There's a question no one seems to address: Yes, we are putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere, and the planet-warming effects of CO2 are well-documented, but is it the case that, as the Holocene ends, the changes of the Earth's tilt, precession, and eccentricity (as described by the Milankovitch cycles) completely overwhelms all the inadvertent efforts by humans to keep the planet warm? Anthropomorphic global-warming suggests the next glacial period has been put on hold indefinitely because of human activity. That certainly could be true - and a lot of scientists think it is true. You probably can't even get a grant to study climate change if you don't already think that global-warming is mostly caused by human activity. But two other outcomes are also possible: The first is that humans are adding just enough greenhouse gas to delay the next round of glaciation. The second is that glaciation is inevitable, and the amount of greenhouse gases added over the last 10,000 years is negligible with respect to the overwhelming cooling that will happen as the Holocene period ends. So there are three possible outcomes - and from what I've read, more open studies are needed to see which path we're really on. Unfortunately, the way science currently works, there is no funding to look into these alternative outcomes - which, of course, leaves scientists open to being completely surprised when things don't go the way they are predicting.
I think it's certainly true that humans have delayed the next glaciation. In the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth", the authors say that in a few centuries we will have exhausted most of the world's fossil fuels and the glaciers will return. They don't give any specifics on when this will happen. But I think the reason this hasn't been studied so much is because this is so far into the future. Most scientists are more worried about the next few centuries than thousands of years from now. And if you want to think about the distant future, the book also explains that the Sun is very gradually getting brighter. In a billion years, it will be so hot that the oceans will boil away. But the big unknown in all of this is the advancement of human technology. Maybe we will have developed enough technology in thousands or millions of years to make planet-wide interventions. It's hard to know.
@@ItsJustAstronomical All good points. All I'm really suggesting is a scientific study that asks if it possible to use CO2 to control the balance between entering glaciation, and staying just outside of it. Like a thermostat for a house, only use it for heating/cooling the whole planet - in an optimal sort of way. If such a thing were possible, we'd need a lot more information on how, when, and why glaciation begins. There are some studies we can use, but more could be done to explore this idea. There probably is an optimal amount of CO2 for planetary health. But what is that value, and how is it derived?
@@mxbishop A lot of scientists are interested in this kind of question and they're working on it. It's just a really hard problem. Given an amount of CO2, what will happen to the climate? Or just given our current level of CO2, what will happen to the climate? There are plenty of different climate models out there. But they disagree with one another and aren't known to be very accurate. It's really hard problem, but I think we're making progress on this. But the other part of the thermostat is missing too. Even modest changes to the world's CO2 production are hard for us to implement.
Given that fossil fuel companies funded countless studies to try and disprove climate change so you're wrong about the grants. The problem is that they've already been studied and they failed to explain what's happening without man-made climate change. I'm sure you'd have trouble getting a grant to try and disprove the existence of gravity too but that's not a bad thing.
Something to keep in mind: Milankovich cycles don't directly cause ice ages or warming periods, they influence feedback cycles of heating and cooling. It's a slow, subtle process and it doesn't take much to be disturbed.
I studied Ice Ages as part of my batchelors degree. The Sun also has cycles and the Sun cycle periodically coincides with increases in volcanism. Volcanoes produce particles that ascend to the upper atmosphere and it is this that creates a lower temperature because the Sun is blotted out. All Ice Ages are preceded by increased volcanism. The amount of CO2 is approximately 0.0391 parts per million. This is measured by the percentage present in water vapour.
Excuse me, but the amount of CO2 ist aproximately ... where? In the atmosphere it is arround 400 ppm or 0.04 %. Guess it is just a misleading typing error?
@@jackculler1489 We should be in an mild ice age right NOW. But the facts is that the ice caps are melting like there is no tomorrow, thus heating the planet even more.
So, what you're saying is that not only has farming and industry provided us with food and shelter, it's also prevented an ice age that would have killed millions through famine.
Then clearly the only solution is the extermination of around 6 billion people and the reforestation of much of the planet. Hand on a second...... There are multiple global efforts all claiming to be planting millions/billions of trees. Is there something we're not being told?
Here in Canada we had an iceage 12,000 years ago...co2 levels now are roughly 400ppm...65mil years ago co2 levels were at 2000ppm to 4000pm that gew giant plants and giant animals...the gradual increase in co2 is a good thing..better than living in a frozen waist land..
Yes. Formally when there's a sizeable permanent ice sheet on Earth its in an Ice Age. Antarctica & Greenland mean Earth is now in an Ice Age. Bods everywhere use "ice Age" colloquially to mean "glaciation period" because it's more understandable by the unwashed masses, which is almost everybody.
Technically, we are in a ice age. But really in an interglacial period (warm period) that has lasted about 10,000 years so far. And, we are the rising side of a peak in global temperature related to the Milinković cycles. For civilization, the end of this interglacial period is much more of a threat than the little bit of warming we might see over the next hundred years or so. Ice ages are very difficult to survive.
@@richb2229 Exactly! We (human race and animals and plants) should be much more afraid of the ice ages than warm periods! This global warming fear is generated by rich elite who don't want to risk changes in which they would probably lose some of their influence (and their properties next to the beaches). . And those who oppose this theories are condemned to media silence, some even lose their jobs (many others are quiet because of their fear of losing their jobs) Even when sea levels do start to rise (which still isn't happening - 30 years or more after it was announced) it will not happen over night, it will be a very slow process instead unlike in those stupid movies supporting the fear of "Global Warming"!
@@andrejcerjak1790 The global warming fear is absolutely NOT generated by the global elite. Global Warming science is well established by the climate scientists who study it. Saying that we have more to fear from a global ice age is pure hubris. There is no imminent ice age in the foreseeable future. We are however seeing the direct effects of global warming right now!! There is increasing drought, heat waves, floods going on right now. Forest fires are larger and moving much faster because exceptional drought and increasing temperatures. The Arctic Ice Cap is retreating in thickness and area at a record rate. The list goes on as the catastrophic effects of global warming intensify.
There were lots of climate swings back and forth like that. Rome fell because of a colder period, the bronze age collapse was largely driven by a colder period. But none of those swings even compare to the shift from ice age to interglacial period.
@Deimos Cain The Black Death has nothing to do with the little Ice Age. It happened near the close of the Medieval Warm Period. (Also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly, because certain tropical Pacific regions were cooler, even as the North Atlantic region was warmer)
@Deimos Cain I've a PhD, one of my specialties is Bubonic Plague in the Early Modern Period (1500-1800, roughly), Jeff is correct. The Bubonic Plague, that led to the pneumonic version that caused the Black Death or Second Pandemic. The Black Death was the second time Plague had come to Europe, the first was 600 years earlier, and neither outbreak had anything to do with cold, in fact, the plague thrives in WARM weather. It was so bad because Europe was modernizingish, and living in cities more and more. Both major plague appearances were a result of human forays into infested areas, destabilizing ecosystems of infected animals. That is all.
So Earth became just warm enough to enable us to successfully farm and the positive feedback caused by farming kept us just warm enough to evade going back into iceage hell. I think we're still quite far away from the Earth being a maximum habitable and comfortable place overall so it's refreshing to know that we're currently in a low period on the Milankovitch cycle and should see warmer times ahead in the distant future.
We are not in a "low point" in the Milankovitch cycle, this channel has it backwards. We just passed the local maximum, meaning hottest period of the current inter glacial. We are not set on a slow turn towards being colder with a new ice age expected in 50,000 years.
Well, maybe it depends a little on where you live. If you're in Canada, that's great. If you live in India, not so good. Or if you live close to sea level. Luckily, people LOVE refugees. In the UK , excited crowds rush to the Kent coast to welcome the people arriving in small boats, hugging them warmly and inviting them to share their homes. No country in the world sees refugees as a problem. So if people start flooding north into the USA, for example, it will be fine. They can just make their homes in Florida, where Governor de Santis will give generous grants to newcomers. Refugees have never been an issue in the Southern USA.
@@marcwinkler That's exciting news. So the fact that it used to be cold hundreds of years ago means that it's not going to get hot now. That's such a relief. You are so right. This is genius.
Cherry-picked that time frame nicely... curiously no mention of the epochs in history when the CO2 levels were many, many times current levels, but also the most rampant exploding-with-life-forms, and not much warmer. Or how those variations in CO2/methane (negligible effect that methane has, due to its reactivity) may or may not correlate or correspond with the Milankovitch cycles. How can you ascribe the changes to human activity when there are known human-less periods (without farming and petroleum-use) in the past eras that had more extreme amounts of what you claim are causing the climate change (or lack of it, since you say we should be in a 'mild ice-age' whatever that really means?)
What about the effect of volcanoes on these emissions? And just to throw it out there 10 years of electric vehicles from Tesla is not going to change anything luxury vehicles are not going to change the world.
I assume you mean the Cambrian Explosion. "At this time the average temperature may have exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit, even near the poles. Eighty-five percent of the earth was covered with water (compared to 70 percent today...the average temperature of these vast seas may have been in the range of 100 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit." Or to put it another way. Yes, there have been times when CO2 is higher. and yes it was hotter and yes the sea level was massively higher. In other words, EXACTLY the conditions we're hoping to avoid.
Actually you are on the correct idea! There is a lot to know about weather than previously understood! The more we learn the more we realize we have much more to learn.
What is also a factor now is the earth is wobbly! Just like a top on a table does so does Earth! How does that now effect earths weather is only speculation but it is a factor.
have you noticed that they don’t bring up Milankovitch cycles when they’re talking about magnetic pole reversal,what effect the wobble might have on the inner liquids of the planet
Magnetic pole reversals are not cyclic and the internals of the planet move independently of the surface. Those two factors make it extremely unlikely that they're related.
Because the magnetic pole and the earth's physical rotation across its pole are two different things? one is caused by the hot and high pressure material inside the earth (magnetic pole) and the actual rotation of the Earth is caused by gravitional means (the solar system's sun, earth's moon, other planets). The magnetic pole doesn't affect the movement of the Earth, so there's not going to be anymore or less sunlight, which causes Ice Ages and Greenhouse ages, as explained in the previous video.
Ice Ages modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not CO2 I have determined that CO2 is not the primary feedback for ice ages - as explained in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent is most probably ice-sheet dust-albedo. Free download of peer-review paper available: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo, by Ralph Ellis. The first problem with ice ages is: When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent. The second problem with ice ages is: Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2. The third problem with ice ages is: During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response. Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming. The fourth problem with ice ages is: The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly. Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years. All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2. Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting. See peer-review paper: Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo. Ralph Ellis This is the ‘money-graph’ for ice ages. CO2 is directly proportional to inv-log dust. The inference being, that CO2 concentrations control dust, …by modulating higher altitude vegetation. image0.jpeg image0.jpeg Sent from my iPad
The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this: --------- "GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at th-cam.com/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/w-d-xo.html at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational energy. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain. --------- SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES - Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at th-cam.com/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/w-d-xo.html at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2. - Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". - Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere). --------- NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE - The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above. - The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect). - The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero.
Don´t forget that CO2 & CH4 are "heavy" gases than air that don´t go to the top of the atmosphere...and tha mosto of CO2 is reused by forest and agricultura farms, more over considering tha the ammount of CO2 is just ONLY a 0,04% of the total gases. More tha 99,9% is water vapor, wich is THE "greenhouse gas" that control the earth surface t°. Variations on water vapor (CLOUDS) is the cause in the t° variation.
Why was the co2 graph only taken back 10,000 years shouldn't it have been extended back as far as the milankovitch graph for a more balanced comparison over such a long period
So that you can see what's happening. If you add another 100,000 years for an additional carbon cycle it obscures the effect because the periods of the two cycles are so different. What I can tell you for certain is that there has never been a point in the last 2 million years where we had over 300ppm atmosphere CO2 until humans arrived. It would go from a little under 200ppm and back up to a little under 300ppm and that pattern has been steady for at least the last 800,000 years. So the entire cycle had an impact of about 100ppm. Currently we're over 400ppm and all of that extra growth came in the last 150 years. It was terribly bad luck that we industrialized right at the peak of the natural cycle.
It's been cooling slowly since just after exiting the last glaciation within this ice age. Both the medieval and roman warm periods were warmer than it is today. The coldest time since being somewhat recent during the little ice age. The current warming is not particularly fast or warm and we should hope our effects are as strong as the politicians claim. Why? Because cold is much harder to adapt to and is in our future.
@@oldcountryman2795 Have you forgotten that there's ~8 billion people on the planet now, who depend on a stable climate and biosphere for food, fresh water and land that doesn't flood? Just look at the disruption a relatively mild pandemic has caused.
