this incorrectly?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures#:~:text=According%20to%20an%20ongoing%20temperature,1.9°%20Fahrenheit)%20since%201880.
You missed the blatantly provided sources for literally every single plot. If that is any indication of your cognitive capabilities then I do not think you have anything of value to provide to intellectual conversations. Too bad you will never realize this for the same reasons.
@@elliotn7578 There were no sources provided, either for or against. It is clear that you do not have the intellect to discuss rationally. You would be better directing him to Chapter 11 of Ipcc ap6 report, Which claims that this is the case and new research proves it. Of course, the IPCC is not a scientific body and cherry-picks data. Other new research seems to indicate that Te cRED dataset of natural disasters shows a downward trend,
The problem is that for any extreme weather situation, the data is not consistent according to reports. One will find it increasing and another will find it static or decreasing. Just like whether islands are actually being submerged, some are, some are rising and some no change.
First, the data don’t show a cooling trend from 1880 onward, they show the exact opposite. That exact chart is online in many places. Look it up. Secondly, I’m guessing you don’t live in the tropics. Stronger and more frequent hurricanes are real and as I live in Florida, it’s hard to miss. Yesterday’s news was that Hurricane Beryl is now the earliest cat 5 hurricane on record and that comes on the heels of forecasts that this year will be one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. The sources are everywhere. Do your own work and stop copying off everyone else.
Sabina. Just when I started to make some sense of all this, I read chapter 3 of "Fake Invisible Catastrophes..." by Patrick Moore and threw up my hands, in practice for when the world comes to an end. What do you make of his interpretation of the longer trends in CO2 and temperature. Im waiting with bated breath. Regards, George
She may not have read it, so maybe explain his interpretations?
@@Richard482 temperature goes up BEFORE CO2 increases - as temp increases the ocean can hold less CO2 (think of soda in warm temperatures) and thus expels some of the dissolved CO2...there is solid evidence of this. There is little evidence that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere today is CAUSING any warming...
Dear Sabine! I love your channel but help me understand one thing: With CO2 being only .04% of the concentration of the atmospgere, and H2O being say 9ish%, how in the world can we say that a gas that is at such a low concentration is responsible for these changes an no one hardly talks about the elephant in the room which is water vapor? I mean you can actually FEEL without instrumentation the difference between a cloudy night and a cloudless one. CO2 doesn't make sense to me from this perspective even if we humans have increased CO2 by .01%. Curious! Thanks.
The amount of water vapour in the air isn't changing (on average). It's a closed system which has been doing its thing since before we existed. What we are dramatically _changing_ is the carbon cycle.
CO2 modulates the VAST flux of energy radiated by the planet (approximately as great as the flux of energy from the sun). A small change in that vast flux is a huge amount of energy, which is why a small amount of CO2 can cause a large effect. Unlike water vapour (which amplifies any warming) CO2 doesn't precipitate out of the atmosphere (rain), which is why it can cause a problem when it accumulates. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined by its temperature (Clausius-Clapeyron sp? relationship), so if you put more water vapour in the air than the temperature can sustain, it just falls out again as rain or snow.
In theory, the universe is a closed system. If that is the case, are there other things outside of earthly variables that can impact stratospheric cooling? Could the exponential expansion of the universe impact the overall density of the universe, which would impact the temperature of the upper atmosphere? Is there a way to measure the local impact of an exponentially expanding universe?
That’s why you don’t do science according to what you “feel” but to what you observe. Your argument is basically “0.04% doesn’t seem that much, even though I have no idea of how much you need to produce the effects we observe, is it has to be something else”. Also it’s not just purely CO2, climate change is a very complex phenomenon, see the effects of methane on the atmosphere for example
@davemartin Try drinking a litre of water with 0.04% LSD in it, and you will see how small quantities can have a big effect.
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.
Finally, after 10 years, someone explained an anthropomorphic global warming effect vector to me. I have been lambasted, spat upon, vilified, mocked, harassed, etc. but never got a real answer until now. Thanks, Sabine.
Except she "forgot" that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existence of humanity. Wonder why she did that?
It is irrelevant if the change in climate has been caused by human activity, what is important is what future human activity can ameliorate the problem.
