What am I doing, without even a coffee, at 6.30 in an English morning looking at "one of the most impressive shell beds in the whole of the Wanganui mudstone layer?" The net is certainly wonderful.
Bahahaha. I watch clips of other people go metal detecting. It's bizarre. But it's cathartic. Normally they just find old buttons, maybe a belt buckle. But I love it.
I collect the plant fossil of New Zealand ,from two time periods ,Miocene and Pliocene ,one plant family totally extinct here but well known in the tropical belts are commonly called sea almonds ,they were a huge part of New Zealand's flora. I also have The New Zealand coconut ,but that didn't make it past the cooling event in the middle Miocene ,when carbon level's dropped and the earth got dry and cold .the earth came out of that event to be very warm again ,and my Pliocene New Zealand plant fossil's are what you would see in Queensland and new Caledonia forests .There so much not at all commonly known with New Zealand plant fossil past ,I'm lucky I can visit site's of previous hot/warm periods in time New Zealand was experiencing and collecting the seed/fruit remands ,many not identified ,but plenty are and commonly seem in the hot/warm belt's of the world today .
@@loganstrong9874 thank you very much for sharing your interest in plant fossils. I would love to know more. Have you got photos or descriptions anywhere?
@@OutThereLearning unfortunately no ,I had donated my first collection to the Auckland museum ,but plant fossil's don't go on display only in storage .There is so much not openly known or to still be researched and published ,but the general public wouldn't know the fossil plant history of New Zealands Miocene and Pliocene past .I'm making new discoveries all the time and so many I need help to give me a likely plant family (which I do have a few expert contacts to help ) the Sea almonds are part of the Combretaceae Family ,species Terminalia .They seem to be a major part of our coast /swamp ecosystems both in the Miocene and Pliocene and i've found My first examples from deeper river valley's from the Miocene .I'm based in Northland and it's an area very much neglected for plant fossil's ,which i'm recovering in places never before recovered from (winter storms do do a lot of the work for me ),One site the Miocene fossil's are in fantastic condition no compression unlike the famous Cooper beach fossil's .I'm about to do alot of photo's as the last few weeks i've recovered new Miocene fossil's in 'life shape' no compaction ,i've got my first round coconut from my new Miocene site (Cooper's beach the Coconut have had compaction and aren't round ),It was great to see a round small Coconut for the first time. You can email me happy to send you pic's . - 2logan234@gmail.com
👍I live beside the Rangitikei river where the porewa stream intersects…yes the shells in the mudstone have been a curious mystery….thanks so much for the concise logic explanations😃
Thank you for your interesting and informative videos. It must be a bit soul destroying to read some of the ignorance and stupidity typed into the comments.
So glad to see this video ,ive spent time visiting site's in the Taranikki bight but yet to visit the sites in this vid .I mainly recover the plant seeds and fruits from Miocene and Pliocene New Zealand .I do often wonder even thou humans have changed the warming of the earth ,I do wonder if people in the far future will appreciate it .Learning about the height of the last ice age ,and for example the city of Chicago was under a 3km thick ice sheet .I'm sure if the ice was advancing and looking like the ice sheets would cover our beloved cities human's would still want to course a global warming event to save cities with long human habitation ,even thou new land would be exposed as sea level's dropped due to ice formation .Two most interesting New Zealand plant fossil's lost due to climate change are the Miocene Coconuts and Pliocene sea almonds (that were very much part of the Miocene flora as well ).
As I drift off to sleep, another fascinating lesson. Seems geology is your area is quite diverse. Pacific west coast dweller hereand we also have unique features all up the coast to Washington state. Lots of volcanic activity in the past. Mount Saint Helen most recent. We have many faults throughout this are . I've experienced a few nice sized quakes. Love it.
@@kayakMike1000 As well as determining the prehistorical alluvial circumstances and tectonic/volcanic metamorphosis & mineral constituents of individual rocks & formations, they study strata. Distinction between various rocks & ice layers & ash/coal, oil ( carbon & hydrocarbon) layers & various carbon isotopes and fossils within them. These provide many of the clues the climate/atmospheric scientists use. The paleontologists study the fossils further and palynologists the diatoms/pollen found within such layers too. Modern Earth Science now entails more than just maintaining compartmentalized disciplines all on their own.
Absolutely! "God's Great Plough" they call it. Nothing will stop the next ice age from wiping the slate clean. Global warming is nothing but an insignificant blip on the natural course of events and may even be looked at as a God Send in putting off the day that mass immigration is to warmer climes rather than the opposite that we are seeing today in places like the UK. 🤭
😂😂😂 The only bit you had right was the evidence of sea levels since the beginning of time. Note that I said "evidence". Show us the CO2 levels that you said "we know" had/have an effect on temperature. Like all the others who perpetuate the myth, you display the ammended "hockey stick" graph, produced by Michael Mann, refusing to EVEN DISCUSS the TRUE temperature records that were simply erased to provide for your own narrative. Open debate. Get in the ring with Tony Heller and many others on global television and have the guts to debate publicly your viewpoint.
Gosh, the algorithm has directed this vid to a whole bunch of armchair expert climate change deniers and even people to whom basic safety equipment is offensive lol. How strange. I love this channel, keep up the good work 👏
why do you call people that question the science , deniers, you obviously know scientist have got stuff wrong before. "you must always be willing to truly consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs, and admit the possibility that you might be wrong. Intelligence isnt knowing everything, its the ability to challenge everything you know". So if people agreed with everything a scientist or science says then we would not progress . You have to remember this is the best ideas that they can come up with at the time, they could be totally wrong, i always like my tack with science, oh you believe in climate change ? why because science says so " oh you believe in only 2 genders, oh no there are more than two genders, " me but science begs to differ, i rest my case.
We can already see it. It's hard to see if you've intentionally blinded yourself to fit with your in group, but it's completely obvious to anyone willing to look at what nature is telling us.
Thanks for another super upload. How wonderful that all this technology is opening up the minds of many to these magnificent wonders. Another interesting site that I visited recently in connection with this is the beach at Glenafric in north Canterbury, South Island.
I grew up on a farm, east of Stratford, we had fossilized shells, near the top of one of the hills, and large square cut sections that were sitting at the head of a swamp below the hill, not sure how far above present sea level these formations are.
,,Millions of years ago, the original coastline of what is now Taranaki, swung went inland from just south of Tongaporutu. A large area has been covered by volcanic deposit from the several cones which now make up the Egmont National Park.. - and hence the gas and oil deposits.
Humans are also changing the geology of the planet, although not on the same scale as we're changing the climate. We change sedimentation patterns when we dam rivers and dredge channels. We're emptying aquifers, which can cause the surface of the land to sink. We're releasing long-buried minerals onto the surface through open-pit mining. We're even creating seismic activity through wastewater injection. Going forward, we need to be a lot more sensibly cautious about the unintended consequences of our actions.
How weird, to have science buffs totally denying the evidence of climate change in the comments. I did not expect this. Still a wonderful video though. And Castlecliff is close to me! Thank you for a great upload.
It's the same edgelord contrarianism that prompts 'doctors' to deny covid. And the inevitable sleazy dollars to be made from dumb dumbs who'll buy into it, literally.
@@gasdive Most likely because they've been kicked off YT like myself and producing videos doesn't mean anything. Just the contradictions in this video should be enough to raise a flag or two. Pretty weak argument really.
who denies climate change? just the over confidence of CO2 driving this very small period of warming is a bit overboard in the video spoiling the experience considering recent studies in the correct field that speaks to radiative gas potencies. In plain language, CO2 is saturated (essentially all of its effects are reached by 100 ppm---adding more means nothing)
Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules PDF W. A. van Wijngaarden & W. Happer Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics arXiv: 2006.03098 (2021) The forcings due to changing concentrations of Earth’s five most important, naturally occurring greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 as well as CF4 and SF6 were evaluated for the case of a cloud-free atmosphere. The calculation used over 1.5 million lines having strengths as low as 10-27 cm. For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others, the per-molecule forcings are of order 10-22 W for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4, and of order 10-21 W for CF4 and SF6. For current atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude. The forcings of the less abundant greenhouse gases, O3, N2O and CH4, are also suppressed, but much less so. For CF4 and SF6, the suppression is less than an order of magnitude because the concentrations of these gases is very low. For current concentrations, the per-molecule forcings are two to four orders of magnitude greater for O3, N2O, CH4, CF4 and SF6 than those of H2O and CO2. Doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent. A concentration increase of either CF4 or SF6 by a factor of 100 yields a forcing nearly an order of magnitude smaller than that obtained by doubling CO2. Important insight was obtained using a harmonic oscillator model to estimate the power radiated per molecule. Unlike the most intense bands of the 5 naturally occurring greenhouse gases, the frequency-integrated cross sections of CF4 and SF6 were found to noticeably depend on temperature.
On top of that sediment timeline. Do you have to take in the factor of the movement of the land as well, this making the measurements a bit more difficult to get a accurate account?
The two graphs shown temperature and CO2 concentration imply causation, but I've seen similar comparision graphs where the temperature change leads the CO2 change by approximately 800 years - which implies increased temperature peoduces increased CO2 concentrations. Furthermore, the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century - exactly the samw time as when the Industrial Revolution commenced. Is it really possible to believe that the conception of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain caused the premature demise of the Little Ice Age across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere? Personally, I believe that the two events are entirely unconnected and that Earth started to warm up independly of Mans' activities burning charcoal, then coal and then coke. I'm genuinely open to persuasion though.
You believe that because an increase in temperature can cause an increase in CO2 somehow means that CO2 can't cause warming? Have you thought this through? I know it seems intuitive to say that because an increase in temperature can cause an increase in CO2 this means CO2 can't cause warming. But that's exactly what was taught in highschool science in my country way back in 96. We call that a feedback loop. Have you never heard about this?
This so informative and interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge in a way that is direct and easy to understand. It is a stark reminder to us all about what humans, we humans have done, and are doing, and the consequences to the earth if changes aren't made quickly. It is great when we have the chance to go to some of these places, to see it all through eyes of more knowledge. Again, thank you Out There Learning.
Why would we WANT to go back into an ice age? The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere follows the temperature, not the other way around. If CO2 were causing temperature shifts as bad as this rock guy says it is, the volcanic basalt flows would have made the atmosphere "unable to go into an ice age".
Search for the term 'Milankovitch cycles'. This is the consensus theory on how the amount of solar radiation and the angle of sunlight have been the most dominant variable in our climate over several of the most recent glacial periods. Up untill we started releasing a lot of greenhouse gasses, that is. Interesting stuff!
Variations in the Milankovitch cycle and their impact on temperatures are small compared to the CO2 forcing of the last century or so. It's a favourite red herring of the deniers.
Shhh you'll make people think and spoil that multi billion dollar tax payer money pit that's lining the pockets of the mega rich businesses if you mention that big ball of nuclear fusion that spews out solar winds with temperatures at One million degrees celsius.
Ask a few huge volcanic eruptions about their ash particles dimming the sun. Frost fairs on the Thames in 1700s. Using ice and snow at ice age tail to move rocks for Stonehedge ~10 - 8k years ago. Climate and geology are fascinating :)
@@budawang77 Look at the data, temperature rises first followed by carbon. Look further back more than the 2 million years science wants you to focus on. Carbon rise is an effect not a cause. I tend to favour looking at the data and facts these days as science has been bought out and is more interested in funding than science.
@@OutThereLearning "The eustatic sea level is the distance from the center of the earth to the sea surface. An increase of the eustatic sea level can be generated by decreasing glaciation, increasing spreading rates of the mid-ocean ridges or more mid-oceanic ridges. Conversely, increasing glaciation, decreasing spreading rates or fewer mid-ocean ridges lead to a fall of the eustatic sea level."
Ah damit. I just wanted geology. Nothing but some simple down to earth rocks n shit. The world needs to know this, and it takes a rock licker to say it matter of fact. Go algorithms be free. Take this message. 🙏
You argue well for change in the beds but really.... in a siesmic hotspot like NZ you attribute it to rising and falling sea levels. Yet I have seen places in NZ that at 20 feet higher after only 40 years! Why not the land rising and falling. Who knows exactly?
Thanks for your comment. You are right that tectonic movements have to be taken in to account. During the deposition of the sediments, the basin was slowly sinking. Afterwards they were all uplifted to the present position.