@@oldcountryman2795 Ok cupcake. But I think I'll give more credence to the scientific community though, who definitely don't share your casual attitude.
Would be fascinating to understand the interaction of this theory with John L Casey’s Relational Cycle theory on the bicentennial cycle of sun activity’s influence on earth
I guess it depends how strong these sun activity cycles are in comparison to the forces described in the video. If the sun activity's effect is relatively marginal, it won't change much - otherwise it adds another beautiful layer of complexity.
so many factors to consider besides " carbon is bad". carbon keeps us warm and the crops growing. no carbon no plant life. earths tilt, cme's, solar flares and gases, poles in flux, ozone depletion, solar maximums and minimums.....all are part of what we refer to as climate. climate is not static and never has been. so sorry for the inconvienience, but why dont you go out and march, throw soup on paintings, glue yourself to the road lmao, block roads and bridges. the natural forces at work will surely change just for you and your ill informed passions.
@Melissa Sullivan i do believe an ice age is defined by the presence of ice caps. however it is a hell of a difference between ice caps around labrador (like my childhood) versus ice caps at NYC let alone all the way to the southern U.S.A. Without a) farming and b) cars and factories NYC would likely be glaciated if my understanding of the contemporary projections from past history is other than wrong. Anyway for sure Newfoundland should be glaciated were it not for cars and farms.
@@QuizmasterLaw Not quite, but close. Napolean's conquest of Russia was largely halted by a particularly harsh period of a mini ice age which all told, lasted from around 1250 to the early 1900s. The peak cold periods were in the 1600s followed by another dip almost as cold in the early 1800s, which is when he got his butt handed to him both by the Russians and the precipitous dip in winter conditions.
@@captTed Tesla cars are only zero carbon emissions while driving, if and only if, the driver is charging at a station that gets electricity from the sun or other renewable sources. Sadly, most Tesla Supercharging stations are connected to an electrical grid that is powered by COAL! So electric cars are not really that eco friendly. They are better than a traditional combustion engine. Saves more money to the consumer and is easier to maintain an electric car, no oil changes.
@@captTed But do you know how much Co2 was produced making a Tesla car?? And did you know you can't make a Tesla car without using coal. google to find out.
@@19thewanderer Well electric cars are only part of the solution, the next step will be solar roofs and electric mining machines (which Tesla is planning on making).
I'm assuming you live in a cold or temperate country well above sea level. That's great. For YOU. Some people live areas where it's already unbearably hot. Think about that for ten seconds.
@JST Inceptions "Exactly! The IPCC, MSM and the extremists have long ignored the Sun." No, they absolutely haven't. But it's cute watching your squirm and pretend that they had just so you can hold on to your prefabricated notions.
@@praem9597 I'm very well informed about the desperate efforts of your clients to cast doubt in the public minds about the fact of the man made climate change. So, no. I won't waste any more of my time, not more than what I have already wasted replying to your pitiful comment. 👎
@@ShobeirSheida My clients? What are you talking about? You are talking nonsense not only about climate but also about other things. You are very weird. Please check Willie Soon videos about the truth on the climate change fraud.
@@praem9597 Humans tend to believe what we want to believe. We gather evidence and then choose. Some are more flexible than others and may be more diligent in their research. An open mind can learn to see through the fog of evidence supporting all sides of a subject but only if the mind is willing to remain curious and keep looking. Take what I said here and do with it what you choose.
Even today only about 12% of the earths surface is used for agriculture and much of that was never forest, it was prairie grass. Before the discovery of iron it would be pretty difficult to deforest what wasn't already deforested. I would really like to see your data on deforestation by human activity over the 9000 years you are referring to. Even 5000 years ago the human population has been estimated at only 14 million. Deforestation by humans increased greatly in the last 300 years or so but you have a lot of explaining to do for the other 8700 years. The main thing to keep in mind is that more than two thirds of the earth is covered in water and it's the photo synthetic bacteria and many other micro organisms in the vast oceans and lakes that generate and exchange the great majority of atmospheric gases. So any additional CO2 generated as you say from conversion of forest to agriculture would face the vast oceans to absorb and convert it. Being land animals and very egocentric ones at that, we like to think it's the beautiful forests on land that are the "lungs of the earth" but in truth it's the slimy bacteria and fungi that are doing the majority of the work generating most of the atmospheric oxygen, virtually all of the nitrogen and reducing most of the CO2 down to just a few hundred parts per million.
For the data on deforestation I would suggest looking at these papers: Kaplan, J. O., K. M. Krumhardt, and N. Zimmerman (2009), The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe, Quat. Sci. Rev., 28, 3016-3034 Ruddiman, Fuller, Kutzbach, Tzedakis, Kaplan, Ellis, Vavrus, Roberts, Fyfe, He, Lemmen, Woodbridge. (2015). Late Holocene Climate: Natural or Anthropogenic?. Reviews of Geophysics. 54. They argue that there was much more deforestation per person when farming was getting started. Also, I slightly oversimplified the mechanism for deforestation in the video. Much of the deforestation was actually caused by domesticated sheep, goats, and pigs. They eat the young shoots of trees and over decades deforest vast tracks of land. Most of the sheep pastures of England were once oak forests before sheep.
@@praem9597 That's because you can't follow science when it is put in its simplest form. It's not propaganda, it's your inability to comprehend. Or you're gullible.
@@vanbatim5906 Those imbeciles will mistake anything that goes against their pridefully held confirmation bias as "propaganda." When they're presented with inconvenient scientific consensus, they merely dismiss it as the opinion of an opposing tribe much like their own conspiracy theorist group. They are largely beyond help or reason.
Whilst we are all aware that some gases make a small difference to the amount of energy able to leave our planet, it never ceases to amaze me that there is never any talk of water vapour as a “ greenhouse gas” it is the most relevant insulator. Yet nobody suggested that we get rid of water🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
Why was the eemian interglacial far warmer than our interglacial yet co2 was much lower during the eemian? And sea level was around 6 metres higher across the planet, scary stuff!
I don't remember the detail on that one but I think the scientist said it was because the glaciation period (colloquial "ice age") before the Eemian interglacial was longer than the one before the present Holocene that made the Eemian a "short & sharp" one with a higher peak than pre-industrial . The main thing is that Milankovitch Cycles are a total Dog's Breakfast because the 3 of them don't ever line up perfectly and the orbital one has cycles outside its cycles (very similar to the Leap Year type of thing) so the SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N and latitudes near that (where ice can form in vast enough quantities on mountains) is a total Dog's Breakfast over a million years or so. You can even clearly see the 2 unsuccessful attempts at de-glaciation during the last "ice age" in the ice core proxies where latitude 65N got more SUMMER sunshine and the glaciers retreated but it wasn't enough (the 3 Milankovitch Cycles didn't align quite enough) and then the glaciers crept south again. You can easily find on the internet a plot of SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N because scientists understand it. That's what you really need rather than looking at the individual 3+ Milankovitch Cycles and trying to combine them all together yourself.
The 2010 magnitude-8.8 Chile earthquake shortened the day by about 1.26 µs and shifted earth's figure axis by about 8 cm. And the 2004 magnitude-9.2 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake moved the figure axis by about 7 cm. We will have another ice age if this happens again.
Makes you wonder how much the Younger Dryas Impact altered the axial tilt - that was quite a wallop, right at the northern axis. I don't think it was much, maybe none - but one thing of absolute certainty: After the Younger Dryas was over, Earth's climate radically stabilized - comparatively speaking.
But they keep saying we’re in global warming. The ice caps are going to melt anytime and we’re doomed! I think it’s all hogwash. Earth goes thru cycles and there are many different ones.
Plants (agriculture) also transforms CO2 in O2. In fact, grass transforms way more co2 in o2 than trees per square foot. It shouldn't make a difference
Currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.
@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 It's not about output of O2 and absorbtion of Co2. Plants break around even with their output of 02 compared to what they consume themselves. It's about forests and other vegetation "storing" carbon as plant matter. Wild vegetation is often much more rich in plant matter than agricultural areas, so if you get rid of wild vegetation to plant crops you'll release the stored Co2 of the wild plants into the athmosphere
@@danaldtrampf6717 Yupp. And then these crops will grow very well due to the high amount of co2 in the air which they'll transform into o2. It's basic chemistry. Wild vegetation or crops, it shouldn't make a difference. Obviously, there are other arguments why deforestation is not a good idea, but it's definitely not this one...
@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 You don't seem to understand what's the deal here. Numbers are made up just to visualize the difference. Let's take a 10 m^2 area. Lets have there a lawn of grass that weights lets say 100 kg. In the same 10 m^2 there could be growing a 1 ton tree. 10x more CO2 absorbet in the plant itelf as it is built out of carbon which it takes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not about which plants breathes more or less CO2. It's about which ones stores/traps more carbon mass per area used. There's another problem with your grass. During fall/winter time most of the grass mass rotts out, only roots survive to regrow in the spring. The huge 1 ton tree will lose substantioaly less mass as it only drops the leaves and keeps the whole core of the tree during the winer. And conifer trees don't drop the "leaves" so they keep even more carbon trapped in them during the winter time.
I found your channel due to your videos about the Milankovitch cycles, love all your content. Keep up the good work. So many conspiracy theorists in the comments though, very amusing.
@@ItsJustAstronomical Unfortunately many people are so ignorant of science they don't realise how ignorant of science they are. They claim scientist are just guessing at the physical properties of CO2 despite the 200 years of research, successful predictions (e.g. nights warming faster than days, stratospheric cooling) and practical outcomes such as heat seeking missiles.
Milankovitch cycles are changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun that can affect the amount of solar energy received by the Earth and can influence long-term climate patterns. The three main types of Milankovitch cycles are changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is), changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, and changes in the direction of the Earth's axis (precession). These cycles occur over periods of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. It is not possible to determine exactly where we are in any given Milankovitch cycle at a given time, as these cycles take place over such long periods of time. However, scientists can use various methods, such as analyzing sediment cores or ice cores, to study the patterns of these cycles and their impacts on the Earth's climate over time. Understanding these cycles can help us better understand the long-term changes in the Earth's climate and how it may be influenced by factors such as changes in solar radiation and the Earth's orbit.
Calculations of our current position in the orbital mechanics of our procession are quite concise, we know exactly where we are....it doesn't fit the political position to tell our citizens the truth of the soon to be next great ice age.
The Milankovitch cycles, which refer to changes in Earth's climate patterns over long periods of time, can be influenced by various factors. These factors include: 1. Changes in solar radiation: Variations in the intensity and distribution of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface can affect the climate system. 2. Earth's obliquity: The tilt of Earth's axis relative to its orbital plane can change over time, affecting the amount and distribution of solar energy received by different latitudes. 3. Precession: Earth's axis also undergoes a slow wobbling motion known as precession, which can influence the timing and intensity of seasons. 4. Eccentricity: The shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun can vary from more circular to more elliptical, altering the amount of solar radiation received at different points in the orbit. 5. Feedback mechanisms: Climate feedback mechanisms, such as ice-albedo feedback and greenhouse gas concentrations, can amplify or dampen the effects of the Milankovitch cycles. 6. Other factors: Volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation patterns, and variations in atmospheric composition can also influence the Milankovitch cycles and their impact on climate change. These factors interact with each other and with the overall climate system, leading to long-term climate variations and ice age cycles.@@davidmcchargue8427
So where does cement an asphalt fit into this. I’ve heard that these materials retain heat for a longer period than just plain old dirt, meaning they don’t really cool much at night ... I read It’s why cities stay hot and just keep getting hotter and hotter in the summer months. I would think this contributes to hotter summers and have little effect in winters. Does this effect the overall global temperature? Or an I misinformed ?
Well. It's a really good thing that the Earth has a reboot function then huh? Once so much of the fresh water in the poles melts into the oceans, it will saturate the oceanic currents which bring hot water from the equator to the north. With the northern hemisphere getting colder and colder the ice sheets will have a massive resurgence, and we'll pretty much be screwed... Hope it's not for awhile...
But Al Gore, The High Priest of The Church of Climatology said we would never see snow ever again and that the Obumers ivory tower at Martha's Vineyard would be under the ocean by now.
I think it’s also important to note that even without humans the Holocene interglacial we are currently in would last another 20ish thousand years but with us adding CO2, it’s causing a break away from old trends. Thanks for the video, I think it’s important to illustrate how complicated our planet’s climate really is and how the slightest changes from an unnatural force could overthrow the delicate balance.