Yes how do you make billions of people living in poverty in China and India conform to net zero emissions?
How.much is caused by man and how much is from the natural systems that are still there and always have been?
@Jack-gn4gl the Paris Climate accords said Indoa amd China can pollute as much as they want, only the west has to suffer.
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.
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/
Yes, it's possible that virtual backgrounds have contributed to a slight reduction in the frequency or importance of in-person housewarming functions, particularly for more casual or remote gatherings.
One volcano eruption in Iceland in 1997 issued more carbone dioxide into the atmosphere than 50 years of cars and industiries combined. Somehow this data is no longer available.
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.
@@MassimoAngotzi I was going to write something similar, you, however, phrased it much better than I. Cheers!
I am a recently retired senior scientist. I worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency for 30 years. I have several Earth Science degrees. I have authored hundreds of scientific assessments; most all are available for public review. Carbon 14 is a horrible isotope for dating purposes. Beryllium 10, Aluminum 26, and especially Krypton 81 are significantly better. CO2 is plant food. CO2 doesn't cause the warming. The rise in CO2 levels actually follows the warming. Also, the global warming since the early 1800s is very small, compared to the warming in the Viking, Roman, and Minoan periods over the past 3,000 years. The amount of warming has continued to decrease through each of these time periods. We are actually very near the end of the inter glacial warm period. The ice age will resume rather soon in gelogic time. Additionally, CO2 levels were over 3,000 ppm during the entire period that the dinosaurs were on Earth, which was many millions of years. So, 425 ppm of Vo2 isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. More CO2 means much more vegetation.
You should know that it is irrelevant to bring up asynchronous variations, that in no way reflect in the long-term trends like that of the Little Ice Age, Roman, Minoan, and the Medieval Warm periods. They were not global phenomenons.
You should know there are 3 dozen temperature reconstructions, that all find a slow, nearly imperceptible decline in temperature from the Holocene Thermal Optimum about 9000 years ago to the mid-19th century, followed by a sharp uptick in the 20th century, blowing past the asynchronous Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods and still rising. If you could show otherwise, you’ll be the next rock star in applied physics and rich to boot.
It’s a myth that CO2 always comes after a warming period and not before. "CO2 always lags temperature" is a popular talking point, but it's incorrect.
Sometimes CO2 leads, sometimes it lags. According to ice cores and other evidence. It depends whether CO2 or some other force is driving.
CO2 lags when something else (even water vapour feedback) is driving climate change. CO2 leads when it's the driver. For example. at the beginning of the last deglaciation of the Pleistocene. And for example, right now.
And what's with bringing up the Jurassic era; none of the systems human civilization depends on would function in that environment. Radically different ecosystems then and now. Bring up when the earth was much hotter with higher C02 levels is irrelevant, as the rates of CO2 fluctuations back then were at which organisms were able to adapt and evolve to climate change. Basically enough time for the the oceans to absorb CO2 to maintain an equilibrium in the atmosphere, enough time to suck CO2 out of the air through the weathering of rocks, and enough plants to absorb CO2; all these mechanisms relatively not disrupting plant growth and life.
The 425 ppm is not the concern as much of the rate it got there and the current rate. Current rate of global warming brings a loss of global biodiversity and favours weeds over crops.
Nutrients are already added to top soil in 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 ten times faster than it is being replaced.
Sorry, I can't believe you were a true scientist.
(1) How could a true scientist think that more is always good? Ever heard of side effects? Sure, CO2 is plant food, and plants fed and watered and chilled in clean greenhouses do better with more of it. But CO2 has real-life side effects such as climate change that absolutely threaten plants.
(2) How could a true scientist compare apples and oranges so thoughtlessly? That's what you do when you talk about the Jurassic, as if that planet were the same as ours. You should know the Sun was younger and dimmer back then than now, so more CO2 was just fine in the ancient past. Climate scientists definitely know this fact. They do incorporate sun dimness in any modern model of climates.