@@OutThereLearning Gypsum deposits in the Mediterranean basin show that that ocean has filled and emptied many times in its past. 13,000 years ago I could walk to Germany. There was a mile of ice above my head. No SUVs then. Wasnt Vanu Atu going to be gone by now? Isnt the PM of Vanu Atu now in jail for lying? My favorite seaside town is the same now as it was 60 years ago. Same dunes. same harbour, same sea level. I really cant get excited by the end of the world. Now, pollution and waste....dont get me going!
NZ being one of the least stable pieces of realestate on earth perhaps be a bit cautious about what went up and what went down. Certainly illustrates the relative change in sea level at that location but that's about all.
Thanks for watching and your comment. Sea level change is a worldwide phenomenon, so it can be cross correlated with other places. Scientists are more cautious than most, rest assured!
a further look into how many times has New Zealand's sea level been higher and lower than now over the last 4 thousand years while CO2 levels were stable and compare that to similar studies on other coast lines around the world. But I think an honest answer to that would not segue into the now obligatory "CO2 did this" well.
I just watched a wonderful presentation about our responsibility to refuse to remain silent when false information is put forward. So, as my first attempt to uncover the truth, I want to point out that the temperature rise pointed out in the video is false data, produced to promote an ideology. Temperatures in the 1800s and early 1900s were much higher than today. Especially the 1930s in America, which produced mass migration and the dust bowl. Thousands of people in India and China die from both the heat and starvation caused by crops killed by the high heat. Yet modern ideologists only use data from 1970 to promote their rising temperature theme. If you examine the data set used to create the graphic used in the video, it will show the 1930s as having lower temperatures. This is false information and nobody seems to care. But here I am, caring about a false video on TH-cam pushing the "Green Ideology" Other than that, I enjoyed the video very much.
I too enjoy the videos that “out there learning” put together. Living in Sydney these days. I think it should be stated that the overwhelming amount of pollution is produced in Asia, North America, Europe etc. here in Oz and in other ‘soft’ western countries “the left” & green(ies) are being IMO “being pandered to” too much regarding climate change. Australia for instance produces 1.5% of total global Co2 emissions yet these ppl like Greta are pressuring the small emitting (Western) countries to “do more” to reduce emissions. I have a question to ask all ppl of various persuasions “what caused the (compared to present weather) “The Roman Cooling Period” and later “The Medieval Warming Period”? Surely both those events happened well before “The Industrial Revolution”. Another problem I have with Climate Change Believers is the fact that when the Vikings discovered and colonised Greenland the global temps were much warmer and therefore it was “Green” with forests and other habitation, now in a mere blink of an eye regarding global history it’s got about (in some places) 2 miles thick of ice and not tree to be seen.
There's so much you don't understand about data and projection, which is why you are absolutely incorrect. Just sit there and be wrong and learn from it and take the ego punch. You'll be better for it.
Science is a consensus, based on replicated data. Remember that. The evidence and data has to be *replicated.* You are writing as if one person developed a set of numbers, and everyone just accepted it. Or had no way of testing that data. *That's not how the world works.* Academia is extremely competitive. These people would gleefully destroy any other academic, who got the data wrong. But the most interesting part of your comment, is that you project your belief system (following an ideology) onto this issue. If you can provide any rational explanation, for how millions of people, from disparate *competitive* political systems, languages and cultures, somehow come together and find "an ideology" where they falsify data and evidence - please do so. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is nonsensical
@@complimentary_voucher I’m not being egotistical about anything. Yes, I’m not a scientist or academic but I haven’t been convinced by climate alarmists that the situation is at the tipping point. I do believe in climactic cycles, the Earth’s climate has never been stable, there are always variations including in everything on Earth. The problem I have with climate alarmists is they bark up “our tree” instead of China’s and India’s tree, they are the biggest polluters. If these ppl really want to make a difference go and protest in those countries.
This month I will go on holiday at the English beach that I have known for 60 years. The same sea and tides, the same pools and the same rocks will be there, just as they were when I was ten years old.
Is it really such a bad thing if we've final brought an end to this 3 million year long ice age? I'm sure there are some plants and animal that like the cold, but I'm sure there are far more that enjoy warmer temperatures.
Learn about climate bands and what happens when they shift and read the NIWA report for your region on how rainfall patterns such as intensity and frequency as well as temperature and wind are likely to change over the next 30 to 50 years. Read what happened to food crops in India when a heat wave struck for a week and plant enzymes denatured. Also learn how the temperature difference between pole and tropics drives wind patterns and what happens as the polar vortex slows and the amplitude of waves increase (compared rivers on a steep or low gradient). Then look at glaciers and water supply. Finally learn about the impact of temperature and humidity on human health. Oh sorry forgot infrastructure temperature design tolerances. Once you've done that decide on your context of what is bad or good. Food stability, water security, floods, infrastructure etc and you should be able to answer your question.
Subduction and earthquakes moving things. Cliffs and shell beds can slip down in EQs. So how do these bands, strata changes equate to past earthquakes? And you've got climate sequences over long cycles. Humans will sadly keep stuffing things up, especially w some currently planning for WW3 :(
Maybe not but glacial cycles happen very slowly allowing flora and fauna to adapt. Anthropogenic warming on the other hand is happening at lightning speed in geological terms.
@@chrissscottt I can't see my reply to you so will try again, 1000 years will be the end of the acclerated global warming, as we are now it will be 5000, will any species adapt in that time frame as well and won't ice ages kill just as may species.
Thanks for your comment. Flat marine terraces around our coasts are sea level erosion surfaces from past interglacials (high sea level) that have since been tectonically uplifted
Deep water to beach then to deep water? Could there be alternative interpretation that the fossilised section represents a low stand turbidite type desposits? If it happens, then the entire stratigraphy is deep water with an episode of low stand indicating lowering of sea level, but not to the degree of beach.
It is clear when you see the outcrop that it is not a single turbiditic event as many of the fossils are in situ, and boring into the mudstone below. Furthermore, above the shell beds is ~40cm of flazer bedding, further indicating a tidal environment.
It's telling you about land upheavels you goose. Its impossible for 50 metres deep sediment to be 3 metres above intertidal sediment without land upheavel
@@paulwolf8444 Sorry, to burst your bubble about suspicious observers but it is a debunked site that indulges in psuedo-scientific TH-cam operated by Ben Davidson. The link below is from a real trained scientist who does the site Professor Dave explains. If you really want to understand pole reversal better start with the link below about where you are misinformed. His fact based break down of bad science is excellent. th-cam.com/video/3fTLZTEE7mU/w-d-xo.html
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 In the same way you say SuspiciousObservers is debunked, your friend Dave is altogether too dismissive of many things. That takes the scientific out of his equations.
Ding ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner. Someone needs funding and it's agree or nothing. Too many contradictions just in this video to take him seriously.
This video was really interesting till they jumped into that man-made climate change crap. Seriously people, they've been telling us for more than 30 years that our coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years. At some point even the dumbest person starts to be a skeptic. The entire idea of man-made climate change is about power and money. Nothing more. Every single thing they tell you to be afraid of is based on their models on a computer and not real life. It's always the future they want you to be afraid of and never what's really going on. Why not just stick to studying the evidence and leave the religious aspect of man-made climate change out of it?
You are absolutely right. I'm old enough to remember the threat of global cooling. Next came global cooling. When this hasn't occurred the name was changed to just "climate change". The nice thing about climate change is that whatever happens with the weather it can be attributed to man. Question: What do global cooling, global warming, and climate change have in common? Answer: All of them could only be solved by the West (especially the U.S.) unilaterally cutting its own economic throat. The nice thing is that this crap has been going on long enough for people to be held accountable. The Seychelles are NOT underwater (real estate there is extremely expensive). The polar icecap is still there and as big as ever (Al Gore said we'd lose it by 2014.) While the West is disemboweling itself the Chinese are more than compensating with new coal fired power plants.
I do wish you would avoid showing nuclear power plant water cooling steam when pointing out air pollution, it could well be the saviour of greenhouse gas emissions. Great video.
Have a look at the IPCC reports, compiled over decades of research by many thousands of scientists, all of whom have been subject to rigorous review, for the scientific concensus on the subject. There are always naysayers, and they are, almost invariably, wrong.
Oh my golly gosh...(5.00) we go rapidly here from a calm and rational geology lecture on sea level (or maybe land level) rises, straight to a very dubious series of hockey-stick calamity warnings worthy of extinction rebellion.
Agree 100%!!! Just because they say so doesn't make it FACT!!! It's all about the money!!! Earth has been much warmer and with a thousand times more CO2 then current and went into an iceage. They are still guessing!!! PERIOD!!l
How did the co2 levels fall which reduced temp' which caused the ice ages? The ice age cycles. More animals more co2. Perhaps more plants less co2. More plants does it not result in more animals?
This video is too short to properly like explaining what causes CO2 leading in the ice ages. The researcher could have explained how Earth's orbit, axis tilt and wobble all contribute to something called the Milankovitch cycles if he had more time. These cycles are on the order of 40,000 to 100,000 years long. When these cycles begin to change they effect Earth's orientation in space causeing it to receive a reduction in sunlight. As the earth cools the oceans cool and begin to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. This decline of CO2 amplifies the cooling and we have an ice age. This all changes as the Earth's orientation changes again with these Milankovitch cycles allowing light from the sun to reach the Earth's surface again. And as the atmosphere warms so too do the oceans which in turn release the CO2 back into the atmosphere amplifying the warming. What is happening now is different because none of the Milankovitch cycles are active, but humans are producing CO2 and CH4 in excess of what was normally produced by the earth. And because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years of more and as humans keep producing CO2 it accumulates thus retaining more heat.
Likely true, but it does acknowledge the extent of its uncertainty as part of a process of continual improvement. It is very different from blind denial.
Brilliant , so sad my last recommended post i watched was a rant that all heating is solar related ....and scientists are deliberately ignoring this, and the comments section full off people agreeing !!! . Why does youtube allow such misleading posts in a climate emergency ?
On the topic of rising land: Height of Mount Cook is 3,724 metres (12,218 feet). If erosion was not cutting these mountains down almost as fast as they are rising it is calculated that Mount Cook would today be 27,000 metres high, three times higher than Mount Everest. There is a photo in that superb book, "The Rise and Fall of the Southern Alps" - by -Glen Coates that shows this. This book is an absolute must for anyone interested in the geology of New Zealand. (Purely a personal recommendation!)
@@naysneedle5707 That's great. I can absolutely guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy reading it and perusing the many excellent charts, diagrams and photos. I got my copy from the bookshop at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, before the big Darfield quake. When it struck at least I knew what it was and was sort of expecting it having read the book; I thought immediately that it was the big one, the Alpine Fault. God help us when that one goes. In the book it shows how one half of a mountain is now at the top of the South Island, the other half is down near Milford Sound, about 300 miles away, illustrating the amount of movement that has taken place. The next big one is well overdue and is likely to be about magnitude 8. From memory I think it is also stated in the book that the next Alpine Fault quake has every chance of being the most powerful in recorded history. Check out details of the Lake Taupo volcano and how that massive lake was blasted out in a massive eruption. New Zealand is rightly called the 'Shaky Isles'.
The majority of earths history tells us that CO2 and temperature move in opposite directions or show no correlation at all. At some points in the past when temperatures have warmed about 800 years later CO2 levels seem to have risen in response. The tiny fragment of time over the last 100 years or so shows some corellation but tells us nothing about causation. Are you contending that something about the way CO2 behaves in the atmoshere has changed? The IPCC are dedicated to helping the UN case for wealth distributon based loosly on selling the west on a guilt trip about anthropomorphic climate change, the UN just want money and power and relevence and the "science" is just the current best excuse. Thank you for the first part of the video which was worthwhile but in my view your opinion piece detracts from it entirely.
A warming planet does emit more CO2, why is this evidence to you that it's not connected to global warming? I disagree about the IPCC, they would be the first to say that less emissions/production needs to happen. If it isn't real then there would be zero guilt, saying science is an opinion seems hugely ignorant.
You know, the worst thing about this comment is you're trying to say that somehow before humans even existed, that somehow, conditions were like what they are now and that we should be able to judge then because of now. It's the most ridiculous proposal that we should base anything on what happened in the past, before humans, on what will happen after humans and their input. Human made gases are 50% of what is considered natural emissions, that means we have increased the natural warming gases by 100% and those gases are staying around longer than the natural one's, we know that these gases will stay around longer than we are alive, yet somehow, you are saying none of it matters because somehow someway 450 million years ago is relevant to you and is in some way a defense, it's just not.