@@not_really_asl well it (greenhouse gases like co2) would delay the next glacial cycle, but unfortunately it would bring us into a hot house not seen in tens of millions of years maybe even ending the whole quaternary ice age as we know it
Can you do a video of the evolution of humans and show where in the milankovitch cycle points of note are? Early migration, introduction of neanderthals/denisovans, Atlantis sinking (or at least when it's written abkut) etc. Is a timeline of Earth in general too much to ask? Like pangea splitting and stuff?
Humans have only been around for one and a half Milankovitch cycles. If we restrict ourselves to the period where we have reliable records we haven't even traversed 20% of a cycle.
We are at the top of a 10,000 year warming cycle. For the next 1,000 years we will flat line then drop into a 90,000 year ice age where temps will drop by 15 degrees. I think there is political pressure to keep everyone in fear. So, real figures cannot be presented. This guy says Milankoviich Cycles are not the major cause at the end of the video. Scientists have to obey the party line otherwise their funding will be cut off. So, persue looking for 2 million year graphs for Malankovich cycles yourself.
Great video! Great explanation! Great graphics! Wonder why we never learnt about the Milankovitch cycles in our school geography! Please also make a video on how the situation on earth was (life forms, species, civilizations, etc) during the last ice age.
@Veljko Tekelerović Starting in 1970, US schools began a major decline. I was in 11th grade, and that year some classes were introduced designed to move away from real education to propaganda. It became obvious to many, that the revised aspects of Science, Economics and History, would have to be taught at home. As of 2012, The Milankovitch Cycles were still not being taught. I have not looked, since. I live within 5 miles of the Northern American continent Glacial Moraine. This area had glaciers recur during the last 20,000 years of warming, at about 12,000 years ago. A mile thick. Something happened, some think the earth was struck by several objects. Regardless, ignoring the massive weather control efforts globally, especially China's, California's and many others, pretty much negates the Climate Change crowd. What effect has that had on The Milankovitch Cycles? The current small bump in the waveform may be delayed or altered by these massive weather efforts.
This is truly Eye opening. So the earth's axis change and eccentricity of the orbit around the sun is completely over compensated for by mankind's carbon emissions! I totally get it now! Thank you so much! I am off to scrap my car, sell my house and go and live in a cave. 👍
The Milankovitch Cycle's are consistent and are not properly understood as too which combinations of other things are creating this pattern of warming and cooling. But we do know they are reasonably recent in the history of the Earth starting only a few million years ago. Some have speculated that it may relate to the fact that the Sun has entered the 'local' bubble in space, changing the amount of galactic radiation or cosmic radiation, recent science shows that cosmic radiation has an impact on weather as it makes it rain, cooling the earth as there is less moisture in the atmosphere to hold on to warmth over night. Others say the Milankovitch Cycle may be hightened due to Iceland blocking and slowing down the Gulf stream which once may have gone over the N. Pole into the Pacific but now sinks and returns south due to the mechanisim in place.
@@hansproebsting7391 they keep it simple because when they get into the details their theories fall apart and people who don't do their own research just believe them. In the scientific method first you see if your theory can be easily disproved. Then you see if your evidence fits better into another theory then it does in yours. Then you invite other people's criticism of your theory, and try to prove their criticism correct. (Yes you try to disprove your own theory) Before you have done these things you really haven't proven anything. You can do an experiment and get the same results over and over, but that doesn't mean you analyzed the data correctly just that you repeated the experiment with the same results.
Eccentricity is still getting more circular. That’s putting the northern hemisphere summer closer to the sun and extending the interglacial. The albedo of the northern hemisphere drives the climate. Also of note, the sun itself has been especially active. The last hundred years. A grand maximum in fact. Man made gas is for sure contributing, but embracing the 400 year cycle, 60 year cycle, helps to explain why models are consistently wrong about how much warming we will see.
Remember theres also the planetary cycles to be added to Milankovitch or be taken into consideration. The cumulative gravity effects of explanatory masses influencing the Sun's tidal surface.
The sun wobbles on it's axis too and as the orbit of the earth is elliptical the irradiance is not equally spread out causing another cycle to add to Milankovitch. cycles.
So mechanically speaking its all about the plants. Cutting down trees released their trapped carbon, and later burning them released even more carbon. Even later we started "freeing" the ancient carbon that was stuck in coal and oil. Nuclear power suddenly seems so inviting now doesnt it?
The position of earth within the Milankovitch cycles wil have an effect when also an Grand Solar Minimum and a Geomagnetic Excursion Event takes place , it seems very likely that this takes place right now .
Yes, CO2 has been a good thing for us historically. The medieval warm period was a period of economic growth. But you can have too much of a good thing. What's worrying is how quickly it's rising. It's not that CO2 is inherently bad.
Michael Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period - didn't you hear? That is the problem with blaming CO2 for warm trends. The planet has seen very warm periods and very cold periods with much lower and much higher CO2 levels than today. They are not tied together. CO2 was chosen as the enemy by the UN to control population growth and keep poor countries poor.
For now I'd call it lucky. Since the Cold is devestating for humans. But I guess we'll see how hot it'll get. We're at an average temperature of 15° currently and in most historic warm phases it was at 30°.
From climate records the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has no correlation to global temperatures. The increasing trace amount of CO2 follows the increasing amount of Earth's biomass. Below 150 ppm of CO2 all plant life dies. The increase in CO2 from human activity has had the effect of unintentionally saving Earth's plant life and by extension all life on the planet. The Carboniferous (450,000,000 BC) and the Ordovician (300,000,000 BC) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period was an Ice Age and CO2 concentrations were 11 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. In the words of Patrick Moore, “This climate change thing is the worst thing to happen to science and the enlightenment since Galileo.” Enjoy his keynote address to the 2019 Economic Education Association of Alberta's 6th annual "Freedom School" conference. th-cam.com/video/UWahKIG4BE4/w-d-xo.html
0:20 which would be the "worst case scenario" for a severe ice age? Lowest Tilt, highest eccentricity and precession tilted away from sun in summer - all combined? Is it possible?
We are in a mild ice age because we are still coming out of one. Permafrost is still melting, glaciers still haven't stopped melting. Plenty of ice still to melt but obviously that melting is accerating due to the lack of ice mass to help keep it cooler. I like your theory, definatly something to do with it but they also say that CO2 naturally rises sharply as we come out of ice ages. Ancient ice cores have been extracted that prove it.
Excellent video, but isn't it strange how the conclusion can be negative rather than positive. It just shows how, if graph scales are manipulated sufficiently, you can alter the conclusions with simply changing the scales on axes. I agree with everything in the first 90% of the video and strongly disagree with the last 10%.
Anybody and everybody who produces a study about climate, it's evolution or any kind of prognosis should be forced to open source every ounce of data and source code that led to his conclusions. In addition, every single assumption in the study should be explicitly stated. Anything less is completely unacceptable. Don't hold your breath, though!
@@tbdcreations5370 OK, so you're obviously not a software developer. Open sourcing means releasing the dataset and all the code that was used to produce every table and figure in the study. On top of that every assumption made should be explicitly stated and every funding acknowledged.
Jacob011 I’m fully aware of the concept of “open-source”. During the peer review process the raw data is submitted. It may not end up getting published along with the paper or article or whatever, mostly because the average reader isn’t going to go through and check for mistakes (that’s the point of peer review). But what if they did publish it? It seems your hyper-criticism on climate-related research (I’m curious as to why you’re only concerned about this type of research) would likely find another nit to pick, even when all of the data checked out. As for funding? It’s 2019. A few minutes on Google will find out where the research money is coming from.
@@tbdcreations5370 Peer reviewed means nothing when you have biased peers reviewing it. This is why nutritional science is so flawed. I would gather the same goes here, this is why you can get two polar opposite findings, depending who funds such studies...
Take Off Your Blinkers I know nothing about nutritional “science”, but the problem with your assertion is there are not “two polar opposite findings”. There is one common finding. So, either all climate scientists are biased only one way (incredibly unlikely), or there is some truth to their research. That is the only possibility when you think about it- if there were two groups of biased scientists publishing research and peer reviewing one another, you would not end up with two polar opposite findings on a subject, you would end up with a bunch of refuted research because no one would agree. That is why peer review is so effective. Everyone is biased, therefore when you do get a group of scientists to agree on something it has some meaning.
What happens when the cycle takes us back to a warm cycle and we are still farming? Even if we made all other practices carbon neutral farming alone according to how this info is presented here will fry us all… Alternately what if we counter the carbon situation and we enter a full ice age?
This channel deserves the highest praise IMO. All of it’s videos that I’ve seen r grade A+. The narration and imagery makes it so easy to quickly gain an understanding. At the end of this video u mentioned greenhouse gasses being a factor and I’m quite curious what ur take is on the role nuclear testing plays in the grand scheme of climate change. There have been more than two thousand documented manmade nuclear explosions since 1945. What r the effects they have and/or will have on earths ozone layer and climate?
I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware of any significant effects. Nuclear explosions are big when you think in human terms, but when you compare them against the gigantic Earth's climate system they're relative small considering the insanely large nuclear explosion in the form of the Sun.
Could trees and plants be growing larger with more CO2 in the atmosphere? Kind of like how dinosaurs were huge because there was more O2 in the atmosphere?
Not really. It makes sense to say that because trees need carbon from the atmosphere to grow, but they also need water, and other micronutrients. Those other needs turn out to be limiting factors, so the increase in CO2 doesnt really help plants grow faster. There was plenty of carbon to photosynthesis’s with prior to humans dumping tons of the stuff in the atmosphere, so it really hasn’t helped plants out
Even though that is often repeated there was not more oxygen in the Mesozoic era, but there was more in the Carboniferous era before the Mesozoic I suggest Dr. Christopher Whites historical geology videos on the eras (further down the list past Aron Ra's 'Systematic Classification of Life') with the blueish thumbnails: th-cam.com/play/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd.html
And no, it would drastically wear trees down. Keep in mind that trees basically respire just like us at night, at night they output CO2 in cellular respiration like we do, they do photosynthesis, the opposite, in the day time.
The Milankovitch cycles take place over tens of thousands of years. For earthlings, there are more important ones, namely the Gleissberg cycle of about 80 years, and the 60 year AHR cycle (Astronomical Harmonic Resonance). The AHR peaked in the 1930's, producing a warm period, and again in 2003, beginning a warming trend still ongoing. But the AHR is now decreasing.
But its just a THEORY and its an obviously incomplete one. Since it doesn't account for the Sun Cycles. The sun itself has its own warm and cool trends which also affect our weather.
@@DadBodDrumming If you think on 11 years sun solar cycles than this is just 0.15°C max temp. fluctuation during those 11 years up and down. Right now we are at the beginning of 25 cycle so next 6 years will be hotter .
@@DadBodDrumming what? that's not what "theory" means and this cycle is a predictor of global temperature just like sun cycles are (and those are only 11 year cycles IIRC so how do you account for the near constant increase in temp over he last 100 years?) If you can't understand how these orbital patterns might affect global temperature patterns you aren't as smart as you think you are LOL Now go read the definition of what a scientific theory is and get back to us.
@It's Just Astronomical! An idea for a follow up video: Where are we headed? As in where are we headed in the Milankovitch Cycle? Are we still on a trajectory to colder temperatures, predicted solely based on the Milankovitch Cycle? When does the current cycle reverse, as in we begin to heat up, predicted solely based on the Milankovitch Cycle? This will be useful to understand the timeframe where our CO2 emissions could be exacerbating the heating up part of the Milankovitch Cycle (right now our CO2 emissions are helping to offset the current mini iceage).
Some of these questions are hard to answer and I'm not sure I can say a lot with any certainty. What we see from the geological record in the past few million years is relatively brief warms periods in between long periods of cold. If humans weren't doing anything we would expect it to get colder now and in the future. The big unknown is what humans will do and the effect that will have on the climate. In the book, "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" the authors predict that eventually we'll run out of fossil fuels and it will get cold again. This would happen in the distant future, but they don't really say when.
Ok. The warm period before the last Ice Age lasted 12,000-15,000 years. Then the last Ice Age which lasted 100,000 years (the last 4 have lasted 100,000y each) Then it got warm again 11,700 bc with temps being what they are today by 9,700 bc.. So it's been warm for about 12,000 years. That's the same time it was warm the last time before a Ice Age hit... we are due anytime for another Ice Age. In fact all the last 4 interglacial warm periods are a blip on the chart compared to all the long 100,000 y Ice Ages. In other words when earth gets warm it's only for a very short time 12-15k y.But the Ice ages last 100,000 y. So it's been warm for that blip already....
You are not getting it. That's why he shows the past's interglacial periods CO2, methane and temperature levels vs those same metrics of today/recent times. This is were our case deviates from those previous periouds.