(3) How could a true scientist not know that CO2 intrinsically warms the planet?!? CO2's greenhouse effect is such a basic finding that it can be demoed in any elementary school. So straightforward, it could be discovered in 1856 with the simplest possible experiment: stick tubes of CO2 and normal air under the sun and measure the heat with a thermometer. CO2 runs hot; air, not so much. It's so foundational that its discovery predates the Civil War or communism (so, not a conspiracy theory for libs or cons) and before we invented gas guzzlers like cars and trains and planes (so, not propaganda of the capitalists or the ecoists).
Wow! You are wrong on so many points. Good luck! You are going to need it. Well, the Sun doesn't care what you, me , or anyone else thinks. Our Sun will have a micro nova sometime within the next 15 to 25 years, as the galactic electromagnetic current sheet continues to envelope our solar system. Earth's magnetosphere has lost approximately 30% of its strength and is declining rapidly at an exponential rate. The entire Climate Change debate is a distraction created by the those in charge of this planet Earth. The main cause of the weather and climate changes is the Earth declining magnetosphere. Humans will actually be plunged back into the stone age sometime between now and the next 10 to 15 years. As the magnetosphere gets drastically weakened, Earth is becoming increasing vulnerable to solar flares, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), and filament eruptions. It's a game of Russian Roulette. But, the probability of a solar kill shot is increasing daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. So, enjoy our modern world, while we still have it. @@rps1689
I, a general layman, like many others, I’m scratching my head with who to believe! I certainly don’t trust any government for the correct answer but listening to and reading lots of experienced guy’s theories (which they seem to be) I can’t find the definitive proof
That same uncle would also fail a grade school exam even if his life depended on it.
Wow, as an ex-scientist I loved how simply you explained this. I am not too hopeful in an environment where opinion carries as much weight as knowledge, unfortunately.
Well it may convince a layman but it does not even amount to high school science. She says that ocean pH is changing and somehow this rules out that changes in solar activity are causing "global warming". FFS she is supposed to be a scientist. She comes here are makes an idiot of herself because she is way outside her field and is totally uncritical. I guess she believed all the BS AI Chatbots tell her instead of checking whether it even makes sense. Sadly she fools folks like you who give undue deference to her qualifications in particle physics or whatever she used to do.
She "forgot" to mention that the Milankovitch cycles are currently warming the Earth regardless of the existence of humanity. Wonder why she "forgot" this well-established scientific fact...
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?
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.).
Instead of calling it "climate change", people should have called it "climate destruction" or "climate disaster" or whatever to make it much easier to understand.
Wonderful, Sabine, and thank you very much for everything you have shared with us. Would you please put this information into context? At what point are any of these values considered material changes that justify $trillions spent, de-population, eating bugs, etc.
What consensus of sober, legitimate climate scientists and politicians are calling for laws to mandate the eating of bugs and the reduction of population?
We don't know. We just think we know it's not spurious correlation.
Can you cover the covid vaccines and excess death rate next please Sabine?
And the reality of the moon landing lol.
I’m getting fed up with all this pointless debate. It’s like being on one of those old wooden ships..cannons firing all around as other ships battling away, masts falling and fire breaking out and we are all wondering whether the ship has woodworm!
@@andrewlucas6214 woodworms are a conspiracy of the elites to pull you inline!
@@georgelionon9050 pretty dumb comment, as excess death rates after vaccinations are horrible and completely obviously covered up by govs and media. Check OSCD statistics in yuonger age groups, and do the math, it's shocking, and yet no word about it.
That’s naughty of you…
I am a uncle many times over. Last week I became a great uncle as my nephew s wife had a baby boy. I do not need much convincing as I have been farming for fifty years and I can see the affects of global warming. I had never been in a Cat 5 hurricane even though I have lived in Florida for a very long time. Hurricane Micheal roared through my area destroying crops, barns , trees and houses and power lines . I saw entire forests broke like they where match sticks. Made a believer out of me.
Hurricane activity HASN'T CHANGED GLOBALLY!
This video is informative, clear, concise, and precise. Really shows the causal evidences. Thank you so much.
No causal relationship was demonstrated, only correlation.
what causal evidence?