Are you disputing the well established interaction of infrared with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses? Just because there were events in the geologic past that have made the correlation more fuzzy? At this moment in time, due to human actions, CO2 is the driving variable. No natural events can explain the rising temperatures, nor the rising CO2 in the atmosphere we're measuring. And we're getting better and better at measuring it. There is little doubt the rise in CO2 and methane emissions at this time are driving up the temperature.
Its an interesting beginning, but I suspect the 3rd year video makers couldn't restrain themselves from taking editorial control from their strident tutor here, and adding in flashes of conclusive graphs and crashing glaciers. A lonesome polar bear floating off might just as well have been included. It's a fair point that climate is changing..but for me a fancy equation produced to mimic reality since 1957 and then to draw conclusions from that very model and scare the daylghts out of folks, is low grade research. And then to differentiate between ordinary cycles and man-made cycles..(to end all cycles from now on!!) is a tough one..though I know a hard-sell when I see one. Anyway. Back to my concreting...(using stones brought here from the Lake DIstrict 200 miles away by 2 mile thick ice just 18,000 years ago)
I suppose rational minds can disagree. You are, of course, welcome to subscribe to the current group think concerning climate change and what is causing it. I ask that you don't do anything crazy based on your beliefs like geoengineering to cool the earth. Thanks in advance.
So, you spout exactly the same mantra as all the other Flanagan crowd and then show a graph that disproves what you just said. Your CO2 graph. It shows co2 following temperature.
@@davidwatson2399 I'm talking about his graph. Co2 follows temperature not the other way. But if we are on temperature the Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years and the Arctic has more ice now than in the 1930s and 50s
@@stephenrichards5386 Enough of repeating nonesense you have read and seen in blogs, your talking points are all long ago debunked. Im not going to explain how and why you are disinformed about this subject in a youtube comments section, I suggest you look up Potholer54 and watch his series on climate change and climate change myths, its a good starting point. You make yourself look and sound very foolish telling scientists they are wrong, particularly when it is you that is way off the mark. If you have researched and published work to present as evidence for why you hve such superior insight into Global warming and climate change, please provide references and citations.
Won't unable to enter the next ice age... because Co2. Sure bud, sure. Next, give an explanation as to why the concentration/level of Co2 has been a lot higher in earlier Earth history yet ice age's still occur..
That information is available if you spend a little time. Flood basalts, milankovic, cycles, solar activity, location of continents, planetary impacts, albido etc etc, there are many variables.
@@davidwatson2399 Yes. agreed. My point being that Earth WILL enter another ice age some time in the future. Most of the factors you mention won't stop happening just because Humans exist. We are pretty inconsequential in regards to how our planet holds up.. For humans, not so much.. After we die out, give earth 1000 years and it will be just fine.
In an attempt to accurately memorialize the effects of industrial CO2 releases, the USA built the only network of weather stations to do precisely this and nothing else. The stations are uniformly distributed and situated in areas that have never been or likely to be influenced by urbanization and human development. It was created to stem the rightful criticism of the historical world average temperature "record" of "anomalous" temperature change. Before proceeding we need to correct the misuse of language by this dodgy science. First: there is no "record" of the world's "average" temperature "anomaly" Not in 1850, not in 2022. a) Records are "recordings" of actual events either by direct witness or by observing instrumentation (scales, timers, thermometers, etc) There is not now nor has there ever been a "record" of the Earth's average temperature or even of minute variations from some presumed baseline or "normal." The Earth's average temperature record is a work of fiction. It cannot be measured but only guessed at. Computer models do not produce "records." They produce what their modelers want them to produce. This is not to say computer models cannot work, they can and do work provided that the people who program them both understand what they are modeling and that good data has been input to the model; With "climate" models neither of these conditions have or can be met. b) Anomalous???? Neither minute weather nor average weather variation from one hour, one day, one month, one year, or one century to another is anomalous (def: unusual or unexpected) it is "normal" Ironically the only truly anomalous behavior of weather would consist of being "non-anomalous" (unchanging) Now for the good news: since going online at the end of 2004, the USCRN (United States Climate Reference Network) has recorded only a noise signal ( absolutely NO trend in any direction .over the full 17 years of its operation) Thus during a period of increased industrial CO2 emissions there has been no detectable climate response (temperature, precipitation, pressure, wind, etc) by the system that, for once, was designed to measure it. Whatever the climate is doing there is certainly nothing but political exigencies driving this climate madness. This USCRN "record" is not good for the climate panic industry however, that's why no one ever talks about it. The polar ice is not doing anything anomalous, the sea levels around the world are not doing anything anomalous, the average pH of the worlds oceans are not detectably changing, the polar bear populations are increasing and not decreasing despite the fact that they are actively hunted for profit. The coral reefs are doing fine just as they have for millions of years despite vast climate changes over the millions of years or coral reef growth. Forrest fires disaster are an artifact of land mismanagement , not "climate change" droughts and floods are neither increasing nor decreasing in numbers or intensities over historical numbers, neither are hurricanes or tornadoes. Bad weather occurrences are normal, not anomalous. Sea level change is not being measurably caused by increasing or decreasing levels of glacial ice melt but are following a continuous localized linear progression over the last several centuries, most likely cause by a combination of plate tectonics, erosion, sedimentation, king tides, earthquakes. None of this change is important; Miami street flooding is caused by the same issues that cause Denver street flooding: I.e. poor urban planning.
Thanks for watching. Quite a lot of bold assertions there which express your beliefs but don't match with the consensus of by far the majority of scientists.
@@OutThereLearning *RE: "Quite a lot of bold assertions there which express your beliefs but don't match with the consensus of by far the majority of scientists"* Why should I or anyone else be impressed by your own assessment of some kind of unmeasured and unspecified political "consensus" of people that you claim represent your acquired opinions. Consensus has never been an artifact of legitimate science. If it were, the Earth would still consists of 4 elements: Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Science advances by discovery and repeatable demonstrations of the accuracy of its claims; not "consensus" As to my "bold assertions" pick any one and challenge it and I will take you through the data, the physics, and logic that support it. I doubt that you will accept my challenge, but instead change the subject or simply pick up your marbles and leave, as is my typical experience with climate cultists (socialist demagogues)
@@OutThereLearning *RE: "You're quite right, I am not interested in arguing to prove a point. Have a good day, Cheers"* First, let me thank you for acknowledging the accuracy of my predictive analysis as applied to your own case. Secondly, bless you for your steadfast adherence to your faith, I wish I were so devout but logic and science dissuade me from your steadfast and immovable convictions. Argument can and has altered my convictions, but I admire your rejection of logic and data. Faith and logic are not reconcilable as you have so ably demonstrated.
I dispute the fact that glacial periods are the “natural cycle”. There is far more geological time that is NOT glacial than is. Anyway, why shouldn’t we want to stop another ice age? Ice ages are exceptions to the earth’s climate, not the rule!
Well, there is a clear cyclicity in glacial periods over the past 800.000 years. There is evidence this is tied to the Milankovitch cycles. André Berger has found that we are likely delaying the next glacial period by 1000s of years.
@@OutThereLearning Well that's nice of you. Some people become quite apoplectic if this narrative is challenged! I believe it's more about politics than anything else.
@@markedwinwebb What you believe and reality can be different though, you can't put the warming potential of gases down to politics, you have to imagine the warmth of the added doona does have an effect and whatever you think the earth is pretty much a closed system, we are adding stored carbon at an a rate that no other thing has done in millions of years. You just think it's political because you haven't really seen the worst of changes yet.
@@antonyjh1234 I'm afraid 'the science' is also tainted by politics and discriminatory funding in favour of these yeasayers. The upshot of this is that you can't trust 'the science', so don't tell me that you know for a fact that human output of CO2 is actually changing global climatic conditions. The science just isn't that advanced in understanding the situation anyway. However, that won't stop them making these grandiose claims when their livelihoods literally depend on it. Sort of confirmation bias gone hog-wild.
@@markedwinwebb No, the science is not tainted, the lack of action is, that alone is political, we are mostly ignorant of what the worst will be. While you might not believe me there is ahigh probability the world will see roughly a 600mm sea level rise by around 2100, the next few hundred years will be more per century, imo the worst of AGW will be in about 1000 years. That of course won't mean anything to you or I but that doesn't change anything and because we have barely seen an inkling of what is foretold then people have more leeway to say it isn't real. Yet, it is happening now and whatever you or I think this is now the new normal and without carbon removal it won't get back to what it used to be for hundred of thousands of years, that is not a choice, that is reality, ask the people who see their islands being flooded, ask people who live with permafrost melting, it will only get faster and faster, this is not political. As I say the will is greater to keep producing for profit than do anything meaningful and you are helping that by calling AGW political.
What a stupid comment, they are university students working at the base of an eroding cliff face out of which rocks regularly fall, any company employees doing work there would also be wearing hard hats.
What the host said about climate change makes no sense. He said firstly that fluxuations in atmospheric CO2 drives ice age changes.Then he said that humans putting fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere will stop ice ages. But the fluctuation in CO2 causes ice ages and the atmosphere has far less CO2 than it did and the next ice age is coming. Secondly the fossil fuels are from enormous forests created by photosynthesis and at that time there was way more CO2 available to create huge forests and dinosaurs etc. Everything was even more fecund than now. So none of what he said about atmospheriv CO2 makes sense. Bringing up and burning fossil fuels is a good thing since it makes available the CO2 again for plantlife and the biome that depends upon that. These CO2 heretics forget that trees and vegetation are the air conditioners of nature. They provide shade and moisture. Vegetation compensates for warming if allowed to grow to maturity. Defoliation causes warming to dangerous levels and NOT CO2.
My default position when I find that I disagree with someone who is certainly better educated on a topic than I am, is to suspend my view and go in search of the supporting arguments for the other person's claims. I learn far more from that process, and slowly become less stupid, than by strutting around yelling that X makes 'no sense' when I obviously have close to zero expertise in the field. Just a suggestion.
@@luzr6613 There is no strutting but simple reasoning from analysis. The evidence that CO2 is sequestered in oil from photosynthetic life is taught to children and easily discovered knowledge. That the dinosaur age had huge species is also taught in primary school and logically these mostly vegetarian beings needed huge quantities of food is self evident and they did very well with huge amounts of both O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere. From these facts it is child's play to deduce that we are in a desert like condition in comparison. No special obscure scientific knowledge needed and certainly no strutting albeit mild critisism.
@@luzr6613 So you have less than elementary education and no logic training from what you said. Maybe a simple statement could be understood then. Huge vegetarian animal needs huge plant source which needs huge CO2 source which comes from air. Is that simple enough? Then ,our air has hugely less CO2 producing smaller animals. It follows then that CO2 is not a problem and way more would be a good thing. Unless you have a problem with a watermellon being the size of a car.
The Heatland Institute are just a conservative, libertarian,propaganda, lobby group. No scientist worth their salt is going to waste their time arguing with such a totally blinkered group of people.
What misinformation? The changing temperatures we're measuring? The changing CO2 levels? The changing sea levels? The changing ratio of C12/C13 isotopes in our atmosphere? The Milankovitch cycles? Or have you fallen for misinformation yourself?
@@OutThereLearning sorry that I have disappointed you. It is always sad that I can see who you are, but you can't see the other side. I'm not saying that you are wrong all the line, but I do my own research. I have no TV, dont listen to the offi. news. I could say much, but my English is not good enough. Next time I will watch again, and learn something new that I agree with. Grtz from Belgium
If you read the IPCC reports, and how they have progressed over time, you will see that they are actually very cautious and conservative in their forecasts, and don't include speculation where there is not enough data.
they have stuck with the same *science* for decades now while very smart people have done in depth studies, measurements and calculations like W. A. van Wijngaarden & W. Happer who find only a very tiny extra forcing from GHG's is expected from doubling both levels of CO2 and CH4 from today's levels. Meanwhile the planet stopped warming in 1998 and has cooled since 2014 despite the greater amount of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere- from now on keeping this "incontrovertible science" alive is going to be hard work for those academics with a clean conscious.
@@OutThereLearning What rubbish their forecasts are based on the so called Modelling in which they consistently take the most pessimistic and exaggerated modelling outcomes.Not to mention the liberties they take with the raw data sets.