There may be three separate cycles. 1.Milanvokitch orbital. 2. Oceanic Thermohaline circulation. 3. Sun spots. Wouldn't it be insightful if people had a comprehensive image? Could you make a video that examined the relationship between these three cycles?
The sun oscillates every 11 years, the poles flip at the change points when goes from maximum to minimum, we are 3 years into a maximum cycle were every day we have flares and CME's, in minimum cycle there's almost no flares and CME's, I can tell the difference in how hot it is standing in the sunlight
Climate scientists have extensively studied all of these factors as well as many others. None of them can explain the recent rapid warming without CO2.
Keep in mind that modern science needs to improve its understanding of the cosmos and its cycles. Learn from what was known. Ancient science knows of a 5000plus year cycle as civilization's lifespan. So what is happening today on every level is already known and will conclude in one global cosmic event sometime in the 2030s.
But the difference is that farming releases C14 isotopes and fossil fuels do not, and what we're seeing from the 1800s to now is a dramatic increase in C12 and C13 in the same ratio as in plants, but not a proportional increase in C14, demonstrating that the main modern GHG emissions are from fossil fuels specifically.
I worked in an industry that handles co2, so I have had access to co2 meters. The numbers change minutely, hourly, seasonally. I live in northern Canada,we can use the heat, it will lower our emmisions that we need to heat our homes. I have planted a lot of trees in my yard so from 650 ppm in the mornig it drops to 350 in the mid afternoon. So when they say 50 ppm are terrrible it makes me wonder who takes the readings , when, where. Satalite info has proven to be manipulated to fit political intrerests. PS in no way have we had record warming as predicted, Aug 22, 7 am was 6 degrees
The temperature and density of CO2 from place to place tells us exactly nothing about global climate. You're making an incredibly common mistake of confusing weather with climate. They're not the same thing.
Chapter and verse from Plows Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman. An interesting aside. When the black death occurred and the demise of the population of the Americas (from European Diseases) the forests recovered and we just slid into the next glacial period. Then it was reversed by our increased output of green house gasses. This can be seen up around Baffin Island.
Above video: "Farming increased green house gases enough to keep earth warm." Well then let's all give a loud hip hip hooray for farming! And a second though more restrained hip hip hooray for the industrial revolution that has also contributed to the life-supporting CO2 increase. And BTW, the small ice age we would have been in now (were it not for farming) would have proceeded into a full-blown ice age. And maybe it still will, no matter how much CO2 man is able to continue pumping into the atmosphere. Will the anti-global warming crowd rejoice to see mile-high glaciers again covering America's Midwest? No, civilization will be gone. Continental glaciation is very bad for humanity.
Let's try to figure out exactly how much GHG's are needed and the exact composition of them to keep our planet at exactly 80° mean so we never have an Ice Age again. We still have to figure out how to stop that damn ring of fire from activating though lol.
In terms of the reference to C02, near the end of the video: the geological time frame under consideration is much too short. If you look at the last 600,000,000 years you will see that C02 levels have been much higher than today, (we are in C02 famine today, as opposed to what the IPCC will try to tell you, that "there has never been so much C02 in the atmosphere as today!") in fact there were ice ages where C02 levels were in the thousands of parts per million - ppm (it is about 400 ppm today), so greenhouse gases do not explain temperature. Yes C02 is a trace gas, and does have important vital greenhouse qualities, (unfortunately unfairly demonized) but then so does Water Vapour, which is the largest greenhouse gas, and never "popularly" mentioned, yet has far reaching impact on earth's climate. Then there is correlation, which shows that C02 levels actually follow the change of temperature, NOT causing temperature, in other words the climate is far too complex for simplistic explanations. Mathematical climate models don't account for the "shoreline measurement" paradox, which take into consideration irrational numbers, (where very small rounding, swell to gargantuan changes in measurements over long time series analysis, hence garbage in garbage out.....for an excellent impartial source of information, (which also explains the brilliant Milankovitch cycles) see Jerome Corsi's (Ph.D) educational book; "The Truth About Energy, Global Warming, and Climate Change". Release date: 05-07-22.
My take away: Human induced global warming is good because it's staved off another ice age which would've been very detrimental to civilization and farming.
Scientists say, "We are immature, animal-origin, evolutionary creatures, naturally bellicose and quarrelsome -- still largely subject to stimulus and response -- until we evolve further. Our immediate supervisors await the day that we take that next HUGE evolutionary step. There will be an Epochal Eclipse a CROSS North America on April 8th 2024, when MORE shall be revealed to those with "eyes and ears." The rest will see only an eclipse. Don't stare at the sun: Matthew 16: 4 Jonah 3: 5, 8 Jonah 4: 11."
My only complaint is that the host spent a few minutes on the fact that farming rose atmospheric CO2 levels from about 250-280 PPM over a thousand plus years, but only a few seconds on the fact that modern fossil fuel burning rose CO2 levels from 280 to over 400 PPM in only 120 years.
@@jb-xc4oh Perhaps you didn't notice, but 800 million years ago, there were no millions of people living along the coasts, there were no farms to feed millions of people, (just for starters) I give the poorly informed two chances to get educated, but your statement is so off base, this is the only one I will write.
@@granitfog If you care to reread what I wrote you will notice I said life went merrily on its way. Are you so educated to believe there was no life on this planet when CO2 concentrations were 800PPM......I did not say human life, I said life. Human life is just a drop in the bucket compared to plant life, bacterial life, mammals, reptiles and insects.
@@santaclaws1501 Crocodiles have been around basically unchanged for 240 million years and still breathe the same air as humans today. Even humans suffer no effects from 800 PPM concentrations of CO2. However at CO2 concentrations of 150 PPM all plant life will die and so will humanity. Low CO2 levels are not a good thing.
Now that you stated all that, bring in a bit of Magnetic Pole changes. And then you could throw in a ever so wee bit of Plate Tectonics. But, just a wee bit.
Not sure what carbon has to to do with the Milankovitch cycles. The reason it's "so warm" is because we're in an inter-glacial period, and yes, we are in an ice age
@@ItsJustAstronomical... normal? you're welcome to kid yourself but leave us out. BTW about half of the "carbon" stays in the soil and half is respirered as CO2 by the decomposition process ... I know, details, details but a couple extra words or using the wrong ones change the entire conversation from mostly truthful to deliberately misleading.
Because more CO2 in air do not let planet to cool down so fast. Please learn how greenhouse gas effect works www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php
So, essentially the increase in CO2 slightly slowed down the imminent cooling which now is apparent as the last few years there has not been increase but rather drop in overall global temperature. Moreover, despite the fact CO2 has been high in the past, much higher than today's levels, ICE ages still continued to happen nevertheless. C02 has never been the primary greenhouse gas as WATER vapour is the main greenhouse gas, having at least 70-80% effect. C02 can slightly accentuate the effects but definitely not the level contributed by man which is merely 3-5% of the overall carbon cycle. The effect is negligible even if any actually existed in the first place. That's the gist of it right?
That's definitely wrong. Firstly 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years so whoever told you that it was cooling recently lied to you. Secondly the last time CO2 levels were this high was 14 million years ago, about 11 million years before the modern cycle quaternary glaciation began. No ice age has ever occurred with over 250ppm atmospheric CO2. While water vapor is a greenhouse gas the atmosphere hold more as the temperature increases. This means it will amplify any warming or cooling effects rather than regulating it by itself. This is not the case for CO2 as temperature changes do not effect its concentration in the atmosphere. Finally, the evidence of man-made climate change is overwhelming. If you aren't aware of it then you either haven't looked at the evidence, are incredibly stupid, or lying intentionally. It seems obvious you haven't looked at the evidence since you got essentially all the facts wrong but at the same time being so consistently wrong typically takes effort so you could be lying intentionally too. I guess you're the only one who knows which applies to you.
@@abebuckingham8198 Overall global temperature average from 2015 to 2021(last 7 years) show a -0.88°C, in a downward trend over a century and -0.09°C over a decade, as per Official NOAA records. Where's the warming? Just in case you didn't know, carbon dioxide is known as the Gas of Life, as it plays a crucial role in sustaining life on Earth for millenia.
@@abebuckingham8198 BTW, more than 95% of the last 10,000 years recorded warmer temperatures than the temperatures recorded in the last 20 years. So I'm not sure what you mean by 9 out 10 years have been hottest years? Hottest in comparison to what?
you totally left out the effect of solar activity cycles on the other cycles. i don't buy the CO2 argument for one minute. solar activity lines up directly with the maunder minimum, the dalton minimum, and other known historical warm/cool cycles
@@snuffeldjuret - the atmosphere was a WHOLE LOT denser then. heat retention and transference is more than just about the composition of the air. it's also a function of density. global warming proponents like to point to the fact that venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2, claiming that is the sole reason for its heat. what they don't tell you is that venus' atmosphere is 90 times denser than earth's atmosphere. haven't you ever wondered why you can survive walking outside on a 110 degree day in texas, but if you stick your hand in 110 degree water, it will scald you and send you to the hospital with severe burns? or why the thermosphere would be freezing to exposed skin, even though that layer is usually over a thousand degrees F?
@@carcarjinks1430 how much denser was it back then? I have never heard that claim before, so I wonder what there is to back up that claim. Maybe you should focus on backing up your claims instead of talking about basic physics.
@@snuffeldjuret - earth's atmosphere has changed many times over its history. the biggest change of all was caused by the KT event of 65mya - the same event that killed off the dinosaurs, and marks the break between the cretaceous and paleogene periods - believed to be caused by a meteor impact on the yucatan peninsula. although ice core samples only go back about 200K years, there are plenty of other sources of information about the ancient atmosphere, such as air bubbles trapped in amber from over 100mya, which indicate much higher levels of oxygen and CO2 -- 31-35% oxygen, compared to 21% today. fossilized plants and animals also provide proof of not only higher O and CO2, but higher density - estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 5 times current pressure. such an atmosphere is the only explanation for the giant plants and insects from that period, which would need a hyperbaric atmosphere to grow to that size. insects breathe through their exoskeletons, which limits the size an insect can grow, because volume increases at a faster rate relative to surface area. dragonflies with 3 foot wing spans would not live in today's atmosphere. higher oxygen alone is not enough to explain the size difference before the KT event. higher pressure would be needed to saturate the blood of a dinosaur, with its limited lung capacity. earth is constantly losing a portion of its atmosphere to space. this loss is in the hundreds of tons per day. some of the causes are solar wind, thermal expansion, and open magnetic field lines near the poles that allow ions to exhaust into space. but by far the largest known loss of atmosphere was ejecta from the KT event.
@@carcarjinks1430 can you quantify the effect of "density - estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 5 times current pressure"? How does the calculation look like that makes you think it is the key to understanding earth temperature?
im not a 100% sure about this but i think the "mild iceage" is that recent record cold temperature in february.. even here in the philippines, we've never saw our thermometers go down to 20-22 deg C, the normal lowest temperature here is 26 deg C. that's a small difference but it's understandable 'cause we're way farther away from the north pole compared to texas and other countries.
There's a question no one seems to address: Yes, we are putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere, and the planet-warming effects of CO2 are well-documented, but is it the case that, as the Holocene ends, the changes of the Earth's tilt, precession, and eccentricity (as described by the Milankovitch cycles) completely overwhelms all the inadvertent efforts by humans to keep the planet warm? Anthropomorphic global-warming suggests the next glacial period has been put on hold indefinitely because of human activity. That certainly could be true - and a lot of scientists think it is true. You probably can't even get a grant to study climate change if you don't already think that global-warming is mostly caused by human activity. But two other outcomes are also possible: The first is that humans are adding just enough greenhouse gas to delay the next round of glaciation. The second is that glaciation is inevitable, and the amount of greenhouse gases added over the last 10,000 years is negligible with respect to the overwhelming cooling that will happen as the Holocene period ends. So there are three possible outcomes - and from what I've read, more open studies are needed to see which path we're really on. Unfortunately, the way science currently works, there is no funding to look into these alternative outcomes - which, of course, leaves scientists open to being completely surprised when things don't go the way they are predicting.
I think it's certainly true that humans have delayed the next glaciation. In the book "The Life and Death of Planet Earth", the authors say that in a few centuries we will have exhausted most of the world's fossil fuels and the glaciers will return. They don't give any specifics on when this will happen. But I think the reason this hasn't been studied so much is because this is so far into the future. Most scientists are more worried about the next few centuries than thousands of years from now. And if you want to think about the distant future, the book also explains that the Sun is very gradually getting brighter. In a billion years, it will be so hot that the oceans will boil away. But the big unknown in all of this is the advancement of human technology. Maybe we will have developed enough technology in thousands or millions of years to make planet-wide interventions. It's hard to know.