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
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 :)
Dear Sabine, could you please make a video on how we easiest and fastest could tackle climate change? For instance, by reducing world wide particle missions from household coal consumption (heating, cooking etc), by reducing particle emissions from vehicles, by increasing Co2 uptake from lakes and oceans, by increasing reforestation programs and perhaps a few iother simple solutions that don´t necessary focus on direct Co2 emissions but on reducing particle emissions in combination with an increased Co2 uptake in nature. Would be nice to hear the swiftest possible solution to a global problem without ruining the global economy.
A great book on this is Mike Berners Lee "There is no Planet B". Not preachy, sometimes amusing, yet a great talent to crunch numbers in an entertaining way and give you a feeling for where the big possibilities for saving CO2 lie.
You only need to go back to Simon and Garfunkel's song "The Boxer" (1969) to have the answer to your dilemma: "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".
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.
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.
What I haven’t worked out is the effect of the troposphere has expanded pushing the stratosphere further out/up ?
Maybe with Bokeh mode we may even forget that there are background people working on prevention of global warming.
--
Ah, I see your point now. Using Bokeh mode in a garden setting where gardeners are working might indeed create a somewhat surreal or disconnected effect, as it could blur out the context of their work. It's important to consider the appropriateness of the photographic technique in different situations to avoid conveying unintended messages or creating awkward compositions.
ChatGPT 🌹
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.
I'm the kind of person who wants to see the evidence. So when someone says "It's undeniable" or "We just know" or "Almost every scientist agrees!" it's an insult tbh. Sorry, I don't blindly believe things just because someone said it was true. I am open minded though. I appreciate the fact that you showed actual data. That's very rare to see from something that's so politicized. Regardless, I think the move to cleaner energy can't possibly be a bad thing and I fully support it.
Edit: I should clarify. Technological development can't be a bad thing. Forcing people to switch before the market is ready is.
" I think the move to cleaner energy can't possibly be a bad thing and I fully support it." Of course it can be a bad thing.
@@squidly1117 I am very curious how moving to cleaner energy can be a bad thing.
People just accept that things are difficult to fully understand without the right knowledge and experience and the same goes for scientific data, so they rely on who knows better than them and if almost all the people who dedicated their life to study this stuff agree on the same thing it’s very likely that the truth is something very close to that.
For example… is this video really enough to satisfy your doubts? What if this is just misleading propaganda?Take the graph at 4:32. Did you actually watched that and though “oh yea now I can see with my eyes the proof”? Could you correctly interpret it? Is it authentic? What does “AMSU-A Fit” actually mean? Do you really have full context and enough knowledge to understand without an inch of a doubt what all of that means or did you just think “well ok Sabrina seems convincing enough”? Because this is no that different from those “insulting” people telling you “almost every scientist agrees”, you just made a small step further and nothing else.
Give me an example of energy which is 'cleaner'?
@@Hust91I've worked in the renewable energy field for 25 years. When 99% of the "green" infrastructure is constructed in a communist country that refuses to abide by international protocols but insists the USA do so, and this results in a massive transfer of wealth to said communist country, then you can start to see it is not necessarily a good thing. Clean energy in concept I am fully on board with - but when human interests take over profit becomes the key determinant, not helping others. Sad but true.
Hi there. Just want to point out holes in your deductions.You missing few points here. What is % of Co2 in atmosphere, how much % increased due to human activities and how that corresponds to global warming.
The total amount of CO2 in atmosphere is 0.004% 421 ppm.Increase by 0.0001% in last 50years. Is this significant? Do we have mathematical model that shows correlation of increase 0.0001% of CO2 with increase temperature? Simulations? We can’t simulate,model weather patterns for more then 10days not to mention planets atmosphere.
1. The ratio is 0.043% CO2. It was 0.028% CO2.
2. That is an increase of over 50%, over 99% caused by humanity.
3. That is a significant increase, as every doubling of CO2 increases the temperature by 2 Celsius.
4. We have correlation and even causation.
5. Weather is not climate. I can predict with 100% accuracy that the summer 2030 will be warmer than winter 2030.
@@old-peteand I can predict with 100% accuracy that the west climate actions will not change anthropogenic warming. The future of the climate will be decided in China and India. Here’s the truth millions of them are still very poor and nothing the west wants will stop them wanting to be richer. They don’t care one xxxx about the climate they are surviving week to week now.
@@johnmaguire2185I can do that too, since the actions take decades.