@@mickhealy572 The ebb and wain of glaciation is governed by the salinity of the oceans. As ice melts and mixes with sea water ocean salinity is reduced to a point where equatoral ocean circulation comes to a near standstill, this in turn reduces the global distribution of heat, glaciation occurs. As ice reforms the salt to water ratio is increased making seawater more dense, this is the trigger to slowly increase the speed of the oceans currents and the redistribution of solar heat. An example of ocean currents that everybody has heard of is the Gulf Stream, taking equatoral solar heat north across the Atlantic Ocean which in turn keep Britian free from ice at this stage in the cycle. These currents move slowly thus making glacial cycles many thousands of years. Remember floating sea ice does not affect sea levels. Gasses/atmosphere being thousands of times less dense that water/seawater don't retain daily heat, that's why when the sun goes down nights are colder than daytime where as daily sea temperatures remain unchanged. Earth is positioned at a distance from the Sun in what's called the Goldilocks Zone, without liquid oceans our world would be a much colder place. When CO2 levels were at 4000ppm or above life on Earth was at its peak. Plant growth rates were such that animals responded to the bounty of food and evolved into what we we know today as the Megafauna. Today carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is less prevalant than Argon which is classed as a minute trace gas. The atmosphere is in a CO2 drought, 150pps is threshold for stained plant life. With this increase NASA images have shown the greening of the Earth. The remarks in this video directed towards the cause and affect the atmosphere has on the Earth's weather/climate demonstrate a poor understanding of Earth Science. Now to the "BS", chemistry as part of a geologist's training should be true his academic credentials and be learned enough to not follow the folly of the political narrative.
@@AquaMarine1000 sounds like you know..so whats the maximum and minimum co2 during the ice ages in the last million years and interglacial periods when humans were about by analysing trapped antarctic ice core gasses? and what are the co2 levels today? and is argon like co2 or methane and a greenhouse gas?
@@mickhealy572 By far the most efficient and affective greenhouse gas is water vapour. A cloudy day may produce colder daylight temperatures but with warmer nights. Water is very affective at conducting and retaining heat even as a vapour. A frozen world is even colder because the water is frozen out of the atmosphere and this is why the ocean mass maintains the cyclical parameters of our climate. In historical terms CO2 has never been lower, most of the atmospheric carbon was used up in the growth of marine shelled creatures. The skeletons of these creatures formed marine chalk and limestone (marble) deposits. The carbon is locked up in the form calcium carbonate which contains most of the Earth's carbon. The two fundamental elements for life hydrogen and carbon. Plants extract hydrogen from water and carbon from the air, oxygen is the waste product from both of these processes. Whether they are giant redwoods or plankton in the ocean they both require carbon to form a structure to exist. The so called acidification of the oceans due to carbon dioxide absorption is falsely reported because the oceans are alkaline changing from a little more or less alkaline never acidic. This is where the fossil creatures of the past extracted the carbon to build their shells. Carbon is a rare element in the Universe where hydrogen and helium account for what is said to be 100% of the Universe and what has been leftover examples can be found on earth. The idea carbon is a pollutant when all forms of life depend on it is a form of madness. Manmade actives are only recycling the carbon to be reused again and again. Carbon is what makes ecosystems function, with out this liberation Earth's future life would be greatly restricted and could become extinct. When observation and study of the facts are known you can call out where the vested interest BS (financial or reputations) are to be found. If money is what makes the World go around, explain why the banks and insurance companies support the Worlds biggest seaside developments in Florida. If the flooding of Earth's land mass is imminent explain why the passed President of United States of America Obama, the greatest supporter of climate change has purchased a $14M seaside mansion on the east coast of America and another on the west coast. These people are no fools, they know it's BS the average rise in sea level is 1.6mm a year, it would take near to 700 years to rise one metre a long way short of New York flooding by 2020. None of the doom of the past has ever come to fruition and is call out as BS. This doesn't stop future predictive BS. Stay alert. Cheers
@@AquaMarine1000 wow nice blurb but you did not answer one question in all of that so I will tell you, co2 has never risen above 300ppm in all the ice ages the highest being 298.6 ppm and at this moment it is over 413.6 ppm, you outta go to cape grim research station and look see at the gasses, somethings not right and it is the wet bulb temps which have me sorta concerned being here in Aus with the rising heat not the rising tide.. but considering we are both breathing in, drinking and eating a credit card in weight per week of highly toxic nano\micro plastics and they don't yet know what this will do to us or our children but a reasonable guess on its effects on our organs and brain is that all this climate talk is a moot point and a distraction as we wont last long enough for it to affect us. hows that for future predictive bullshit? lol...
I am sorry, but the sea level is not going up and down so many times. There is a missing link in the education of geologists. When we look at the many horizontal layers that we find throughout our planet, we clearly see the effect of a repeating cataclysm. These disasters are mentioned in ancient books like the Mahabharata of India and the Popol Vuh of the Mayans and others. They tell us about a cycle of seven disasters. Certainly, regularly recurring global disasters cannot be caused by asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions. The only possible cause is another celestial body, a planet, orbiting our sun in an eccentric orbit. Then it is close to the sun for a short period and after the crossing at a very high speed it disappears into the universe for a long time. Planet 9 exists, but it seems invisible. These disasters cause a huge tidal wave of seawater that washes over land "above the highest mountains." At the end it covers the earth with a layer of wet mud, a mixture of sand, clay, lime, fossils of marine and terrestrial animals, gravel and meteorites. That mud layer hardens and becomes a new horizontal layer on top of many others. The disasters also create a cycle of civilizations. To learn much more about the recurring flood cycle and its timeline, the re-creation of civilizations and ancient high technology, read the e-book: "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It can be read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9
Our emissions are from 60 times to 100 times more than all volcanoes combined. Planting tree's on a warming planet and increased droughts has problems with forest fires.
Planting trees are good for the soil and water retention. Because warmer temperatures will mean more droughts and more heavy downpoors, warmer air holds more water, so we'll need more water retention. Clearly, I think planting trees is a wise thing to do. However! Trees and plants only have a minor contribution to the carbon cycle in comparison to the oceans and seas. There are an estimated 3 trillion trees left on earth. Though these estimations have quite an error bar due to the complexity of measuring single trees, it is immediately clear you'd need to plant many billions of trees to make even a dent in the carbon cycle. We need to do something about human emissions of CO2.
@@RolfStones Sure but it is also how we are going to plant trees, the issue is we are going to let govts dictate policy and I always say the business of govt is business , they will allow forestry that won't have a life cycle long enough to even be carbon neutral. It is much better to leave old growth forest but we aren't even there yet and may never be. If we allow mono cultures that are tied to the economic cycle that will continually need burning off to keep from having situations like australia's last major forest fire of 1.26 million acres then more trees might not be the answer, especially if we don't account for whether the area is going to be in drought or not and from what I have seen drier area's have got drier and wetter area's wetter so how do you plant for that... I totally agree we need to do something about CO2 but the only thing is to limit emissions and for that you and I and everybody else need to limit our consumption by the required 75%, ( I'm not sure on this amount but by whatever amount it needs to be ) people can say why should they cut by so much when others emit so much more but in the end of the day it's all relative, have you cut by 75% of whatever year we are supposed to be at, I probably haven't. Planting trees while we get hardwood floors just ain't gonna cut it.
@@antonyjh1234 without government there is only business. Though imperfect democracy is, it is our best chance to counter the power and influence of greed.
@@RolfStones You can't burn the old because there is nothing new. We have a govt for a reason and in my opinion it should be to make sure every person has shelter. clean food and water and access to medical care and they take care of our waste, this whole work half your life to pay taxes that supports a system where things are only done for profit has some issues, but then the economic system has to be changed, people quite honestly could stop working and the govt issue an equal share of carbon credits that can be spent however one wants but once spent they go to a base level of subsistence and shelter is all made the same in the future, we have no idea, we can't imagine life 80 years ago, we have no idea of what policies they might take in 3 hundred years or even 80 years from now but it really is 600mm by 2100 then it will be 2-3 metres the next hundred years and that's when the shit hit's the fan.
What am I doing, without even a coffee, at 6.30 in an English morning looking at "one of the most impressive shell beds in the whole of the Wanganui mudstone layer?" The net is certainly wonderful.
You must have had an inspired moment 😅
@@andyharpist2938 great job!! 👍:-)
Bahahaha. I watch clips of other people go metal detecting. It's bizarre. But it's cathartic. Normally they just find old buttons, maybe a belt buckle. But I love it.
Ok I have to remind myself that I too am somebody elses wierdo 😳 lol. It's never too early for great geology
@@kaitlynlsari681.... Or for news on the newly translated cuneiform tablets in early Sumerian, on land matters in Ur ca. 2,000 bc!!! 🙂
Thank you so interesting!
And sorry some folk can't stomach the truth of anthropologic warming.
Learning heaps about my own country Thx heaps!
Thanks for your appreciation and for watching
I collect the plant fossil of New Zealand ,from two time periods ,Miocene and Pliocene ,one plant family totally extinct here but well known in the tropical belts are commonly called sea almonds ,they were a huge part of New Zealand's flora. I also have The New Zealand coconut ,but that didn't make it past the cooling event in the middle Miocene ,when carbon level's dropped and the earth got dry and cold .the earth came out of that event to be very warm again ,and my Pliocene New Zealand plant fossil's are what you would see in Queensland and new Caledonia forests .There so much not at all commonly known with New Zealand plant fossil past ,I'm lucky I can visit site's of previous hot/warm periods in time New Zealand was experiencing and collecting the seed/fruit remands ,many not identified ,but plenty are and commonly seem in the hot/warm belt's of the world today .
@@loganstrong9874 thank you very much for sharing your interest in plant fossils. I would love to know more. Have you got photos or descriptions anywhere?
@@OutThereLearning unfortunately no ,I had donated my first collection to the Auckland museum ,but plant fossil's don't go on display only in storage .There is so much not openly known or to still be researched and published ,but the general public wouldn't know the fossil plant history of New Zealands Miocene and Pliocene past .I'm making new discoveries all the time and so many I need help to give me a likely plant family (which I do have a few expert contacts to help ) the Sea almonds are part of the Combretaceae Family ,species Terminalia .They seem to be a major part of our coast /swamp ecosystems both in the Miocene and Pliocene and i've found My first examples from deeper river valley's from the Miocene .I'm based in Northland and it's an area very much neglected for plant fossil's ,which i'm recovering in places never before recovered from (winter storms do do a lot of the work for me ),One site the Miocene fossil's are in fantastic condition no compression unlike the famous Cooper beach fossil's .I'm about to do alot of photo's as the last few weeks i've recovered new Miocene fossil's in 'life shape' no compaction ,i've got my first round coconut from my new Miocene site (Cooper's beach the Coconut have had compaction and aren't round ),It was great to see a round small Coconut for the first time. You can email me happy to send you pic's . - 2logan234@gmail.com
@@loganstrong9874 Sounds really interesting, I hope lots more work gets done on this as I would love to read all about it one day.
👍I live beside the Rangitikei river where the porewa stream intersects…yes the shells in the mudstone have been a curious mystery….thanks so much for the concise logic explanations😃
Thank you for watching!
Thank you for your interesting and informative videos.
It must be a bit soul destroying to read some of the ignorance and stupidity typed into the comments.
:-)
What a wonderful summary of the content of the field trip, and well edited too!
Thanks Gabriel!
So glad to see this video ,ive spent time visiting site's in the Taranikki bight but yet to visit the sites in this vid .I mainly recover the plant seeds and fruits from Miocene and Pliocene New Zealand .I do often wonder even thou humans have changed the warming of the earth ,I do wonder if people in the far future will appreciate it .Learning about the height of the last ice age ,and for example the city of Chicago was under a 3km thick ice sheet .I'm sure if the ice was advancing and looking like the ice sheets would cover our beloved cities human's would still want to course a global warming event to save cities with long human habitation ,even thou new land would be exposed as sea level's dropped due to ice formation .Two most interesting New Zealand plant fossil's lost due to climate change are the Miocene Coconuts and Pliocene sea almonds (that were very much part of the Miocene flora as well ).
Good comment. Quite right.
As I drift off to sleep, another fascinating lesson. Seems geology is your area is quite diverse. Pacific west coast dweller hereand we also have unique features all up the coast to Washington state. Lots of volcanic activity in the past. Mount Saint Helen most recent. We have many faults throughout this are . I've experienced a few nice sized quakes. Love it.
Thanks for watching!
@@OutThereLearning I disagree. Geologists study rocks, not atmospheric physics.
@@kayakMike1000
As well as determining the prehistorical alluvial circumstances and tectonic/volcanic metamorphosis & mineral constituents of individual rocks & formations, they study strata.
Distinction between various rocks & ice layers & ash/coal, oil ( carbon & hydrocarbon) layers & various carbon isotopes and fossils within them.
These provide many of the clues the climate/atmospheric scientists use. The paleontologists study the fossils further and palynologists the diatoms/pollen found within such layers too.