@@ItsJustAstronomical All good points. All I'm really suggesting is a scientific study that asks if it possible to use CO2 to control the balance between entering glaciation, and staying just outside of it. Like a thermostat for a house, only use it for heating/cooling the whole planet - in an optimal sort of way. If such a thing were possible, we'd need a lot more information on how, when, and why glaciation begins. There are some studies we can use, but more could be done to explore this idea. There probably is an optimal amount of CO2 for planetary health. But what is that value, and how is it derived?
@@mxbishop A lot of scientists are interested in this kind of question and they're working on it. It's just a really hard problem. Given an amount of CO2, what will happen to the climate? Or just given our current level of CO2, what will happen to the climate? There are plenty of different climate models out there. But they disagree with one another and aren't known to be very accurate. It's really hard problem, but I think we're making progress on this. But the other part of the thermostat is missing too. Even modest changes to the world's CO2 production are hard for us to implement.
Co2 does not warm the clinate. This is Ipcc propaganda.
Given that fossil fuel companies funded countless studies to try and disprove climate change so you're wrong about the grants. The problem is that they've already been studied and they failed to explain what's happening without man-made climate change. I'm sure you'd have trouble getting a grant to try and disprove the existence of gravity too but that's not a bad thing.
Something to keep in mind: Milankovich cycles don't directly cause ice ages or warming periods, they influence feedback cycles of heating and cooling. It's a slow, subtle process and it doesn't take much to be disturbed.
Yes. Volcanic eruption for example.
@@flatsville1 Still emissions from volcanos is less than one percent of what we release by burning fossil fuels.
Yeah righto.You know it's good enough for many of us to realise that the further away from the sun you are the less heat.
@sciphynuts So than you might be able to give me some reliable references for that?
@sciphynuts problem is you are completely wrong here, give me a source for the bs you just said.
I studied Ice Ages as part of my batchelors degree. The Sun also has cycles and the Sun cycle periodically coincides with increases in volcanism. Volcanoes produce particles that ascend to the upper atmosphere and it is this that creates a lower temperature because the Sun is blotted out. All Ice Ages are preceded by increased volcanism. The amount of CO2 is approximately 0.0391 parts per million. This is measured by the percentage present in water vapour.
Did you find if the sun's cycles impact volcanism in any way?
That doesn't change that we should be in a mini ice age if it wasn't for our co2 production
Excuse me, but the amount of CO2 ist aproximately ... where? In the atmosphere it is arround 400 ppm or 0.04 %. Guess it is just a misleading typing error?
@@syedjazibhassan4855 we are still in an ice age. Polar ice caps = ice age
@@jackculler1489 We should be in an mild ice age right NOW. But the facts is that the ice caps are melting like there is no tomorrow, thus heating the planet even more.
So, what you're saying is that not only has farming and industry provided us with food and shelter, it's also prevented an ice age that would have killed millions through famine.
Yeah, something like that, but you can have too much of a good thing.
Then clearly the only solution is the extermination of around 6 billion people and the reforestation of much of the planet.
Hand on a second......
There are multiple global efforts all claiming to be planting millions/billions of trees.
Is there something we're not being told?
@@baldieman64 That's obviously not the only solution.
@@baldieman64
Planting trees hasn't worked, but maybe this could.
th-cam.com/video/vpTHi7O66pI/w-d-xo.html
Here in Canada we had an iceage 12,000 years ago...co2 levels now are roughly 400ppm...65mil years ago co2 levels were at 2000ppm to 4000pm that gew giant plants and giant animals...the gradual increase in co2 is a good thing..better than living in a frozen waist land..
We ARE in a mild ice age right now, the poles do have ice where they don't in warmer periods.
Yes. Formally when there's a sizeable permanent ice sheet on Earth its in an Ice Age. Antarctica & Greenland mean Earth is now in an Ice Age. Bods everywhere use "ice Age" colloquially to mean "glaciation period" because it's more understandable by the unwashed masses, which is almost everybody.
Technically, we are in a ice age. But really in an interglacial period (warm period) that has lasted about 10,000 years so far. And, we are the rising side of a peak in global temperature related to the Milinković cycles.
For civilization, the end of this interglacial period is much more of a threat than the little bit of warming we might see over the next hundred years or so. Ice ages are very difficult to survive.
@@richb2229 Exactly! We (human race and animals and plants) should be much more afraid of the ice ages than warm periods! This global warming fear is generated by rich elite who don't want to risk changes in which they would probably lose some of their influence (and their properties next to the beaches). . And those who oppose this theories are condemned to media silence, some even lose their jobs (many others are quiet because of their fear of losing their jobs)
Even when sea levels do start to rise (which still isn't happening - 30 years or more after it was announced) it will not happen over night, it will be a very slow process instead unlike in those stupid movies supporting the fear of "Global Warming"!
@@andrejcerjak1790 The global warming fear is absolutely NOT generated by the global elite. Global Warming science is well established by the climate scientists who study it. Saying that we have more to fear from a global ice age is pure hubris. There is no imminent ice age in the foreseeable future.
We are however seeing the direct effects of global warming right now!! There is increasing drought, heat waves, floods going on right now. Forest fires are larger and moving much faster because exceptional drought and increasing temperatures. The Arctic Ice Cap is retreating in thickness and area at a record rate. The list goes on as the catastrophic effects of global warming intensify.
CO2 is the least counting faktor to climate change.
Maybe I missed it, did the "little ice age" make it into that data set?
The little ice age is part of the temperature graph, but as the name suggests it was a small event in the grand scheme of things.
There were lots of climate swings back and forth like that. Rome fell because of a colder period, the bronze age collapse was largely driven by a colder period. But none of those swings even compare to the shift from ice age to interglacial period.
thats because the solar behaviour not milankovitch cycle
@Deimos Cain The Black Death has nothing to do with the little Ice Age. It happened near the close of the Medieval Warm Period. (Also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly, because certain tropical Pacific regions were cooler, even as the North Atlantic region was warmer)
@Deimos Cain I've a PhD, one of my specialties is Bubonic Plague in the Early Modern Period (1500-1800, roughly), Jeff is correct.
The Bubonic Plague, that led to the pneumonic version that caused the Black Death or Second Pandemic. The Black Death was the second time Plague had come to Europe, the first was 600 years earlier, and neither outbreak had anything to do with cold, in fact, the plague thrives in WARM weather. It was so bad because Europe was modernizingish, and living in cities more and more.
Both major plague appearances were a result of human forays into infested areas, destabilizing ecosystems of infected animals. That is all.
I've heard of these cycles before but didn't know the names. The way you explain things even my grandma can understand. Thanx
For the length of time of the cycles from shortest to longest remember POE:
Precession (shortest)
Obliquity
Eccentricity (longest)
he is wrong... th-cam.com/video/d8vgAotirfI/w-d-xo.html
Are you saying your grandma isn't very bright? That's not very nice, is it?
@@rogueriderhood1862 BE NICE , Thank you.
Yes, because your grandma is totally ignorant about this topic, so she can be fooled easily....like yourself.
So Earth became just warm enough to enable us to successfully farm and the positive feedback caused by farming kept us just warm enough to evade going back into iceage hell. I think we're still quite far away from the Earth being a maximum habitable and comfortable place overall so it's refreshing to know that we're currently in a low period on the Milankovitch cycle and should see warmer times ahead in the distant future.
We are not in a "low point" in the Milankovitch cycle, this channel has it backwards. We just passed the local maximum, meaning hottest period of the current inter glacial. We are not set on a slow turn towards being colder with a new ice age expected in 50,000 years.
Well, maybe it depends a little on where you live. If you're in Canada, that's great. If you live in India, not so good. Or if you live close to sea level.
Luckily, people LOVE refugees. In the UK , excited crowds rush to the Kent coast to welcome the people arriving in small boats, hugging them warmly and inviting them to share their homes. No country in the world sees refugees as a problem. So if people start flooding north into the USA, for example, it will be fine. They can just make their homes in Florida, where Governor de Santis will give generous grants to newcomers.
Refugees have never been an issue in the Southern USA.
@@Khadgars123 of course you know about The Little Ice Age
Current population is at least 4x what Earth can sustain long-term, no matter what cycle we're in.
@@marcwinkler That's exciting news. So the fact that it used to be cold hundreds of years ago means that it's not going to get hot now. That's such a relief. You are so right. This is genius.
Cherry-picked that time frame nicely... curiously no mention of the epochs in history when the CO2 levels were many, many times current levels, but also the most rampant exploding-with-life-forms, and not much warmer. Or how those variations in CO2/methane (negligible effect that methane has, due to its reactivity) may or may not correlate or correspond with the Milankovitch cycles. How can you ascribe the changes to human activity when there are known human-less periods (without farming and petroleum-use) in the past eras that had more extreme amounts of what you claim are causing the climate change (or lack of it, since you say we should be in a 'mild ice-age' whatever that really means?)
Terry make an effort and look for explanations for other warming periods (e.g. PETM). It is not so difficult.
I WON'T believe it. I won't'I won't. So there. Evidence? Who needs evidence?
What about the effect of volcanoes on these emissions? And just to throw it out there 10 years of electric vehicles from Tesla is not going to change anything luxury vehicles are not going to change the world.
I assume you mean the Cambrian Explosion.
"At this time the average temperature may have exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit, even near the poles. Eighty-five percent of the earth was covered with water (compared to 70 percent today...the average temperature of these vast seas may have been in the range of 100 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit."
Or to put it another way. Yes, there have been times when CO2 is higher. and yes it was hotter and yes the sea level was massively higher.
In other words, EXACTLY the conditions we're hoping to avoid.
@@thoutube9522 there have been many periods since the Cambrian explosion. Why are you picking the furthest back example?
Haha as soon as I watched the previous video I wondered where we're at in the cycle, and then I see this video, nice!
Actually you are on the correct idea! There is a lot to know about weather than previously understood! The more we learn the more we realize we have much more to learn.
What is also a factor now is the earth is wobbly! Just like a top on a table does so does Earth! How does that now effect earths weather is only speculation but it is a factor.
Thanks, Exactly what I was looking for! :D
I laughed when you zoomed in to where we are now LOL
You’re a GOAT for still answering on a 2 year old video
have you noticed that they don’t bring up Milankovitch cycles when they’re talking about magnetic pole reversal,what effect the wobble might have on the inner liquids of the planet
Bob Le Clair good point, never considered it myself
No it’s green house gasses Dame it. Shame on you for buying a car.
Paul Scott
1 second ago
No Social scientists say it's all Carbon. He is sorry for saying that the sun is hot.
Magnetic pole reversals are not cyclic and the internals of the planet move independently of the surface. Those two factors make it extremely unlikely that they're related.
Because the magnetic pole and the earth's physical rotation across its pole are two different things? one is caused by the hot and high pressure material inside the earth (magnetic pole) and the actual rotation of the Earth is caused by gravitional means (the solar system's sun, earth's moon, other planets). The magnetic pole doesn't affect the movement of the Earth, so there's not going to be anymore or less sunlight, which causes Ice Ages and Greenhouse ages, as explained in the previous video.
We are still in an Ice Age. It's just that we are in an interglacial period of the current Ice Age.
Ice Ages modulated by ice-sheet albedo, not CO2
I have determined that CO2 is not the primary feedback for ice ages - as explained in my peer-review paper. In reality, the feedback agent is most probably ice-sheet dust-albedo.
Free download of peer-review paper available:
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo, by Ralph Ellis.
The first problem with ice ages is:
When CO2 concentrations were high the world cooled, and when CO2 was low the world warmed. This counter-intuitive temperature response strongly suggests that CO2 is not the primary feedback agent.
The second problem with ice ages is:
Ice ages are forced by increased Milankovitch insolation in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), but never by increased insolation in the Southern Hemisphere. If CO2 were the primary feedback agent interglacials could and would be forced by increased insolation in either hemisphere, but they are not. The fact that interglacials are only ever NH events, strongly suggests that surface albedo is the primary feedback agent (the great landmasses being in the NH), rather than CO2.
The third problem with ice ages is:
During an ice age, many NH Milankovitch maxima produce little or temperature response. Again, this would be unlikely if CO2 was the primary feedback agent, but it is to be expected if surface albedo was the primary feedback. High albedo ice sheets covered in fresh snow can and will reject the increased insolation from a NH Milankovitch maximum, resulting in little or no temperature response.
Unless, of course, the ice sheets are somehow covered in dust, thus reducing their albedo. Fortuitously, the northern ice sheets do indeed get covered in dust just before each and every interglacial. This is the topic of my ice age modulation paper - the counter-intuitive method of dust production, and its function as the primary feedback agent controlling interglacial warming.