India produces less CO2 than the US, despite having threetimes the population.
China installls more renewables than Europe and the US together.
The world needs to act together to solve the problem.
Too many forget a lot of emissions in Asia are caused by making stuff for other countries. Remember that the next time you buy stuff Made in China or Vietnam.
I'm not even convinced we know the earth is warming appreciably. I think it's kinda ridiculous to assume we can accurately measure the temperature over vast stretches of time. Too many confounding factors to even begin to get a handle on it, IMO.
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
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?
What caused the Medieval warm period? The Little Ice Age? The very warm 1930s? Asking for my uncle...
It still sounds pretty complicated. A lot of different kinds of data, but it's presented a little too rapidly and carelessly compared to many other Sabine's videos.
There is a reason scientists researched the topic for decades before they came to a conclusion in the 50s.
@@old-pete You speak for all scientists? I've known several who think Climate Hysteria is nonsense.
@@destroya3303Not many scientist who came to conclusions in the 50s are alive anymore and most of todays scientists were not working back then...
@@destroya3303Not many scientist who came to conclusions in the 50s are alive anymore and most of todays scientists were not working back then...
I believe she is paid by the deep state. She is supposed to play the odd one out. But after THAT dumb video how can anyone call her a scientist...
THANK YOU SABINE!
There is an almost complete lack of discussing the basics in the public sphere. Articles, videos and debates almost always cover some fringe detail which really doesn't matter to the general public, but there is a shocking lack of knowledge on the basics and we need to tackle that.
Isn't it scary that Sabine found a public knowledge gap on something as immense as Climate Change. Given how much focus there is on Climate Change it is scary that Sabine is effectively saying most people are just accepting "the experts" as a source of scientific authority and missing out on the info she provides.
@@nigelhungerford-symes5059 Some people just accept what the scientific community says and some people are accepting what the republican and various random websites say.
I find that the general public, those that simply accept the science, are not sciene literate enough and that is not good. The average joe prefers to drink beer, watch sports, watch politics.
yes it is almost as if we optimized society for gullible knownothing dunning kruger sufferers...
Well, if you examine the 'basics' in depth you will find then questionable. Most people stay at the surface and they are easily swayed just like this video tries to do..
@@egoncorneliscallery9535 what dunning kruger sufferers find questionable is not important. They either research it themselves and publish their result for peer review or their opinion is worthless.
Chat GPT is a glorified search engine that likes to give lectures rather than answer the question.
Yep, calling these things AI is completely misleading. Also like search engines they give the answers their owners want them to.
This severely understates it's abilities
Yeah but it is quite helpful .
Maybe I prefer my answers in lecture form rather than being blasted by b******* and ads while the algorithms are actively trying to get me addicted.
It also loves to create run-on sentences that are difficult to speak aloud (ChatGPT doesn't understand that we have to take a breath every now and then!).
Thank you for this video... i am sure the Koch bros hate you for it. 😂😂😂
For everyone who wants to learn more about what to do against climate change: A great book on this is Mike Berners Lee "There is no Planet B". The author has a great talent for crunching numbers without becoming boring or preachy, and really makes clear where everyone, including ordinary citizens, can save CO2. Really an eye-opener!
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.
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.
The climate is and always has been changing with or without humans. The question is how much are humans contributing and in which direction. And what can we do about it
The things that cause climate change are called forcings. Planetary climates are the result of a thermodynamic equilibrium. They only change when some force changes the equilibrium point, thereby forcing them to change. When the forcings cancel out, climate doesn't change. For example, the Holocene Thermal Optimum, which happened ten thousand years ago to five thousand years ago; basically five thousand years of essentially no climate change, which allowed humans to develop an agricultural civilization. Just one of a few examples of climate not always changing.
Actually only the last question is relevant, and the answer is "nothing".
Silly question! We are currently the only contributors and managed to change climate within 100 years so why not change back?
@@franknagel3753 because even assumed correct it would require extermination of a few billion of us?
Like it's been said for decades now; it's not the amount, it's the speed ... and it accelerates. The tree is going to be fine, but the branch we're sitting on is not and each broken twig comes with a huge cost. This is like watching an approaching tsunami in slow motion.