Modern Earth Science now entails more than just maintaining compartmentalized disciplines all on their own.
The graph at 05:04 encapsulates anthropogenic climate change fantastically well. All the deniers should have this tattooed on their eyelids.
Phew! Nothing scrapes everything back to bedrock like an advancing sheet of ice.
Eastern Canada has still not recovered from the last one .
Absolutely! "God's Great Plough" they call it. Nothing will stop the next ice age from wiping the slate clean. Global warming is nothing but an insignificant blip on the natural course of events and may even be looked at as a God Send in putting off the day that mass immigration is to warmer climes rather than the opposite that we are seeing today in places like the UK. 🤭
Thank you for these videos. I have subscribed and can't wait for more!
Cheers!
😂😂😂 The only bit you had right was the evidence of sea levels since the beginning of time. Note that I said "evidence". Show us the CO2 levels that you said "we know" had/have an effect on temperature. Like all the others who perpetuate the myth, you display the ammended "hockey stick" graph, produced by Michael Mann, refusing to EVEN DISCUSS the TRUE temperature records that were simply erased to provide for your own narrative. Open debate. Get in the ring with Tony Heller and many others on global television and have the guts to debate publicly your viewpoint.
Gosh, the algorithm has directed this vid to a whole bunch of armchair expert climate change deniers and even people to whom basic safety equipment is offensive lol. How strange. I love this channel, keep up the good work 👏
😀 cheers!, and thanks for your comment
why do you call people that question the science , deniers, you obviously know scientist have got stuff wrong before. "you must always be willing to truly consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs, and admit the possibility that you might be wrong. Intelligence isnt knowing everything, its the ability to challenge everything you know". So if people agreed with everything a scientist or science says then we would not progress . You have to remember this is the best ideas that they can come up with at the time, they could be totally wrong, i always like my tack with science, oh you believe in climate change ? why because science says so " oh you believe in only 2 genders, oh no there are more than two genders, " me but science begs to differ, i rest my case.
Not climate change deniers, anti catastrophists.
@@joedennehy386 🙄
The cycles you outlined would take little notice of any affect humans have left. The time lines are so vast, we won't be around to see it.
Thanks for watching and for your comment. The time line of our present impact is not so vast unfortunately, that's the problem.
We can already see it.
It's hard to see if you've intentionally blinded yourself to fit with your in group, but it's completely obvious to anyone willing to look at what nature is telling us.
@@OutThereLearning how do you stay so polite? You should give classes.
@@gasdive I prefer the mutual respect approach. diverse opinions create richer conversations. 😉
That's not how any of this works.
Thanks for another super upload. How wonderful that all this technology is opening up the minds of many to these magnificent wonders. Another interesting site that I visited recently in connection with this is the beach at Glenafric in north Canterbury, South Island.
Thanks for watching and for your comment :-)
I grew up on a farm, east of Stratford, we had fossilized shells, near the top of one of the hills, and large square cut sections that were sitting at the head of a swamp below the hill, not sure how far above present sea level these formations are.
Cool!
So land upheaval, not sea levels
,,Millions of years ago, the original coastline of what is now Taranaki, swung went inland from just south of Tongaporutu. A large area has been covered by volcanic deposit from the several cones which now make up the Egmont National Park.. - and hence the gas and oil deposits.
Humans are also changing the geology of the planet, although not on the same scale as we're changing the climate. We change sedimentation patterns when we dam rivers and dredge channels. We're emptying aquifers, which can cause the surface of the land to sink. We're releasing long-buried minerals onto the surface through open-pit mining. We're even creating seismic activity through wastewater injection.
Going forward, we need to be a lot more sensibly cautious about the unintended consequences of our actions.
either sea level has alternated up an down or the earth has been moving up and down.
Yes, one is global, the other regional, so they can be distinguished
How weird, to have science buffs totally denying the evidence of climate change in the comments. I did not expect this. Still a wonderful video though. And Castlecliff is close to me! Thank you for a great upload.
A lot of them have only made one comment on this channel, joined TH-cam less than 2 years ago and have no videos on their channel.
Thanks for watching and for your comment
It's the same edgelord contrarianism that prompts 'doctors' to deny covid. And the inevitable sleazy dollars to be made from dumb dumbs who'll buy into it, literally.
@@gasdive Most likely because they've been kicked off YT like myself and producing videos doesn't mean anything. Just the contradictions in this video should be enough to raise a flag or two. Pretty weak argument really.
who denies climate change? just the over confidence of CO2 driving this very small period of warming is a bit overboard in the video spoiling the experience considering recent studies in the correct field that speaks to radiative gas potencies. In plain language, CO2 is saturated (essentially all of its effects are reached by 100 ppm---adding more means nothing)
Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules PDF
W. A. van Wijngaarden & W. Happer Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics arXiv: 2006.03098 (2021)
The forcings due to changing concentrations of Earth’s five most important, naturally occurring greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 as well as CF4 and SF6 were evaluated for the case of a cloud-free atmosphere. The calculation used over 1.5 million lines having strengths as low as 10-27 cm. For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others, the per-molecule forcings are of order 10-22 W for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4, and of order 10-21 W for CF4 and SF6. For current atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude. The forcings of the less abundant greenhouse gases, O3, N2O and CH4, are also suppressed, but much less so. For CF4 and SF6, the suppression is less than an order of magnitude because the concentrations of these gases is very low. For current concentrations, the per-molecule forcings are two to four orders of magnitude greater for O3, N2O, CH4, CF4 and SF6 than those of H2O and CO2. Doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent. A concentration increase of either CF4 or SF6 by a factor of 100 yields a forcing nearly an order of magnitude smaller than that obtained by doubling CO2. Important insight was obtained using a harmonic oscillator model to estimate the power radiated per molecule. Unlike the most intense bands of the 5 naturally occurring greenhouse gases, the frequency-integrated cross sections of CF4 and SF6 were found to noticeably depend on temperature.
Reminded me of being astonished at finding seashells embedded in limestone on top of a hill in Derbyshire, UK.
I had a similar experience as a child in the English MIdlands which got me fascinated by geology!
On top of that sediment timeline. Do you have to take in the factor of the movement of the land as well, this making the measurements a bit more difficult to get a accurate account?
The fossil species can tell us about water depth changes and the dating.
If we wanted to stuff up the planet quicker we couldn't have done it
It can seem that way! Thanks for watching and your comment
The two graphs shown temperature and CO2 concentration imply causation, but I've seen similar comparision graphs where the temperature change leads the CO2 change by approximately 800 years - which implies increased temperature peoduces increased CO2 concentrations. Furthermore, the Little Ice Age ended in the mid-19th century - exactly the samw time as when the Industrial Revolution commenced. Is it really possible to believe that the conception of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain caused the premature demise of the Little Ice Age across the whole of the Northern Hemisphere? Personally, I believe that the two events are entirely unconnected and that Earth started to warm up independly of Mans' activities burning charcoal, then coal and then coke. I'm genuinely open to persuasion though.
Thanks for your comment
You believe that because an increase in temperature can cause an increase in CO2 somehow means that CO2 can't cause warming?
Have you thought this through? I know it seems intuitive to say that because an increase in temperature can cause an increase in CO2 this means CO2 can't cause warming. But that's exactly what was taught in highschool science in my country way back in 96. We call that a feedback loop. Have you never heard about this?
Great vid, as per usual. Good to have the grown ups not shrinking from disturbing the disturbed too. Carry on!
This so informative and interesting. Thanks for sharing your knowledge in a way that is direct and easy to understand. It is a stark reminder to us all about what humans, we humans have done, and are doing, and the consequences to the earth if changes aren't made quickly. It is great when we have the chance to go to some of these places, to see it all through eyes of more knowledge. Again, thank you Out There Learning.
Thank you for your appreciative comment
Mudstone's really interesting, if not pretty! Thanks for the fascinating lesson.
Why would we WANT to go back into an ice age? The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere follows the temperature, not the other way around. If CO2 were causing temperature shifts as bad as this rock guy says it is, the volcanic basalt flows would have made the atmosphere "unable to go into an ice age".
..The Vatican was absolutely certain Galileo was wrong..
I wonder what role the sun plays in the warming and cooling of our home 🌍 🌏 🌎
Search for the term 'Milankovitch cycles'. This is the consensus theory on how the amount of solar radiation and the angle of sunlight have been the most dominant variable in our climate over several of the most recent glacial periods. Up untill we started releasing a lot of greenhouse gasses, that is. Interesting stuff!
Variations in the Milankovitch cycle and their impact on temperatures are small compared to the CO2 forcing of the last century or so. It's a favourite red herring of the deniers.
Shhh you'll make people think and spoil that multi billion dollar tax payer money pit that's lining the pockets of the mega rich businesses if you mention that big ball of nuclear fusion that spews out solar winds with temperatures at One million degrees celsius.
Ask a few huge volcanic eruptions about their ash particles dimming the sun. Frost fairs on the Thames in 1700s.
Using ice and snow at ice age tail to move rocks for Stonehedge ~10 - 8k years ago. Climate and geology are fascinating :)
@@budawang77 Look at the data, temperature rises first followed by carbon. Look further back more than the 2 million years science wants you to focus on. Carbon rise is an effect not a cause. I tend to favour looking at the data and facts these days as science has been bought out and is more interested in funding than science.
Every time I watch the end of this documentary I get the shivers.
because the change cant possibly be due to the land rising in an area full of volcanoes and earthquake faults
Sea level changes can be correlated worldwide. Faults and uplift are local. That's how you can differentiate land vs sea-level changes
@@OutThereLearning "The eustatic sea level is the distance from the center of the earth to the sea surface. An increase of the eustatic sea level can be generated by decreasing glaciation, increasing spreading rates of the mid-ocean ridges or more mid-oceanic ridges. Conversely, increasing glaciation, decreasing spreading rates or fewer mid-ocean ridges lead to a fall of the eustatic sea level."
Ah damit. I just wanted geology. Nothing but some simple down to earth rocks n shit.
The world needs to know this, and it takes a rock licker to say it matter of fact.
Go algorithms be free. Take this message. 🙏
Thanks for watching and your thoughts
Great vidéo thanks for the information I didn’t know we had these places in nz hope you make more of them
@@christinedaly2694 thanks!
Flippin heck did humans stuff up the planet that far back
You argue well for change in the beds but really.... in a siesmic hotspot like NZ you attribute it to rising and falling sea levels. Yet I have seen places in NZ that at 20 feet higher after only 40 years! Why not the land rising and falling. Who knows exactly?
Thanks for your comment. You are right that tectonic movements have to be taken in to account. During the deposition of the sediments, the basin was slowly sinking. Afterwards they were all uplifted to the present position.
@@OutThereLearning Gypsum deposits in the Mediterranean basin show that that ocean has filled and emptied many times in its past.
13,000 years ago I could walk to Germany. There was a mile of ice above my head. No SUVs then.
Wasnt Vanu Atu going to be gone by now? Isnt the PM of Vanu Atu now in jail for lying?
My favorite seaside town is the same now as it was 60 years ago. Same dunes. same harbour, same sea level. I really cant get excited by the end of the world.
Now, pollution and waste....dont get me going!
NZ being one of the least stable pieces of realestate on earth perhaps be a bit cautious about what went up and what went down. Certainly illustrates the relative change in sea level at that location but that's about all.
Thanks for watching and your comment. Sea level change is a worldwide phenomenon, so it can be cross correlated with other places. Scientists are more cautious than most, rest assured!
a further look into how many times has New Zealand's sea level been higher and lower than now over the last 4 thousand years while CO2 levels were stable and compare that to similar studies on other coast lines around the world. But I think an honest answer to that would not segue into the now obligatory "CO2 did this" well.
These scientists dedicate their lives to understanding these things. Unless you have done the same, please show respect to their knowledge
With an on coming Super El Niño coming in the next few months our plant earth is at Crisis point even more 😔
Thanks for your comment
Your resume at the end about climate change and ice-age cycles is quite alarming.
It is...
I just watched a wonderful presentation about our responsibility to refuse to remain silent when false information is put forward. So, as my first attempt to uncover the truth, I want to point out that the temperature rise pointed out in the video is false data, produced to promote an ideology. Temperatures in the 1800s and early 1900s were much higher than today. Especially the 1930s in America, which produced mass migration and the dust bowl. Thousands of people in India and China die from both the heat and starvation caused by crops killed by the high heat. Yet modern ideologists only use data from 1970 to promote their rising temperature theme. If you examine the data set used to create the graphic used in the video, it will show the 1930s as having lower temperatures. This is false information and nobody seems to care. But here I am, caring about a false video on TH-cam pushing the "Green Ideology" Other than that, I enjoyed the video very much.