The fourth problem with ice ages is:
The CO2 is a very weak feedback agent indeed. During an interglacial warming era, the CO2 feedback requires warming from decade to decade, to feedback-force temperatures into the next (warmer) decade. Unfortunately the CO2 feedback is only 0.007 W/m2 per decade, which is less energy than a bee requires to fly.
Conversely, reduced albedo ice sheets can absorb an extra 200 W/m2 every single annual year, when measured regionally. Clearly the albedo feedback is far stronger than the proposed CO2 feedback, and could indeed dissipate the vast northern ice sheets in about 6,000 years.
All of the above points strongly suggest that ice sheet albedo is the primary feedback agent modulating interglacials, rather than CO2.
Increased dust is caused by low CO2 concentrations, because CO2 is plant-food, and the most essential gas in the atmosphere. Thus low CO2 concentrations cause the death of all C3 vegetation at high altitude, causing CO2 deserts to form across the Gobi plateau. Dust from these CO2 deserts formed the huge dust deposits of the Loess Plateau, and also covered the northern ice sheets in dust - which lowered the albedo of the ice sheets and precipitated melting.
See peer-review paper:
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo.
Ralph Ellis
This is the ‘money-graph’ for ice ages.
CO2 is directly proportional to inv-log dust.
The inference being, that CO2 concentrations control dust,
…by modulating higher altitude vegetation.
image0.jpeg
image0.jpeg
Sent from my iPad
The underlying heat-adjustment effect works like this:
---------
"GREENHOUSE EFFECT", TRYING TO WARM IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES
- The "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere operates like this: Some of the "LWR" aka "infrared" radiation heading up gets absorbed into cloud above instead of going to space so that's the "heat trapping" effect of a cloud. The top portion of the cloud radiates up some of the LWR radiation that's manufactured inside the cloud but it's less amount than the LWR that was absorbed into the bottom of the cloud because the cloud top is colder than below the cloud and colder things radiate less than warmer things. That is PRECISELY the "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere. It's the "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" in that example. You can see that "greenhouse effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at th-cam.com/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/w-d-xo.html at 7:50. It's the pink one labelled "Longwave....26.2 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a "greenhouse effect" of 26.2 w / m**2.
- Solids in the troposphere have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason.
- Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) have the exact same effect as the "cloud greenhouse effect" above for the exact same reason. Non infrared-active gases in the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar) have no "greenhouse effect" because their molecule is too simple to get the vibrational energy. The "greenhouse effect" really is that simple, and it's utterly 100% certain.
---------
SUNSHINE REFLECTION EFFECT, TRYING TO COOL IF THE QUANTITY INCREASES
- Clouds (liquid "water" and solid "ice") absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect". You can see that "sunlight reflection attempt-to-cool effect" of liquid "water" and solid "ice" for all the various places on Earth from CERES satellite instrument at th-cam.com/video/kE1VBCt8GLc/w-d-xo.html at 7:50. It's the blue one labelled "Shortwave....-47.3 w / m**2" so cloud globally has a sunshine reflection effect of 47.3 w / m**2.
- Solids in the troposphere absorb & reflect some sunlight and the "reflect" part has an attempt-to-cool effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the "greenhouse effect".
- Infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) do not absorb or reflect any sunlight (minor note: except a tiny portion in the high-frequency ultraviolet where O2 & O3 has absorbed most of it already in the stratosphere above the troposphere).
---------
NET EFFECT OF THE 2 ENTIRELY-DIFFERENT EFFECTS DESCRIBED ABOVE
- The net result of the 2 entirely-different "cloud" effects is that clouds have a net cooling effect of 21.1 w / m**2 as seen in the blue-hues pictorial at left on screen at either of my 2 GooglesTubes links above.
- The net result for solids in the troposphere is a net cooling effect because the change in this effect by humans is the "global dimming" atmospheric aerosols air pollution effect and that's a cooling effect (separate from its cloud change effect).
- The net result for infrared-active gases in the troposphere (H2O gas, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) is a warming effect because their 2nd effect above is negligible, essentially zero.
Don´t forget that CO2 & CH4 are "heavy" gases than air that don´t go to the top of the atmosphere...and tha mosto of CO2 is reused by forest and agricultura farms, more over considering tha the ammount of CO2 is just ONLY a 0,04% of the total gases. More tha 99,9% is water vapor, wich is THE "greenhouse gas" that control the earth surface t°. Variations on water vapor (CLOUDS) is the cause in the t° variation.
I get it! I also get reduction of greenhouse gases devices.... but why are we not super focused on re forestations?
Because the rich buy all the land so they can get richer 🥺
There are 8 billion people and everyone need house, like it or not we need to cut trees
Dude, the earth is greener and there are more forests now than in all of history. Facts.
I just found your channel while researching for a recent video I made. You're channel is amazing, Paul: you should have millions of subscribers!
Thank you! I'm still working on those millions of subscribers.
Why was the co2 graph only taken back 10,000 years shouldn't it have been extended back as far as the milankovitch graph for a more balanced comparison over such a long period
So that you can see what's happening. If you add another 100,000 years for an additional carbon cycle it obscures the effect because the periods of the two cycles are so different. What I can tell you for certain is that there has never been a point in the last 2 million years where we had over 300ppm atmosphere CO2 until humans arrived. It would go from a little under 200ppm and back up to a little under 300ppm and that pattern has been steady for at least the last 800,000 years. So the entire cycle had an impact of about 100ppm. Currently we're over 400ppm and all of that extra growth came in the last 150 years. It was terribly bad luck that we industrialized right at the peak of the natural cycle.
It's been cooling slowly since just after exiting the last glaciation within this ice age. Both the medieval and roman warm periods were warmer than it is today. The coldest time since being somewhat recent during the little ice age. The current warming is not particularly fast or warm and we should hope our effects are as strong as the politicians claim. Why? Because cold is much harder to adapt to and is in our future.
Spot on. Warming is good.
@@oldcountryman2795 Have you forgotten that there's ~8 billion people on the planet now, who depend on a stable climate and biosphere for food, fresh water and land that doesn't flood? Just look at the disruption a relatively mild pandemic has caused.
@@TankUni The “biosphere” is just fine sweetie. The tiny and gradual warming that we’re supposedly experiencing is a good thing, if real.
@@oldcountryman2795 Ok cupcake. But I think I'll give more credence to the scientific community though, who definitely don't share your casual attitude.
@@TankUni I don’t care who you “give credence to.” Just like “global warming” it doesn’t affect me.
Would be fascinating to understand the interaction of this theory with John L Casey’s Relational Cycle theory on the bicentennial cycle of sun activity’s influence on earth
I guess it depends how strong these sun activity cycles are in comparison to the forces described in the video. If the sun activity's effect is relatively marginal, it won't change much - otherwise it adds another beautiful layer of complexity.
so many factors to consider besides " carbon is bad". carbon keeps us warm and the crops growing. no carbon no plant life. earths tilt, cme's, solar flares and gases, poles in flux, ozone depletion, solar maximums and minimums.....all are part of what we refer to as climate. climate is not static and never has been. so sorry for the inconvienience, but why dont you go out and march, throw soup on paintings, glue yourself to the road lmao, block roads and bridges. the natural forces at work will surely change just for you and your ill informed passions.
We are in a mild ice age! Theres ice on the poles
historically, is non-ice age = polar zones free of ice?
@Melissa Sullivan i do believe an ice age is defined by the presence of ice caps. however it is a hell of a difference between ice caps around labrador (like my childhood) versus ice caps at NYC let alone all the way to the southern U.S.A.
Without a) farming and b) cars and factories NYC would likely be glaciated if my understanding of the contemporary projections from past history is other than wrong.
Anyway for sure Newfoundland should be glaciated were it not for cars and farms.
@Melissa Sullivan around 1000 a.d. there was a serious temperature drop. This dropping stopped by 1400. By 2000 it had reversed, if I am not mistaken.
Not enough it seems.
@@QuizmasterLaw Not quite, but close. Napolean's conquest of Russia was largely halted by a particularly harsh period of a mini ice age which all told, lasted from around 1250 to the early 1900s. The peak cold periods were in the 1600s followed by another dip almost as cold in the early 1800s, which is when he got his butt handed to him both by the Russians and the precipitous dip in winter conditions.
4:02
“This released a lot of CO2”
*First car you see is a Tesla*
Yeah, as if Tesla cars need only hopes and dreams to produce.
P.S. i do know they are probably better than the coal burning diesel cars
@@captTed Tesla cars are only zero carbon emissions while driving, if and only if, the driver is charging at a station that gets electricity from the sun or other renewable sources. Sadly, most Tesla Supercharging stations are connected to an electrical grid that is powered by COAL! So electric cars are not really that eco friendly. They are better than a traditional combustion engine. Saves more money to the consumer and is easier to maintain an electric car, no oil changes.
@@captTed But do you know how much Co2 was produced making a Tesla car?? And did you know you can't make a Tesla car without using coal. google to find out.
@@19thewanderer Well electric cars are only part of the solution, the next step will be solar roofs and electric mining machines (which Tesla is planning on making).
@@captTed diesel, like gasoline, is a petroleum product. It comes from oil, not coal.
Thank you for that clarification about greenhouse gasses vs the M cycles.
Interesting, so humans saved themselves from an Ice Age without even knowing it. We must be thankful to our forefathers!
But they have created something worse: A Warm Age.
A warm age in a supposed cold age. That might mean that when the warm age comes, it will be hell.
@@Siddhartha040107 yeah but it still a long time right?
I'm assuming you live in a cold or temperate country well above sea level. That's great. For YOU. Some people live areas where it's already unbearably hot. Think about that for ten seconds.
@@thoutube9522I live in equator area, and I'm fine, thanks
So what happens when this is combined with the solar cycle GSM....?
Whats that ?
@@saurabhsalunkhe2417 Grand Solar Maximum or Minimum. Natural Solar Cycles (there are longer and shorter cycles)
@JST Inceptions I concur
No you have to forget the sun now, TH-cam told him so. Its co2 that causes heat.
@JST Inceptions "Exactly! The IPCC, MSM and the extremists have long ignored the Sun."
No, they absolutely haven't. But it's cute watching your squirm and pretend that they had just so you can hold on to your prefabricated notions.
You explained it really well in the simplest possible way, thanks!
Except it is lies. Please check Willie Soon videos for the truth on the climate change fraud.
@@praem9597 I'm very well informed about the desperate efforts of your clients to cast doubt in the public minds about the fact of the man made climate change. So, no. I won't waste any more of my time, not more than what I have already wasted replying to your pitiful comment. 👎
@@ShobeirSheida My clients? What are you talking about? You are talking nonsense not only about climate but also about other things. You are very weird. Please check Willie Soon videos about the truth on the climate change fraud.
@@praem9597 Nope.
@@praem9597 Humans tend to believe what we want to believe. We gather evidence and then choose. Some are more flexible than others and may be more diligent in their research. An open mind can learn to see through the fog of evidence supporting all sides of a subject but only if the mind is willing to remain curious and keep looking. Take what I said here and do with it what you choose.
Even today only about 12% of the earths surface is used for agriculture and much of that was never forest, it was prairie grass. Before the discovery of iron it would be pretty difficult to deforest what wasn't already deforested. I would really like to see your data on deforestation by human activity over the 9000 years you are referring to. Even 5000 years ago the human population has been estimated at only 14 million. Deforestation by humans increased greatly in the last 300 years or so but you have a lot of explaining to do for the other 8700 years.
The main thing to keep in mind is that more than two thirds of the earth is covered in water and it's the photo synthetic bacteria and many other micro organisms in the vast oceans and lakes that generate and exchange the great majority of atmospheric gases. So any additional CO2 generated as you say from conversion of forest to agriculture would face the vast oceans to absorb and convert it. Being land animals and very egocentric ones at that, we like to think it's the beautiful forests on land that are the "lungs of the earth" but in truth it's the slimy bacteria and fungi that are doing the majority of the work generating most of the atmospheric oxygen, virtually all of the nitrogen and reducing most of the CO2 down to just a few hundred parts per million.
For the data on deforestation I would suggest looking at these papers:
Kaplan, J. O., K. M. Krumhardt, and N. Zimmerman (2009), The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe, Quat. Sci. Rev., 28, 3016-3034
Ruddiman, Fuller, Kutzbach, Tzedakis, Kaplan, Ellis, Vavrus, Roberts, Fyfe, He, Lemmen, Woodbridge. (2015). Late Holocene Climate: Natural or Anthropogenic?. Reviews of Geophysics. 54.