"The science is settled!", said no real scientist ever.
"Settled" in science is basically Scientific consensus, which is the widespread acceptance that all attempts to refute a hypothesis or bust a theory have failed. It can only be observed long after it has formed.
Anthropogenic global warming is occurring and settled, but it is hardly the most important or interesting area of climate research because of this. AGW is a baseline; just as evolution is the baseline for evolutionary biology.
The 1.1C global warming since 1880 is settled. The 0.2C per decade global warming since 1980 is settled. The insignificant decline in solar energy output since 1980 is settled. These are observed effects, consistent with physical theory.
@@rps1689 what part of «... said no real scientist ever.» did you omit again. There is no consensus about global warming.
Climate research, you know aliens research is also a real thing too. Just like people tracking and researching ghosts, spirits and poltergeist. Myself I find the possibility of the loch ness monster and similar ones in the Baikal lake to be more plausible.
Anyhing will be a science, doesn't make it true, you can have a fandom and make stats and call you a pokemon sociologist, and that's science. You can do the same with climate or anything you want! What's your point.
There is a change of temperatures, how can you be certain it is meaningful or related to human activity, deliver evidence, go ahead, links to scientific publication and data that can be verified, or remain silent.
Exactly. We know absolutely nothing at all and just need to blindly guess on all things in the future ever. Will gravity work if I step out the window? Impossible to say. The science is never settled!
Ever
@@mattleathen445the earth is 5.5 billion years old… man knows what exactly?
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.
What excellent concision and clarity. As always you have shed light wonderfully, without hyperbole of fudging.
Thankyou for this I had the same frustration when trying to find and understand non partisan science.
With all due respect, the concerns of 'sceptics' like Dr Steven Koonin and Dr Judith Curry have never been 'is climate change caused by humans?' but how much is caused by humans and what are the consequences. To answer the latter it is important to apply sensible projections of human emissions, which requires an understanding of what each representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenario represents, since some (e.g. RCP 8.5) are known to be so extreme as to be effectively impossible.
You might want to get up to speed on more recent research which is scarily beginning to make it look like RCP8.5 is far more possible. Climate sensitivity may have been underestimated...
Not only getting more likely but some, granted regional Data, one of our Profs showed us seemed to indicate that we are heading to a Scenario above the R 8.5. Meaning that the models possibly underestimate Climate Change. Not saying that will happen, because it could be an anomaly but the trend is scarry
I don't see how that's relevant. She didn't mention those people at all and she didn't mention their arguments either. You're just a bot getting upvoted by other bots and wasting people's time.
@@sntslilhlpr6601, sorry to disappoint you but I'm a human that has read the IPCC WG1 report, which presents no evidence to support extreme claims such as this.
@@ianmearsphoto, I'd be interested to read this new evidence, especially if it's in peer reviewed journals, as it seems to contradict current IPCC thinking.
I’m still waiting for the new ice age they promised us in the 70s
And what happened to the acid rain. And how does Australia still have an ozone over it?
@@williamadams4855 And killer African bees :-D
@@bizzjoe forgot about that one.
@bizzjoe Also this probably would have all been resolved if we would have ran out of fossil fuels by now.
They changed it to global warming when the science and predictions kept failing. Unfortunately, it still fails.
You should feel honored that the guy on twitter trust your word more than google. And rightfully so because many people are unable to filter out good from bad information.
I refuse to curb my appetites whilst container ships float and private jets fly.
What has one thing to do with the other?
@@old-pete I buy local and I don’t listen to environmentalists that fly private. These are my contributions.
@@DansEarwayOnce again, what has this to do with the issue?
@@old-pete It’s my two cents concerning the climate “crisis”. Take it or leave it, Petey.
Having 30 years of data is like making a study with 10 participants.
It depends what you are actually studying. If you are studying the effects of continental drifts then you need millions of years of evidence... Which we do have, this is why we know continents are drifting. But if the climate rapidly changes at rates never before seen in the entire 5 billion year history of the Earth, then 30 years might well be enough. And yes, we also have millions of years worth of data of the Earth's climate.