I too enjoy the videos that “out there learning” put together. Living in Sydney these days. I think it should be stated that the overwhelming amount of pollution is produced in Asia, North America, Europe etc. here in Oz and in other ‘soft’ western countries “the left” & green(ies) are being IMO “being pandered to” too much regarding climate change. Australia for instance produces 1.5% of total global Co2 emissions yet these ppl like Greta are pressuring the small emitting (Western) countries to “do more” to reduce emissions.
I have a question to ask all ppl of various persuasions “what caused the (compared to present weather) “The Roman Cooling Period” and later “The Medieval Warming Period”? Surely both those events happened well before “The Industrial Revolution”.
Another problem I have with Climate Change Believers is the fact that when the Vikings discovered and colonised Greenland the global temps were much warmer and therefore it was “Green” with forests and other habitation, now in a mere blink of an eye regarding global history it’s got about (in some places) 2 miles thick of ice and not tree to be seen.
There's so much you don't understand about data and projection, which is why you are absolutely incorrect. Just sit there and be wrong and learn from it and take the ego punch. You'll be better for it.
Science is a consensus, based on replicated data. Remember that. The evidence and data has to be *replicated.* You are writing as if one person developed a set of numbers, and everyone just accepted it. Or had no way of testing that data. *That's not how the world works.*
Academia is extremely competitive. These people would gleefully destroy any other academic, who got the data wrong.
But the most interesting part of your comment, is that you project your belief system (following an ideology) onto this issue. If you can provide any rational explanation, for how millions of people, from disparate *competitive* political systems, languages and cultures, somehow come together and find "an ideology" where they falsify data and evidence - please do so.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is nonsensical
@@complimentary_voucher I’m not being egotistical about anything. Yes, I’m not a scientist or academic but I haven’t been convinced by climate alarmists that the situation is at the tipping point. I do believe in climactic cycles, the Earth’s climate has never been stable, there are always variations including in everything on Earth.
The problem I have with climate alarmists is they bark up “our tree” instead of China’s and India’s tree, they are the biggest polluters. If these ppl really want to make a difference go and protest in those countries.
@@complimentary_voucher Look honey, an expert. I'll take brain washed cultist for $400 Alex.
Please dont say sea level rise and land level drop in same sentence and expect time and movement to be measured
This month I will go on holiday at the English beach that I have known for 60 years. The same sea and tides, the same pools and the same rocks will be there, just as they were when I was ten years old.
"Where there was waves!" Indeed!
Is it really such a bad thing if we've final brought an end to this 3 million year long ice age? I'm sure there are some plants and animal that like the cold, but I'm sure there are far more that enjoy warmer temperatures.
Maybe not if you are a plant!
Learn about climate bands and what happens when they shift and read the NIWA report for your region on how rainfall patterns such as intensity and frequency as well as temperature and wind are likely to change over the next 30 to 50 years. Read what happened to food crops in India when a heat wave struck for a week and plant enzymes denatured.
Also learn how the temperature difference between pole and tropics drives wind patterns and what happens as the polar vortex slows and the amplitude of waves increase (compared rivers on a steep or low gradient). Then look at glaciers and water supply. Finally learn about the impact of temperature and humidity on human health. Oh sorry forgot infrastructure temperature design tolerances.
Once you've done that decide on your context of what is bad or good. Food stability, water security, floods, infrastructure etc and you should be able to answer your question.
Subduction and earthquakes moving things. Cliffs and shell beds can slip down in EQs. So how do these bands, strata changes equate to past earthquakes?
And you've got climate sequences over long cycles. Humans will sadly keep stuffing things up, especially w some currently planning for WW3 :(
Do we want a Ice Age ?...if so why ?.
Maybe not but glacial cycles happen very slowly allowing flora and fauna to adapt. Anthropogenic warming on the other hand is happening at lightning speed in geological terms.
@@chrissscottt I can't see my reply to you so will try again, 1000 years will be the end of the acclerated global warming, as we are now it will be 5000, will any species adapt in that time frame as well and won't ice ages kill just as may species.
Because the skiing on Ruapehu
Would be better !
So was the flat lands in New Zealand made from the caps melting 26,000 years ago? What chased the sea level to be this high if not? 💞
Thanks for your comment. Flat marine terraces around our coasts are sea level erosion surfaces from past interglacials (high sea level) that have since been tectonically uplifted
OPERATION GREENHOUSE wouldnt hve helped causing a greenhouse effect
Deep water to beach then to deep water?
Could there be alternative interpretation that the fossilised section represents a low stand turbidite type desposits? If it happens, then the entire stratigraphy is deep water with an episode of low stand indicating lowering of sea level, but not to the degree of beach.
It is clear when you see the outcrop that it is not a single turbiditic event as many of the fossils are in situ, and boring into the mudstone below. Furthermore, above the shell beds is ~40cm of flazer bedding, further indicating a tidal environment.
It's telling you about land upheavels you goose. Its impossible for 50 metres deep sediment to be 3 metres above intertidal sediment without land upheavel
I think the magnetic pole reversal is going to have a lot to say about what your saying.
Why?
@@davidwatson2399 first you need to read some subject materials from suspicious observers who are doing some of the leading work on the subject.
@@paulwolf8444
no chance of listening to the rubbish from that pseudoscience clown
@@paulwolf8444 Sorry, to burst your bubble about suspicious observers but it is a debunked site that indulges in psuedo-scientific TH-cam operated by Ben Davidson. The link below is from a real trained scientist who does the site Professor Dave explains. If you really want to understand pole reversal better start with the link below about where you are misinformed. His fact based break down of bad science is excellent.
th-cam.com/video/3fTLZTEE7mU/w-d-xo.html
@@michaeldeierhoi4096 In the same way you say SuspiciousObservers is debunked, your friend Dave is altogether too dismissive of many things. That takes the scientific out of his equations.
Or lifted up as NZ came out of the ocean "recently"
Ding ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner. Someone needs funding and it's agree or nothing. Too many contradictions just in this video to take him seriously.
Thanks for watching and commenting
Going back to glaciation is probably not desirable? But cooking the earth is also not desirable!
Quite so!
Both help to remove humans. Shame we can't control our over populating damage.
Pages in the book of Earth's Time. Nice.
Aye!
This video was really interesting till they jumped into that man-made climate change crap. Seriously people, they've been telling us for more than 30 years that our coastal cities will be underwater in 10 years. At some point even the dumbest person starts to be a skeptic.
The entire idea of man-made climate change is about power and money. Nothing more. Every single thing they tell you to be afraid of is based on their models on a computer and not real life. It's always the future they want you to be afraid of and never what's really going on.
Why not just stick to studying the evidence and leave the religious aspect of man-made climate change out of it?
You are absolutely right. I'm old enough to remember the threat of global cooling. Next came global cooling. When this hasn't occurred the name was changed to just "climate change". The nice thing about climate change is that whatever happens with the weather it can be attributed to man. Question: What do global cooling, global warming, and climate change have in common? Answer: All of them could only be solved by the West (especially the U.S.) unilaterally cutting its own economic throat. The nice thing is that this crap has been going on long enough for people to be held accountable. The Seychelles are NOT underwater (real estate there is extremely expensive). The polar icecap is still there and as big as ever (Al Gore said we'd lose it by 2014.) While the West is disemboweling itself the Chinese are more than compensating with new coal fired power plants.
how cool was that
Cheers!
Thank you lots to think about.
Cheers!
Thank you.
Cheers!
We have better in England
That didn't look like Castlecliff, but Mowhanau, Kai Iwi Beach.
Thanks for your comment!
How about that, right on my back door step. Amazing.
Nice! Thanks for watching!
"a good time looking at the rocks" > YMMV
How do you know it's 800 000 Year old
No uplift of the land ...
Ice ages
Amazing
Cheers
why do Adult University students need fluro at the beach ?
So that they can shine :-)
Awwww I'm disappointed I want to see ice sheets squish new york
now now!
I do wish you would avoid showing nuclear power plant water cooling steam when pointing out air pollution, it could well be the saviour of greenhouse gas emissions. Great video.
Thanks for the feedback!
why is he the only guy without a helmet ?
amazing information!
Thank you
Have a look at Prof Ian Plimer for a contra view.
Have a look at the IPCC reports, compiled over decades of research by many thousands of scientists, all of whom have been subject to rigorous review, for the scientific concensus on the subject. There are always naysayers, and they are, almost invariably, wrong.
B.S. downvoted
Fascinating!
😂😂😂🤣
Oh my golly gosh...(5.00) we go rapidly here from a calm and rational geology lecture on sea level (or maybe land level) rises, straight to a very dubious series of hockey-stick calamity warnings worthy of extinction rebellion.
Thanks for watching and your comment
Agree 100%!!! Just because they say so doesn't make it FACT!!! It's all about the money!!!
Earth has been much warmer and with a thousand times more CO2 then current and went into an iceage. They are still guessing!!! PERIOD!!l
Do you have alternative data you'd like to share with us?
Figures are figures regardless of what hockey team you're in.
Figures are figures regardless of what hockey team you're in.
How did the co2 levels fall which reduced temp' which caused the ice ages? The ice age cycles.
More animals more co2. Perhaps more plants less co2.
More plants does it not result in more animals?
This video is too short to properly like explaining what causes CO2 leading in the ice ages. The researcher could have explained how Earth's orbit, axis tilt and wobble all contribute to something called the Milankovitch cycles if he had more time. These cycles are on the order of 40,000 to 100,000 years long. When these cycles begin to change they effect Earth's orientation in space causeing it to receive a reduction in sunlight. As the earth cools the oceans cool and begin to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. This decline of CO2 amplifies the cooling and we have an ice age.
This all changes as the Earth's orientation changes again with these Milankovitch cycles allowing light from the sun to reach the Earth's surface again. And as the atmosphere warms so too do the oceans which in turn release the CO2 back into the atmosphere amplifying the warming.
What is happening now is different because none of the Milankovitch cycles are active, but humans are producing CO2 and CH4 in excess of what was normally produced by the earth. And because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years of more and as humans keep producing CO2 it accumulates thus retaining more heat.
I do like these videos, I hope one day to visit the places. Oh and all those Climate deniers are funny, but dumb.
Cheers
@@OutThereLearning no beers
Dunning Kruger in its most spectacular incarnation. The dumb burns!
@@complimentary_voucher I went to the city and those Anti vaxxers love telling people to Do Their Own Research lol.
The modelling is never correct.
A bold all knowing statement! 🙂
Likely true, but it does acknowledge the extent of its uncertainty as part of a process of continual improvement. It is very different from blind denial.
Brilliant , so sad my last recommended post i watched was a rant that all heating is solar related ....and scientists are deliberately ignoring this, and the comments section full off people agreeing !!! . Why does youtube allow such misleading posts in a climate emergency ?
Thank you for watching and for your comment
What are you talking about.
what?
Science is never settled . True scientists will always consider and evaluate new theories .
Because NZ is on a tectonic plate boundary, shouldn't it be called land level rise and fall? Regular uplift followed by wave erosion.
The record is comprised of periods of changes in sea level & land level, however we are more interested in the change in sea level
On the topic of rising land: Height of Mount Cook is 3,724 metres (12,218 feet). If erosion was not cutting these mountains down almost as fast as they are rising it is calculated that Mount Cook would today be 27,000 metres high, three times higher than Mount Everest. There is a photo in that superb book, "The Rise and Fall of the Southern Alps" - by -Glen Coates that shows this. This book is an absolute must for anyone interested in the geology of New Zealand. (Purely a personal recommendation!)
@@BD-bditw Thanks for the recommendation, just placed a reserve for it :)
@@naysneedle5707 That's great. I can absolutely guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy reading it and perusing the many excellent charts, diagrams and photos. I got my copy from the bookshop at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, before the big Darfield quake. When it struck at least I knew what it was and was sort of expecting it having read the book; I thought immediately that it was the big one, the Alpine Fault. God help us when that one goes. In the book it shows how one half of a mountain is now at the top of the South Island, the other half is down near Milford Sound, about 300 miles away, illustrating the amount of movement that has taken place. The next big one is well overdue and is likely to be about magnitude 8. From memory I think it is also stated in the book that the next Alpine Fault quake has every chance of being the most powerful in recorded history. Check out details of the Lake Taupo volcano and how that massive lake was blasted out in a massive eruption. New Zealand is rightly called the 'Shaky Isles'.