They argue that there was much more deforestation per person when farming was getting started. Also, I slightly oversimplified the mechanism for deforestation in the video. Much of the deforestation was actually caused by domesticated sheep, goats, and pigs. They eat the young shoots of trees and over decades deforest vast tracks of land. Most of the sheep pastures of England were once oak forests before sheep.
@@ItsJustAstronomical Your video seems like propaganda for the climate change fraud.
@@praem9597 That's because you can't follow science when it is put in its simplest form. It's not propaganda, it's your inability to comprehend. Or you're gullible.
@@vanbatim5906 Those imbeciles will mistake anything that goes against their pridefully held confirmation bias as "propaganda." When they're presented with inconvenient scientific consensus, they merely dismiss it as the opinion of an opposing tribe much like their own conspiracy theorist group. They are largely beyond help or reason.
@@ItsJustAstronomical so they can't prove it, it's just an argument? Yet you claim it as fact?
And the more CO 2 we have the better off we will be. Unless you are wanting to depopulate the earth to save it from humans.
yes, and Freeman Dyson noted that the Earth has never been greener!!!
thats exactly what demtards want , just listen to them
Whilst we are all aware that some gases make a small difference to the amount of energy able to leave our planet, it never ceases to amaze me that there is never any talk of water vapour as a “ greenhouse gas” it is the most relevant insulator. Yet nobody suggested that we get rid of water🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
The first Was great thanks for a follow up
Why was the eemian interglacial far warmer than our interglacial yet co2 was much lower during the eemian? And sea level was around 6 metres higher across the planet, scary stuff!
I don't remember the detail on that one but I think the scientist said it was because the glaciation period (colloquial "ice age") before the Eemian interglacial was longer than the one before the present Holocene that made the Eemian a "short & sharp" one with a higher peak than pre-industrial . The main thing is that Milankovitch Cycles are a total Dog's Breakfast because the 3 of them don't ever line up perfectly and the orbital one has cycles outside its cycles (very similar to the Leap Year type of thing) so the SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N and latitudes near that (where ice can form in vast enough quantities on mountains) is a total Dog's Breakfast over a million years or so. You can even clearly see the 2 unsuccessful attempts at de-glaciation during the last "ice age" in the ice core proxies where latitude 65N got more SUMMER sunshine and the glaciers retreated but it wasn't enough (the 3 Milankovitch Cycles didn't align quite enough) and then the glaciers crept south again. You can easily find on the internet a plot of SUMMER sunshine at specifically latitude 65N because scientists understand it. That's what you really need rather than looking at the individual 3+ Milankovitch Cycles and trying to combine them all together yourself.
It's actually because of the topic of this video, the Milankovitch cycles. I
#orbital forcing.
Good video. It's a shame many of the people leaving comments clearly didn't watch it or failed to understand it.
Your video completely omits the fact, that the earth is greening. Now large parts of the Sahara are greening as well, because of co2.
That's because it has exactly nothing to do with the topic discussed in this video.
@@abebuckingham8198 .../sigh...watch the video again, like from 2:00 ...
It also misses the fact I have run out of toilet paper.
You clearly haven't read the latest research. In many regions the greening is turning to browning.
The 2010 magnitude-8.8 Chile earthquake shortened the day by about 1.26 µs and shifted earth's figure axis by about 8 cm. And the 2004 magnitude-9.2 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake moved the figure axis by about 7 cm. We will have another ice age if this happens again.
Makes you wonder how much the Younger Dryas Impact altered the axial tilt - that was quite a wallop, right at the northern axis. I don't think it was much, maybe none - but one thing of absolute certainty:
After the Younger Dryas was over, Earth's climate radically stabilized - comparatively speaking.
But they keep saying we’re in global warming. The ice caps are going to melt anytime and we’re doomed! I think it’s all hogwash. Earth goes thru cycles and there are many different ones.
@@dg-vg9di yeah I don't buy that shit either
*_Sorry,_** Earth's axis doesn't shift from earthquakes, neither does your axis shift when falling and trying to jump.*
Plants (agriculture) also transforms CO2 in O2. In fact, grass transforms way more co2 in o2 than trees per square foot. It shouldn't make a difference
Currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.
@@hosnimubarak8869 okay, but that doesn't change the fact that plants instead of trees is not the problem.
Your argument is a fallacy.
@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 It's not about output of O2 and absorbtion of Co2. Plants break around even with their output of 02 compared to what they consume themselves. It's about forests and other vegetation "storing" carbon as plant matter. Wild vegetation is often much more rich in plant matter than agricultural areas, so if you get rid of wild vegetation to plant crops you'll release the stored Co2 of the wild plants into the athmosphere
@@danaldtrampf6717 Yupp. And then these crops will grow very well due to the high amount of co2 in the air which they'll transform into o2. It's basic chemistry. Wild vegetation or crops, it shouldn't make a difference.
Obviously, there are other arguments why deforestation is not a good idea, but it's definitely not this one...
@@AdelindeVanDerHaar99 You don't seem to understand what's the deal here. Numbers are made up just to visualize the difference.
Let's take a 10 m^2 area. Lets have there a lawn of grass that weights lets say 100 kg. In the same 10 m^2 there could be growing a 1 ton tree. 10x more CO2 absorbet in the plant itelf as it is built out of carbon which it takes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not about which plants breathes more or less CO2. It's about which ones stores/traps more carbon mass per area used.
There's another problem with your grass. During fall/winter time most of the grass mass rotts out, only roots survive to regrow in the spring. The huge 1 ton tree will lose substantioaly less mass as it only drops the leaves and keeps the whole core of the tree during the winer. And conifer trees don't drop the "leaves" so they keep even more carbon trapped in them during the winter time.
I found your channel due to your videos about the Milankovitch cycles, love all your content. Keep up the good work.
So many conspiracy theorists in the comments though, very amusing.
Thanks, yeah, I don't know what to do about those comments.
@@ItsJustAstronomical all comments are food for thought
well it's hard to claim a theory as fact, but this video did exactly that...
@@ItsJustAstronomical Unfortunately many people are so ignorant of science they don't realise how ignorant of science they are. They claim scientist are just guessing at the physical properties of CO2 despite the 200 years of research, successful predictions (e.g. nights warming faster than days, stratospheric cooling) and practical outcomes such as heat seeking missiles.
@@edwardmacnab354 No, unfortunately many comments are laughable nonsense that parrot myths which have been debunked countless times previously.
Can the sun cycles have an impact on earths climate? From what I have read so far is yes.
Milankovitch cycles are changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun that can affect the amount of solar energy received by the Earth and can influence long-term climate patterns. The three main types of Milankovitch cycles are changes in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is), changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, and changes in the direction of the Earth's axis (precession). These cycles occur over periods of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.
It is not possible to determine exactly where we are in any given Milankovitch cycle at a given time, as these cycles take place over such long periods of time. However, scientists can use various methods, such as analyzing sediment cores or ice cores, to study the patterns of these cycles and their impacts on the Earth's climate over time. Understanding these cycles can help us better understand the long-term changes in the Earth's climate and how it may be influenced by factors such as changes in solar radiation and the Earth's orbit.
Calculations of our current position in the orbital mechanics of our procession are quite concise, we know exactly where we are....it doesn't fit the political position to tell our citizens the truth of the soon to be next great ice age.
The Milankovitch cycles, which refer to changes in Earth's climate patterns over long periods of time, can be influenced by various factors. These factors include:
1. Changes in solar radiation: Variations in the intensity and distribution of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface can affect the climate system.
2. Earth's obliquity: The tilt of Earth's axis relative to its orbital plane can change over time, affecting the amount and distribution of solar energy received by different latitudes.
3. Precession: Earth's axis also undergoes a slow wobbling motion known as precession, which can influence the timing and intensity of seasons.
4. Eccentricity: The shape of Earth's orbit around the Sun can vary from more circular to more elliptical, altering the amount of solar radiation received at different points in the orbit.
5. Feedback mechanisms: Climate feedback mechanisms, such as ice-albedo feedback and greenhouse gas concentrations, can amplify or dampen the effects of the Milankovitch cycles.
6. Other factors: Volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation patterns, and variations in atmospheric composition can also influence the Milankovitch cycles and their impact on climate change.
These factors interact with each other and with the overall climate system, leading to long-term climate variations and ice age cycles.@@davidmcchargue8427
So where does cement an asphalt fit into this. I’ve heard that these materials retain heat for a longer period than just plain old dirt, meaning they don’t really cool much at night ... I read It’s why cities stay hot and just keep getting hotter and hotter in the summer months. I would think this contributes to hotter summers and have little effect in winters. Does this effect the overall global temperature? Or an I misinformed ?
It's a local effect. Cities become "heat islands", but it doesn't have a large effect on overall climate.
Well. It's a really good thing that the Earth has a reboot function then huh? Once so much of the fresh water in the poles melts into the oceans, it will saturate the oceanic currents which bring hot water from the equator to the north. With the northern hemisphere getting colder and colder the ice sheets will have a massive resurgence, and we'll pretty much be screwed... Hope it's not for awhile...
But Al Gore, The High Priest of The Church of Climatology said we would never see snow ever again and that the Obumers ivory tower at Martha's Vineyard would be under the ocean by now.
Your ilk makes flat earthers look fairly intelligent.
I think it’s also important to note that even without humans the Holocene interglacial we are currently in would last another 20ish thousand years but with us adding CO2, it’s causing a break away from old trends.
Thanks for the video, I think it’s important to illustrate how complicated our planet’s climate really is and how the slightest changes from an unnatural force could overthrow the delicate balance.
Are we thus implying that Global Warming is a good thing?
@@not_really_asl well it (greenhouse gases like co2) would delay the next glacial cycle, but unfortunately it would bring us into a hot house not seen in tens of millions of years maybe even ending the whole quaternary ice age as we know it
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI Imho melting ice caps is good, I always wanted to fish from my porch.
@@not_really_asl yeah but millions even billions of people who live in costal cities will have to relocate and there will be mass economic damage
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI The US prints 2 trillion a year, might as well print another batch to help actual people. Plus I love Venice.
Can you do a video of the evolution of humans and show where in the milankovitch cycle points of note are? Early migration, introduction of neanderthals/denisovans, Atlantis sinking (or at least when it's written abkut) etc.
Is a timeline of Earth in general too much to ask? Like pangea splitting and stuff?
Yes I want to see that too.
Humans have only been around for one and a half Milankovitch cycles. If we restrict ourselves to the period where we have reliable records we haven't even traversed 20% of a cycle.
We are at the top of a 10,000 year warming cycle. For the next 1,000 years we will flat line then drop into a 90,000 year ice age where temps will drop by 15 degrees.
I think there is political pressure to keep everyone in fear. So, real figures cannot be presented. This guy says Milankoviich Cycles are not the major cause at the end of the video. Scientists have to obey the party line otherwise their funding will be cut off. So, persue looking for 2 million year graphs for Malankovich cycles yourself.
Great video! Great explanation! Great graphics! Wonder why we never learnt about the Milankovitch cycles in our school geography!
Please also make a video on how the situation on earth was (life forms, species, civilizations, etc) during the last ice age.
how can they teach u the trick ?
u need to continue blving the magician.
@@ronnieriveros6067 you need to take a spelling class from 2nd grade .
Maybe if they change the curriculum and stop teaching about sex, LGBTQPIAB2... They might be able to fit in real scholastic subjects.
Sorry to hear that. In 1960s USA, we were taught about The Milankovitch Cycles in grade school, middle school and high school.
@Veljko Tekelerović Starting in 1970, US schools began a major decline. I was in 11th grade, and that year some classes were introduced designed to move away from real education to propaganda. It became obvious to many, that the revised aspects of Science, Economics and History, would have to be taught at home. As of 2012, The Milankovitch Cycles were still not being taught. I have not looked, since.
I live within 5 miles of the Northern American continent Glacial Moraine.
This area had glaciers recur during the last 20,000 years of warming, at about 12,000 years ago. A mile thick. Something happened, some think the earth was struck by several objects.
Regardless, ignoring the massive weather control efforts globally, especially China's, California's and many others, pretty much negates the Climate Change crowd. What effect has that had on The Milankovitch Cycles? The current small bump in the waveform may be delayed or altered by these massive weather efforts.
This is truly Eye opening. So the earth's axis change and eccentricity of the orbit around the sun is completely over compensated for by mankind's carbon emissions! I totally get it now! Thank you so much! I am off to scrap my car, sell my house and go and live in a cave. 👍
So, pollution saved us from ice age
Yup, basically! But the cold will win out eventually.