But the atmosphere is a system as old as the continents. We should not be that quick to judge what is a reasonable time to estimate what is "normal" of your perspective is so short. In the younger dryas, about 11 000 years ago (still pretty recent in the atmospheric perspective) the temperature rose 10 degrees Celsius in less than 50 years! Look it up if you don't believe me.
The point being that the atmosphere is an old system and that we think we understand it, but we don't.
reminds me of a study with the blood clot jab with 8 mice lmao, scientific dogma is mainstream nowadays
@@torolvro59No you got that wrong, temperature decreased by more than 10 degrees specific to greenlands temperature and probably by volcanic activity so not a sudden increase in temperature at all
You answered some questions I've had for a long time. I hadn't been able to find the answers elsewhere.
During Covid, CO2 emissions went down by over 5 percent but the level of CO2 in the atmosphere continued at its prior pace. Consider the following: "Published in November 2021 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper developed out of a workshop sponsored by the W. M. Keck Institute for Space Studies and led by scientists on campus and at JPL. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting limitations put on travel and other economic sectors by countries around the globe drastically decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within just a few weeks. However, while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. While the drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean did not absorb as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it has in recent years, probably due to the reduced pressure of carbon dioxide in the air at the ocean’s surface." The problem has to do with how C02 interacts with Nitrogen Oxide. See this artice for a detailed explanation: magazine.caltech.edu/post/atmospheric-co2-covid-pandemic
hmm ok I was not sure if they were measuring different carbons, or if they were factoring in the greenhouse gases from volcanos, when they say there is more co2 being released,
wouldn't this carbon 12 though also cause more plants to feed more readily from the more absorbable carbon 12 they like and can use more readily?
We're digging up ancient CO2, that plants are absorbing more is very temporary, 1 year for grasses (think grains), even trees for the most part are 50yrs. a lot of tree planting is lumber, it's not being left to just grow.
We've been digging up and releasing CO2 for 150yrs, we've deforested massive amounts of land and at best replaced it with lumber trees tho most commonly just annual plants from grazing or crops
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.
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.
Sabine, how do we know that our understanding of past CO2 concentrations ( from ice, rocks) is correct? How is the data from a 2 million year old rock validated?
Can we have some numbers deduced from first principles?
Like in a back of an envelope calculation?
What will the equilibrium temperature bee. If any?
Nobody thinks Humans have 0 effect on climate. That is exaggerating your opponents points to dismiss them. You are intelligent and beyond these logical fallacies. Unless, of course, you, as most of your colleagues, are politically motivated to connive in such a manner. The things questioned are:
* How much does human activity cause exactly which warming? Regardless of the persistence of activist in academia and journalist, this is still a hot topic, over which many serious, well respected scientist working at the IPCC have resigned, not helping this dilemma get resolved
* What is exactly the cost / benefit scenario ? What impact does what warming EXACTLY have ? ARE there way more storms? IS growing delicious grapes in The Netherlands or Britain bad?
* What measures have the most effect with the least impact? IS banning all oil, gas an coal in X years time the best solution? What technological implements can we use to combat problematic warming?
As long as you keep approaching this subject in this manner and keep gluing your hand on the freeway, many, many uncles will deliberately shrug their shoulders and proclaim it is Kwatsch.
What have you learned from your Uncle?
you must be one of those stubborn, ignorant uncles, I think. Why not read some of the actual scientific papers for yourself? Plenty are publicly available. Educate yourself, uncle!
@@russmarkham2197saw a UK labour MP saying we need to reduce fossil fuels by 75% in 5 years. Given the current price of energy, then people are going to die or be left in abject poverty. Parliament will still be heated by the money taken from those in poverty. Given that deaths from natural disasters has continually decreased in the last 100 years, can you point me at the data that shows that trend reversing such that iys a price i am willing to pay. I don't care about MMGW, I care about the costs and benefits of what people better than me think is for my own good
@@russmarkham2197 there are plenty of scientific papers and scientists that hold conclusions contrary to the mainstream. Perhaps you should educate yourself. Uncle.