The majority of earths history tells us that CO2 and temperature move in opposite directions or show no correlation at all. At some points in the past when temperatures have warmed about 800 years later CO2 levels seem to have risen in response. The tiny fragment of time over the last 100 years or so shows some corellation but tells us nothing about causation. Are you contending that something about the way CO2 behaves in the atmoshere has changed?
The IPCC are dedicated to helping the UN case for wealth distributon based loosly on selling the west on a guilt trip about anthropomorphic climate change, the UN just want money and power and relevence and the "science" is just the current best excuse. Thank you for the first part of the video which was worthwhile but in my view your opinion piece detracts from it entirely.
Thanks for sharing your opinions and for watching the video
A warming planet does emit more CO2, why is this evidence to you that it's not connected to global warming?
I disagree about the IPCC, they would be the first to say that less emissions/production needs to happen. If it isn't real then there would be zero guilt, saying science is an opinion seems hugely ignorant.
You know, the worst thing about this comment is you're trying to say that somehow before humans even existed, that somehow, conditions were like what they are now and that we should be able to judge then because of now. It's the most ridiculous proposal that we should base anything on what happened in the past, before humans, on what will happen after humans and their input. Human made gases are 50% of what is considered natural emissions, that means we have increased the natural warming gases by 100% and those gases are staying around longer than the natural one's, we know that these gases will stay around longer than we are alive, yet somehow, you are saying none of it matters because somehow someway 450 million years ago is relevant to you and is in some way a defense, it's just not.
Are you disputing the well established interaction of infrared with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses? Just because there were events in the geologic past that have made the correlation more fuzzy? At this moment in time, due to human actions, CO2 is the driving variable. No natural events can explain the rising temperatures, nor the rising CO2 in the atmosphere we're measuring. And we're getting better and better at measuring it. There is little doubt the rise in CO2 and methane emissions at this time are driving up the temperature.
Its an interesting beginning, but I suspect the 3rd year video makers couldn't restrain themselves from taking editorial control from their strident tutor here, and adding in flashes of conclusive graphs and crashing glaciers.
A lonesome polar bear floating off might just as well have been included.
It's a fair point that climate is changing..but for me a fancy equation produced to mimic reality since 1957 and then to draw conclusions from that very model and scare the daylghts out of folks, is low grade research. And then to differentiate between ordinary cycles and man-made cycles..(to end all cycles from now on!!) is a tough one..though I know a hard-sell when I see one. Anyway. Back to my concreting...(using stones brought here from the Lake DIstrict 200 miles away by 2 mile thick ice just 18,000 years ago)
Accurate for the first 5 mins...
how so?
Thanks for your comment, and for watching
I suppose rational minds can disagree. You are, of course, welcome to subscribe to the current group think concerning climate change and what is causing it. I ask that you don't do anything crazy based on your beliefs like geoengineering to cool the earth. Thanks in advance.
No argument there! Thanks for your comment
So, you spout exactly the same mantra as all the other Flanagan crowd and then show a graph that disproves what you just said.
Your CO2 graph. It shows co2 following temperature.
Diverse opinions welcome. Respectful language only please
@@OutThereLearning Respect is earned. It's not free
@@stephenrichards5386
Northern or southern hemisphere?
@@davidwatson2399 I'm talking about his graph. Co2 follows temperature not the other way. But if we are on temperature the Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years and the Arctic has more ice now than in the 1930s and 50s
@@stephenrichards5386
Enough of repeating nonesense you have read and seen in blogs, your talking points are all long ago debunked.
Im not going to explain how and why you are disinformed about this subject in a youtube comments section, I suggest you look up Potholer54 and watch his series on climate change and climate change myths, its a good starting point.
You make yourself look and sound very foolish telling scientists they are wrong, particularly when it is you that is way off the mark.
If you have researched and published work to present as evidence for why you hve such superior insight into Global warming and climate change, please provide references and citations.
biggest fault line for a thousand miles,blames global warming for vaulting and uplift,,,priceless
Rubbish, provide a time stamp for where that was said.?
7 year old account with 1 comment, classic sock puppet trolling account.😔
Great video. Very sobering
Thank you
Won't unable to enter the next ice age... because Co2. Sure bud, sure.
Next, give an explanation as to why the concentration/level of Co2 has been a lot higher in earlier Earth history yet ice age's still occur..
Thanks for watching and your comment
That information is available if you spend a little time.
Flood basalts, milankovic, cycles, solar activity, location of continents, planetary impacts, albido etc etc, there are many variables.
@@davidwatson2399 Yes. agreed. My point being that Earth WILL enter another ice age some time in the future. Most of the factors you mention won't stop happening just because Humans exist. We are pretty inconsequential in regards to how our planet holds up.. For humans, not so much..
After we die out, give earth 1000 years and it will be just fine.
@@OutThereLearning I could have refrained from my snarky wording. Apologies for this. Keep doing what you're doing sir.
@@deadbirdwalking1159
Our discharge of Co2 into the atmosphere is not inconsequential, it is massive.
What is causing the current global warming?
Awesome video guys.
Cheers!
Where does your data come from? If you are involved with inter-government bodies on Climate change, then links to all your data sources please.
Thanks for watching and for your interest. Look up Tim Naish research papers and you will get plenty of reading material. Thanks
In an attempt to accurately memorialize the effects of industrial CO2 releases, the USA built the only network of weather stations to do precisely this and nothing else. The stations are uniformly distributed and situated in areas that have never been or likely to be influenced by urbanization and human development. It was created to stem the rightful criticism of the historical world average temperature "record" of "anomalous" temperature change. Before proceeding we need to correct the misuse of language by this dodgy science.
First: there is no "record" of the world's "average" temperature "anomaly" Not in 1850, not in 2022.
a) Records are "recordings" of actual events either by direct witness or by observing instrumentation (scales, timers, thermometers, etc) There is not now nor has there ever been a "record" of the Earth's average temperature or even of minute variations from some presumed baseline or "normal." The Earth's average temperature record is a work of fiction. It cannot be measured but only guessed at. Computer models do not produce "records." They produce what their modelers want them to produce. This is not to say computer models cannot work, they can and do work provided that the people who program them both understand what they are modeling and that good data has been input to the model; With "climate" models neither of these conditions have or can be met.
b) Anomalous???? Neither minute weather nor average weather variation from one hour, one day, one month, one year, or one century to another is anomalous (def: unusual or unexpected) it is "normal" Ironically the only truly anomalous behavior of weather would consist of being "non-anomalous" (unchanging)
Now for the good news: since going online at the end of 2004, the USCRN (United States Climate Reference Network) has recorded only a noise signal ( absolutely NO trend in any direction .over the full 17 years of its operation) Thus during a period of increased industrial CO2 emissions there has been no detectable climate response (temperature, precipitation, pressure, wind, etc) by the system that, for once, was designed to measure it. Whatever the climate is doing there is certainly nothing but political exigencies driving this climate madness.
This USCRN "record" is not good for the climate panic industry however, that's why no one ever talks about it.
The polar ice is not doing anything anomalous, the sea levels around the world are not doing anything anomalous, the average pH of the worlds oceans are not detectably changing, the polar bear populations are increasing and not decreasing despite the fact that they are actively hunted for profit. The coral reefs are doing fine just as they have for millions of years despite vast climate changes over the millions of years or coral reef growth.
Forrest fires disaster are an artifact of land mismanagement , not "climate change" droughts and floods are neither increasing nor decreasing in numbers or intensities over historical numbers, neither are hurricanes or tornadoes. Bad weather occurrences are normal, not anomalous.
Sea level change is not being measurably caused by increasing or decreasing levels of glacial ice melt but are following a continuous localized linear progression over the last several centuries, most likely cause by a combination of plate tectonics, erosion, sedimentation, king tides, earthquakes. None of this change is important; Miami street flooding is caused by the same issues that cause Denver street flooding: I.e. poor urban planning.
Thanks for watching. Quite a lot of bold assertions there which express your beliefs but don't match with the consensus of by far the majority of scientists.
@@OutThereLearning
*RE: "Quite a lot of bold assertions there which express your beliefs but don't match with the consensus of by far the majority of scientists"*
Why should I or anyone else be impressed by your own assessment of some kind of unmeasured and unspecified political "consensus" of people that you claim represent your acquired opinions.
Consensus has never been an artifact of legitimate science. If it were, the Earth would still consists of 4 elements: Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Science advances by discovery and repeatable demonstrations of the accuracy of its claims; not "consensus"
As to my "bold assertions" pick any one and challenge it and I will take you through the data, the physics, and logic that support it.
I doubt that you will accept my challenge, but instead change the subject or simply pick up your marbles and leave, as is my typical experience with climate cultists (socialist demagogues)
You're quite right, I am not interested in arguing to prove a point. Have a good day, Cheers
@@OutThereLearning
*RE: "You're quite right, I am not interested in arguing to prove a point. Have a good day, Cheers"*
First, let me thank you for acknowledging the accuracy of my predictive analysis as applied to your own case.
Secondly, bless you for your steadfast adherence to your faith, I wish I were so devout but logic and science dissuade me from your steadfast and immovable convictions. Argument can and has altered my convictions, but I admire your rejection of logic and data. Faith and logic are not reconcilable as you have so ably demonstrated.
I dispute the fact that glacial periods are the “natural cycle”. There is far more geological time that is NOT glacial than is. Anyway, why shouldn’t we want to stop another ice age? Ice ages are exceptions to the earth’s climate, not the rule!
Thanks for watching and your comment
For a long periods glacial periods were a natural cycle.
Yes interesting, it seems periods of high carbonisation cause a decrease in CO2, followed by cooling temperatures.
Well, there is a clear cyclicity in glacial periods over the past 800.000 years. There is evidence this is tied to the Milankovitch cycles. André Berger has found that we are likely delaying the next glacial period by 1000s of years.
1 comment on this channel ever. Joined TH-cam 2 years ago. No uploads. No channels. No about me info. No subscribers.
This was enjoyable, up to the 'manmade climate change' nonsense. I don't think you're lying but just too trusting.
Thanks for watching. Diverse opinions welcome
@@OutThereLearning Well that's nice of you. Some people become quite apoplectic if this narrative is challenged! I believe it's more about politics than anything else.
@@markedwinwebb What you believe and reality can be different though, you can't put the warming potential of gases down to politics, you have to imagine the warmth of the added doona does have an effect and whatever you think the earth is pretty much a closed system, we are adding stored carbon at an a rate that no other thing has done in millions of years. You just think it's political because you haven't really seen the worst of changes yet.
@@antonyjh1234 I'm afraid 'the science' is also tainted by politics and discriminatory funding in favour of these yeasayers. The upshot of this is that you can't trust 'the science', so don't tell me that you know for a fact that human output of CO2 is actually changing global climatic conditions. The science just isn't that advanced in understanding the situation anyway. However, that won't stop them making these grandiose claims when their livelihoods literally depend on it. Sort of confirmation bias gone hog-wild.
@@markedwinwebb No, the science is not tainted, the lack of action is, that alone is political, we are mostly ignorant of what the worst will be. While you might not believe me there is ahigh probability the world will see roughly a 600mm sea level rise by around 2100, the next few hundred years will be more per century, imo the worst of AGW will be in about 1000 years. That of course won't mean anything to you or I but that doesn't change anything and because we have barely seen an inkling of what is foretold then people have more leeway to say it isn't real. Yet, it is happening now and whatever you or I think this is now the new normal and without carbon removal it won't get back to what it used to be for hundred of thousands of years, that is not a choice, that is reality, ask the people who see their islands being flooded, ask people who live with permafrost melting, it will only get faster and faster, this is not political. As I say the will is greater to keep producing for profit than do anything meaningful and you are helping that by calling AGW political.
This is getting crazy wearing hard hats. It's not a dangerous area, and If it was, the public would have been stopped from being able to be there.
Yep, let's ignore all health and safety requirements for these people to be covered under insurance.
Maybe if they climbed up to far and fell?????? They are only University students, they are not out in the big world yet!!!!!
What a stupid comment, they are university students working at the base of an eroding cliff face out of which rocks regularly fall, any company employees doing work there would also be wearing hard hats.
What the host said about climate change makes no sense. He said firstly that fluxuations in atmospheric CO2 drives ice age changes.Then he said that humans putting fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere will stop ice ages.
But the fluctuation in CO2 causes ice ages and the atmosphere has far less CO2 than it did and the next ice age is coming.