@@markdavis632 I have educated myself on this subject by reading many scientific papers, and I have a strong background in science, technology and world affairs. And I have expressed my opinions after much consideration of the facts. My assessment based on the evidence is as follows: The warming has already had some bad impacts, these are going to get much worse over the next couple of decades, and our whole civilization is in danger of collapse. Most people and most politicians hope this problem is not real, or will go away by itself. Like ostriches, they have head firmly in sand. Or like the gentleman sitting in the first class bar of the Titanic, 30 minutes after the ship hit the iceberg. they think "The lights are still on and I have a brandy in my hand - everything is fine." And I don't think humans will succeed in reducing CO2 emissions by much. Especially if you are examples of the public opinion on this to date. One can only hope that some kind of climate repair can be done before it is too late.
Your comment has been curtailed. For someone to react to your quite reasonable questions by saying that you're a stubborn uncle would be quite mind blowing to some . Keep up the good work.
Hi Sabine, first off, thank you for your educational content - it's incredibly valuable and much appreciated. I have a question regarding the gravity of climate change as a global issue. In your view, how does the seriousness of climate change compare to other potential threats like nuclear war, the rise of AI, or asteroid impacts? And should our focus on it outweigh efforts to combat world hunger or diseases?
I'm not trying to downplay climate change's importance, but rather I'm curious about its prioritization in the grand scheme of global challenges. For instance, if one had a certain amount of resources (which could also be thought of as funding for scientific research), what percentage would be best allocated to addressing climate change? Do you think it warrants a pause in other research areas until the climate is stabilized?
This topic might even make for an interesting video discussion :D
The topic sounds more social-political than scientific. I'd be surprised if Sabine tackled it.
Climate change is a more serious concern than all of those, but it's slow and quiet, so it sneaks up on people, rather than being sharp and sudden like an atomic bomb. Like to compare it to nuclear war, such an exchange would kill a lot more people all at once, but the lasting effects of it would settle down a lot faster than climate change is, and over the next hundreds of years would likely end up killing fewer people. Also, nuclear war is entirely avoidable by just choosing not to have a nuclear war, whereas climate change is happening, and would take significant work to stop.
As for AI, it's way too hard to predict how that plays out, but could either be terrible or great. There's really not much anyone's planning to "do" about that though.
As for asteroids, a big enough asteroid could do more harm than climate change, but we have a pretty good idea that no such asteroid is heading our way, and hopefully we would be able to stop it if we did. We're putting reasonable effort into that possibility.
As for world hunger and disease, climate change is the largest contributing factor in both problems, and that will only become worse as climate change gets worse, so efforts to solve climate change helps solve both.
So basically, of all the problems facing the world today, climate change is probably the most significant one to tackle. I don't think it's reasonable to spend ALL our resources on it, and I don't think we need to "pause" all other activities because not everyone would really have anything meaningful to add to climate change research, so it's better they do something else, but we should definitely be spending more than we currently are.
@@timogul The concern I have with putting global warming as the highest priority is that this also give it the highest moral value. In the name of saving the climate, all sorts of policies and restrictions can be implemented: banning meat, restricting travel, and justifying negative economic growth as good and beneficial. Human life itself can lose value, as having fewer people can be seen as desirable. Implementing global policies that make energy more expensive might seem desirable from a climate-saving perspective, but they can have deadly consequences, especially for poor countries and for people living on the edge. I want us to save the climate but without losing our humanity and our freedom.
I am no one, but the logic tells me we should solve issues that are manifested first, and use preventive means to stop possible threats as we go. All of them filter type events. So I do not think anyone of them can be carried so far into the future to see the worse filter, just that we react to them when they need recating to, and if we react wrong, many species will die off. Humans are gonna have a bad time, though even by bad choices we may survive these filter events.
@@bertstein8590 So you would prefer not to address climate change _accurately_ because you believe that doing so would inconvenience you? That is not how science works.
The moral questions are your own to deal with, if you believe that your personal freedoms are more valuable to you than the human lives they would cost, then that's fine, you do you, but you can't have it both ways, the moral cost exists whether you ignore it or not.
I will point out though that YOU are the only one suggesting that saving trillions by addressing climate change is somehow "losing our humanity and freedom." Nobody else is asking that of you.
Somehow I had a feeling that Sabine wasn't going to truly answer that question in 6 minutes... she did market a product tho...
So if we are warming up the atmosphere does that automatically mean we can fix it?