Secondly the fossil fuels are from enormous forests created by photosynthesis and at that time there was way more CO2 available to create huge forests and dinosaurs etc. Everything was even more fecund than now.
So none of what he said about atmospheriv CO2 makes sense.
Bringing up and burning fossil fuels is a good thing since it makes available the CO2 again for plantlife and the biome that depends upon that.
These CO2 heretics forget that trees and vegetation are the air conditioners of nature. They provide shade and moisture. Vegetation compensates for warming if allowed to grow to maturity.
Defoliation causes warming to dangerous levels and NOT CO2.
My default position when I find that I disagree with someone who is certainly better educated on a topic than I am, is to suspend my view and go in search of the supporting arguments for the other person's claims. I learn far more from that process, and slowly become less stupid, than by strutting around yelling that X makes 'no sense' when I obviously have close to zero expertise in the field. Just a suggestion.
@@luzr6613 There is no strutting but simple reasoning from analysis. The evidence that CO2 is sequestered in oil from photosynthetic life is taught to children and easily discovered knowledge.
That the dinosaur age had huge species is also taught in primary school and logically these mostly vegetarian beings needed huge quantities of food is self evident and they did very well with huge amounts of both O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere.
From these facts it is child's play to deduce that we are in a desert like condition in comparison.
No special obscure scientific knowledge needed and certainly no strutting albeit mild critisism.
@@luzr6613 So you have less than elementary education and no logic training from what you said. Maybe a simple statement could be understood then.
Huge vegetarian animal needs huge plant source which needs huge CO2 source which comes from air.
Is that simple enough?
Then ,our air has hugely less CO2 producing smaller animals.
It follows then that CO2 is not a problem and way more would be a good thing. Unless you have a problem with a watermellon being the size of a car.
"Based on the science"? No disrespect intended but I'd like to hear a debate between yourself and and the heartland Institute on the science.
The Heatland Institute are just a conservative, libertarian,propaganda, lobby group. No scientist worth their salt is going to waste their time arguing with such a totally blinkered group of people.
Cyclic historical weather patterns controlled by planets.
That you know neither of or how.
Sea rise 800 000 years ago, gee our ancestors have a lot to answer for causing sea level change for so long
Not sure if that is suggested anywhere, but hey, thanks for watching! :-)
The disappointing point is you are teaching this miss information to our kids no wonder the are deciding to leave us …
Yes that would be disappointing. Thanks for watching
What misinformation? The changing temperatures we're measuring? The changing CO2 levels? The changing sea levels? The changing ratio of C12/C13 isotopes in our atmosphere? The Milankovitch cycles?
Or have you fallen for misinformation yourself?
wow your kids left because of this video? are you sure it wasn't just you?
Miss information? The really disappointing thing here is your obvious lack of a basic education.
Sorry, but you cannot convince me. You talk like you are one off the Globalwarming-company. Maybe next time better.
Interesting comment. Thanks for watching :-)
@@OutThereLearning sorry that I have disappointed you. It is always sad that I can see who you are, but you can't see the other side. I'm not saying that you are wrong all the line, but I do my own research. I have no TV, dont listen to the offi. news. I could say much, but my English is not good enough. Next time I will watch again, and learn something new that I agree with. Grtz from Belgium
@@dannyvandenbranden4845
How do you "do your own research"?
"The incontrovertible science promoted by the IPCC" sarcasm and irony at its best.
Thanks for watching. Varied opinions welcome
1 comment on this channel ever. Joined TH-cam 4 months ago. No uploads. No subscriptions.
If you read the IPCC reports, and how they have progressed over time, you will see that they are actually very cautious and conservative in their forecasts, and don't include speculation where there is not enough data.
they have stuck with the same *science* for decades now while very smart people have done in depth studies, measurements and calculations like W. A. van Wijngaarden & W. Happer who find only a very tiny extra forcing from GHG's is expected from doubling both levels of CO2 and CH4 from today's levels. Meanwhile the planet stopped warming in 1998 and has cooled since 2014 despite the greater amount of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere- from now on keeping this "incontrovertible science" alive is going to be hard work for those academics with a clean conscious.
@@OutThereLearning What rubbish their forecasts are based on the so called Modelling in which they consistently take the most pessimistic and exaggerated modelling outcomes.Not to mention the liberties they take with the raw data sets.
Where is the Wikipedia warning of BS.
what bs?
@@mickhealy572 The ebb and wain of glaciation is governed by the salinity of the oceans. As ice melts and mixes with sea water ocean salinity is reduced to a point where equatoral ocean circulation comes to a near standstill, this in turn reduces the global distribution of heat, glaciation occurs. As ice reforms the salt to water ratio is increased making seawater more dense, this is the trigger to slowly increase the speed of the oceans currents and the redistribution of solar heat. An example of ocean currents that everybody has heard of is the Gulf Stream, taking equatoral solar heat north across the Atlantic Ocean which in turn keep Britian free from ice at this stage in the cycle. These currents move slowly thus making glacial cycles many thousands of years. Remember floating sea ice does not affect sea levels. Gasses/atmosphere being thousands of times less dense that water/seawater don't retain daily heat, that's why when the sun goes down nights are colder than daytime where as daily sea temperatures remain unchanged. Earth is positioned at a distance from the Sun in what's called the Goldilocks Zone, without liquid oceans our world would be a much colder place. When CO2 levels were at 4000ppm or above life on Earth was at its peak. Plant growth rates were such that animals responded to the bounty of food and evolved into what we we know today as the Megafauna. Today carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is less prevalant than Argon which is classed as a minute trace gas. The atmosphere is in a CO2 drought, 150pps is threshold for stained plant life. With this increase NASA images have shown the greening of the Earth. The remarks in this video directed towards the cause and affect the atmosphere has on the Earth's weather/climate demonstrate a poor understanding of Earth Science. Now to the "BS", chemistry as part of a geologist's training should be true his academic credentials and be learned enough to not follow the folly of the political narrative.
@@AquaMarine1000 sounds like you know..so whats the maximum and minimum co2 during the ice ages in the last million years and interglacial periods when humans were about by analysing trapped antarctic ice core gasses? and what are the co2 levels today? and is argon like co2 or methane and a greenhouse gas?
@@mickhealy572 By far the most efficient and affective greenhouse gas is water vapour. A cloudy day may produce colder daylight temperatures but with warmer nights. Water is very affective at conducting and retaining heat even as a vapour. A frozen world is even colder because the water is frozen out of the atmosphere and this is why the ocean mass maintains the cyclical parameters of our climate. In historical terms CO2 has never been lower, most of the atmospheric carbon was used up in the growth of marine shelled creatures. The skeletons of these creatures formed marine chalk and limestone (marble) deposits. The carbon is locked up in the form calcium carbonate which contains most of the Earth's carbon. The two fundamental elements for life hydrogen and carbon. Plants extract hydrogen from water and carbon from the air, oxygen is the waste product from both of these processes. Whether they are giant redwoods or plankton in the ocean they both require carbon to form a structure to exist. The so called acidification of the oceans due to carbon dioxide absorption is falsely reported because the oceans are alkaline changing from a little more or less alkaline never acidic. This is where the fossil creatures of the past extracted the carbon to build their shells. Carbon is a rare element in the Universe where hydrogen and helium account for what is said to be 100% of the Universe and what has been leftover examples can be found on earth. The idea carbon is a pollutant when all forms of life depend on it is a form of madness. Manmade actives are only recycling the carbon to be reused again and again. Carbon is what makes ecosystems function, with out this liberation Earth's future life would be greatly restricted and could become extinct.
When observation and study of the facts are known you can call out where the vested interest BS (financial or reputations) are to be found. If money is what makes the World go around, explain why the banks and insurance companies support the Worlds biggest seaside developments in Florida. If the flooding of Earth's land mass is imminent explain why the passed President of United States of America Obama, the greatest supporter of climate change has purchased a $14M seaside mansion on the east coast of America and another on the west coast. These people are no fools, they know it's BS the average rise in sea level is 1.6mm a year, it would take near to 700 years to rise one metre a long way short of New York flooding by 2020. None of the doom of the past has ever come to fruition and is call out as BS. This doesn't stop future predictive BS. Stay alert. Cheers
@@AquaMarine1000 wow nice blurb but you did not answer one question in all of that so I will tell you, co2 has never risen above 300ppm in all the ice ages the highest being 298.6 ppm and at this moment it is over 413.6 ppm, you outta go to cape grim research station and look see at the gasses, somethings not right and it is the wet bulb temps which have me sorta concerned being here in Aus with the rising heat not the rising tide.. but considering we are both breathing in, drinking and eating a credit card in weight per week of highly toxic nano\micro plastics and they don't yet know what this will do to us or our children but a reasonable guess on its effects on our organs and brain is that all this climate talk is a moot point and a distraction as we wont last long enough for it to affect us. hows that for future predictive bullshit? lol...
I am sorry, but the sea level is not going up and down so many times. There is a missing link in the education of geologists. When we look at the many horizontal layers that we find throughout our planet, we clearly see the effect of a repeating cataclysm. These disasters are mentioned in ancient books like the Mahabharata of India and the Popol Vuh of the Mayans and others. They tell us about a cycle of seven disasters. Certainly, regularly recurring global disasters cannot be caused by asteroid impacts or volcanic eruptions. The only possible cause is another celestial body, a planet, orbiting our sun in an eccentric orbit. Then it is close to the sun for a short period and after the crossing at a very high speed it disappears into the universe for a long time. Planet 9 exists, but it seems invisible. These disasters cause a huge tidal wave of seawater that washes over land "above the highest mountains." At the end it covers the earth with a layer of wet mud, a mixture of sand, clay, lime, fossils of marine and terrestrial animals, gravel and meteorites. That mud layer hardens and becomes a new horizontal layer on top of many others. The disasters also create a cycle of civilizations. To learn much more about the recurring flood cycle and its timeline, the re-creation of civilizations and ancient high technology, read the e-book: "Planet 9 = Nibiru". It can be read on any computer, tablet or smartphone. Search: invisible nibiru 9
Thanks for watching and your interest
Rather bold statement. An asteroid or volcano can change things. Plant trees simple.
Our emissions are from 60 times to 100 times more than all volcanoes combined. Planting tree's on a warming planet and increased droughts has problems with forest fires.
Planting trees are good for the soil and water retention. Because warmer temperatures will mean more droughts and more heavy downpoors, warmer air holds more water, so we'll need more water retention. Clearly, I think planting trees is a wise thing to do. However! Trees and plants only have a minor contribution to the carbon cycle in comparison to the oceans and seas. There are an estimated 3 trillion trees left on earth. Though these estimations have quite an error bar due to the complexity of measuring single trees, it is immediately clear you'd need to plant many billions of trees to make even a dent in the carbon cycle. We need to do something about human emissions of CO2.
@@RolfStones Sure but it is also how we are going to plant trees, the issue is we are going to let govts dictate policy and I always say the business of govt is business , they will allow forestry that won't have a life cycle long enough to even be carbon neutral. It is much better to leave old growth forest but we aren't even there yet and may never be. If we allow mono cultures that are tied to the economic cycle that will continually need burning off to keep from having situations like australia's last major forest fire of 1.26 million acres then more trees might not be the answer, especially if we don't account for whether the area is going to be in drought or not and from what I have seen drier area's have got drier and wetter area's wetter so how do you plant for that... I totally agree we need to do something about CO2 but the only thing is to limit emissions and for that you and I and everybody else need to limit our consumption by the required 75%, ( I'm not sure on this amount but by whatever amount it needs to be ) people can say why should they cut by so much when others emit so much more but in the end of the day it's all relative, have you cut by 75% of whatever year we are supposed to be at, I probably haven't. Planting trees while we get hardwood floors just ain't gonna cut it.
@@antonyjh1234 without government there is only business. Though imperfect democracy is, it is our best chance to counter the power and influence of greed.
@@RolfStones You can't burn the old because there is nothing new. We have a govt for a reason and in my opinion it should be to make sure every person has shelter. clean food and water and access to medical care and they take care of our waste, this whole work half your life to pay taxes that supports a system where things are only done for profit has some issues, but then the economic system has to be changed, people quite honestly could stop working and the govt issue an equal share of carbon credits that can be spent however one wants but once spent they go to a base level of subsistence and shelter is all made the same in the future, we have no idea, we can't imagine life 80 years ago, we have no idea of what policies they might take in 3 hundred years or even 80 years from now but it really is 600mm by 2100 then it will be 2-3 metres the next hundred years and that's when the shit hit's the fan.