The Milankovitch Cycle's are consistent and are not properly understood as too which combinations of other things are creating this pattern of warming and cooling. But we do know they are reasonably recent in the history of the Earth starting only a few million years ago. Some have speculated that it may relate to the fact that the Sun has entered the 'local' bubble in space, changing the amount of galactic radiation or cosmic radiation, recent science shows that cosmic radiation has an impact on weather as it makes it rain, cooling the earth as there is less moisture in the atmosphere to hold on to warmth over night. Others say the Milankovitch Cycle may be hightened due to Iceland blocking and slowing down the Gulf stream which once may have gone over the N. Pole into the Pacific but now sinks and returns south due to the mechanisim in place.
And the sun? I'm afraid your explanation is far too simplistic.
JB
DAMN STRAIGHT
They keep it simplistic because they think we're simpletons.
@@freeamerican2708 - It's kept simple because it is important that it be understood.
@@hansproebsting7391 they keep it simple because when they get into the details their theories fall apart and people who don't do their own research just believe them.
In the scientific method first you see if your theory can be easily disproved. Then you see if your evidence fits better into another theory then it does in yours. Then you invite other people's criticism of your theory, and try to prove their criticism correct. (Yes you try to disprove your own theory) Before you have done these things you really haven't proven anything. You can do an experiment and get the same results over and over, but that doesn't mean you analyzed the data correctly just that you repeated the experiment with the same results.
@@freeamerican2708 - and yet, I am reminded of the words of Albert Einstein: "If you can't explain something simply, then you don't understand it."
Eccentricity is still getting more circular. That’s putting the northern hemisphere summer closer to the sun and extending the interglacial. The albedo of the northern hemisphere drives the climate. Also of note, the sun itself has been especially active. The last hundred years. A grand maximum in fact. Man made gas is for sure contributing, but embracing the 400 year cycle, 60 year cycle, helps to explain why models are consistently wrong about how much warming we will see.
Thank you for answering a long burning question I've had
Very compact yet very informative video. God bless. Stay safe and healthy.
a lot of assumptions in that video
@@Tucker93669 Not simple topic, same here.
What about all the volcanism with the Milankovitch cycles!!
Remember theres also the planetary cycles to be added to Milankovitch or be taken into consideration. The cumulative gravity effects of explanatory masses influencing the Sun's tidal surface.
The sun wobbles on it's axis too and as the orbit of the earth is elliptical the irradiance is not equally spread out causing another cycle to add to Milankovitch. cycles.
So mechanically speaking its all about the plants.
Cutting down trees released their trapped carbon, and later burning them released even more carbon.
Even later we started "freeing" the ancient carbon that was stuck in coal and oil.
Nuclear power suddenly seems so inviting now doesnt it?
Can you illustrate how a climate model is normally built?
Carbon dioxide , according to this zombie he's been told what to say and write.
@@paulscottfilms carbon dioxide leads to life, and they lie.
You left out one of the most important items, that being the solar cycles.
The position of earth within the Milankovitch cycles wil have an effect when also an Grand Solar Minimum and a Geomagnetic Excursion Event takes place , it seems very likely that this takes place right now .
I think I prefer slightly warm vs under a few hundred meters of ice... my house is where the last ice sheet ended more or less....
Very educational and interesting mate,, well enjoyed
So you’re saying CO2 is a good thing? And the medieval warm period?
Yes, CO2 has been a good thing for us historically. The medieval warm period was a period of economic growth. But you can have too much of a good thing. What's worrying is how quickly it's rising. It's not that CO2 is inherently bad.
It was a good thing until it wasn’t, like now with the emerging global heating... likely to be beyond anything our civilization is set up to handle.
@@WCMurphy19 meh, we have air conditioning.... I run mine with the windows open to help slow the warming.
Michael Mann erased the Medieval Warm Period - didn't you hear? That is the problem with blaming CO2 for warm trends. The planet has seen very warm periods and very cold periods with much lower and much higher CO2 levels than today. They are not tied together.
CO2 was chosen as the enemy by the UN to control population growth and keep poor countries poor.
I dont want to see the opposite of ice ige if we are in ice ige right now😑
For now I'd call it lucky. Since the Cold is devestating for humans. But I guess we'll see how hot it'll get. We're at an average temperature of 15° currently and in most historic warm phases it was at 30°.
From climate records the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has no correlation to global temperatures. The increasing trace amount of CO2 follows the increasing amount of Earth's biomass. Below 150 ppm of CO2 all plant life dies. The increase in CO2 from human activity has had the effect of unintentionally saving Earth's plant life and by extension all life on the planet. The Carboniferous (450,000,000 BC) and the Ordovician (300,000,000 BC) were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the late Ordovician Period was an Ice Age and CO2 concentrations were 11 times higher than today - 4400 ppm.
In the words of Patrick Moore, “This climate change thing is the worst thing to happen to science and the enlightenment since Galileo.” Enjoy his keynote address to the 2019 Economic Education Association of Alberta's 6th annual "Freedom School" conference. th-cam.com/video/UWahKIG4BE4/w-d-xo.html
0:20 which would be the "worst case scenario" for a severe ice age? Lowest Tilt, highest eccentricity and precession tilted away from sun in summer - all combined? Is it possible?
Yes, that's correct and yes, it's possible.
Add in grand solar minimum?
We are in a mild ice age because we are still coming out of one. Permafrost is still melting, glaciers still haven't stopped melting. Plenty of ice still to melt but obviously that melting is accerating due to the lack of ice mass to help keep it cooler.
I like your theory, definatly something to do with it but they also say that CO2 naturally rises sharply as we come out of ice ages. Ancient ice cores have been extracted that prove it.
This needs to be taught along with all the usual climate stuff. This makes global warming far more dire if we are supposed to be in a cooling period.
Excellent video, but isn't it strange how the conclusion can be negative rather than positive.
It just shows how, if graph scales are manipulated sufficiently, you can alter the conclusions with simply changing the scales on axes.
I agree with everything in the first 90% of the video and strongly disagree with the last 10%.
Anybody and everybody who produces a study about climate, it's evolution or any kind of prognosis should be forced to open source every ounce of data and source code that led to his conclusions. In addition, every single assumption in the study should be explicitly stated. Anything less is completely unacceptable. Don't hold your breath, though!
Uh, what? Data in scientific studies is sourced, and the whole thing is usually peer reviewed (the good studies anyway).
@@tbdcreations5370 OK, so you're obviously not a software developer. Open sourcing means releasing the dataset and all the code that was used to produce every table and figure in the study. On top of that every assumption made should be explicitly stated and every funding acknowledged.
Jacob011 I’m fully aware of the concept of “open-source”. During the peer review process the raw data is submitted. It may not end up getting published along with the paper or article or whatever, mostly because the average reader isn’t going to go through and check for mistakes (that’s the point of peer review). But what if they did publish it? It seems your hyper-criticism on climate-related research (I’m curious as to why you’re only concerned about this type of research) would likely find another nit to pick, even when all of the data checked out.
As for funding? It’s 2019. A few minutes on Google will find out where the research money is coming from.
@@tbdcreations5370
Peer reviewed means nothing when you have biased peers reviewing it.
This is why nutritional science is so flawed.
I would gather the same goes here, this is why you can get two polar opposite findings, depending who funds such studies...
Take Off Your Blinkers I know nothing about nutritional “science”, but the problem with your assertion is there are not “two polar opposite findings”. There is one common finding. So, either all climate scientists are biased only one way (incredibly unlikely), or there is some truth to their research.
That is the only possibility when you think about it- if there were two groups of biased scientists publishing research and peer reviewing one another, you would not end up with two polar opposite findings on a subject, you would end up with a bunch of refuted research because no one would agree. That is why peer review is so effective. Everyone is biased, therefore when you do get a group of scientists to agree on something it has some meaning.
What happens when the cycle takes us back to a warm cycle and we are still farming? Even if we made all other practices carbon neutral farming alone according to how this info is presented here will fry us all…
Alternately what if we counter the carbon situation and we enter a full ice age?
The industrial revolution happened at the peak of the warm cycle. It was incredibly bad timing.
@@abebuckingham8198 ??
This channel deserves the highest praise IMO. All of it’s videos that I’ve seen r grade A+. The narration and imagery makes it so easy to quickly gain an understanding. At the end of this video u mentioned greenhouse gasses being a factor and I’m quite curious what ur take is on the role nuclear testing plays in the grand scheme of climate change. There have been more than two thousand documented manmade nuclear explosions since 1945. What r the effects they have and/or will have on earths ozone layer and climate?
I'm not an expert, but I'm not aware of any significant effects. Nuclear explosions are big when you think in human terms, but when you compare them against the gigantic Earth's climate system they're relative small considering the insanely large nuclear explosion in the form of the Sun.
Could trees and plants be growing larger with more CO2 in the atmosphere? Kind of like how dinosaurs were huge because there was more O2 in the atmosphere?
no and yes because the extreme change in temperature would kill many of them.
There seems to be no change in size but they grow and die faster with more CO2.
Not really. It makes sense to say that because trees need carbon from the atmosphere to grow, but they also need water, and other micronutrients. Those other needs turn out to be limiting factors, so the increase in CO2 doesnt really help plants grow faster. There was plenty of carbon to photosynthesis’s with prior to humans dumping tons of the stuff in the atmosphere, so it really hasn’t helped plants out
Even though that is often repeated there was not more oxygen in the Mesozoic era, but there was more in the Carboniferous era before the Mesozoic
I suggest Dr. Christopher Whites historical geology videos on the eras (further down the list past Aron Ra's 'Systematic Classification of Life') with the blueish thumbnails:
th-cam.com/play/PLgRoK-eyLjomaNEGNHjb1r8YWbUzVIskd.html
And no, it would drastically wear trees down. Keep in mind that trees basically respire just like us at night, at night they output CO2 in cellular respiration like we do, they do photosynthesis, the opposite, in the day time.
This is a great series. Stumbled across it and now have my kids watching too. Thanks for the information and learning.
The Milankovitch cycles take place over tens of thousands of years. For earthlings, there are more important ones, namely the Gleissberg cycle of about 80 years, and the 60 year AHR cycle (Astronomical Harmonic Resonance). The AHR peaked in the 1930's, producing a warm period, and again in 2003, beginning a warming trend still ongoing. But the AHR is now decreasing.
wow thank you so much, your explaination is beyond amazing❤️
But its just a THEORY and its an obviously incomplete one. Since it doesn't account for the Sun Cycles. The sun itself has its own warm and cool trends which also affect our weather.
@@DadBodDrumming If you think on 11 years sun solar cycles than this is just 0.15°C max temp. fluctuation during those 11 years up and down.
Right now we are at the beginning of 25 cycle so next 6 years will be hotter .
@@DadBodDrumming what? that's not what "theory" means and this cycle is a predictor of global temperature just like sun cycles are (and those are only 11 year cycles IIRC so how do you account for the near constant increase in temp over he last 100 years?) If you can't understand how these orbital patterns might affect global temperature patterns you aren't as smart as you think you are LOL
Now go read the definition of what a scientific theory is and get back to us.
If all you had todo is bump 24. Then we’d all be in high cotton.
Sounds like we prevented new ice age (although tiny one). I guess the real öroblem is, can we cool it down before next really warm cycle comes.
No, but it doesn't matter because I won't be alive by then.
@@not_really_asl everyone currently watching or commenting wont be alive lol
you want warmer cycles than colder cycles...
@@not_really_asl yeah I agree I try to output as much co2 as possible to rise the temperature
@It's Just Astronomical! An idea for a follow up video: Where are we headed? As in where are we headed in the Milankovitch Cycle? Are we still on a trajectory to colder temperatures, predicted solely based on the Milankovitch Cycle? When does the current cycle reverse, as in we begin to heat up, predicted solely based on the Milankovitch Cycle? This will be useful to understand the timeframe where our CO2 emissions could be exacerbating the heating up part of the Milankovitch Cycle (right now our CO2 emissions are helping to offset the current mini iceage).
Some of these questions are hard to answer and I'm not sure I can say a lot with any certainty. What we see from the geological record in the past few million years is relatively brief warms periods in between long periods of cold. If humans weren't doing anything we would expect it to get colder now and in the future. The big unknown is what humans will do and the effect that will have on the climate. In the book, "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" the authors predict that eventually we'll run out of fossil fuels and it will get cold again. This would happen in the distant future, but they don't really say when.
Thank you for a very informative video!
Ok. The warm period before the last Ice Age lasted 12,000-15,000 years. Then the last Ice Age which lasted 100,000 years (the last 4 have lasted 100,000y each) Then it got warm again 11,700 bc with temps being what they are today by 9,700 bc.. So it's been warm for about 12,000 years. That's the same time it was warm the last time before a Ice Age hit... we are due anytime for another Ice Age. In fact all the last 4 interglacial warm periods are a blip on the chart compared to all the long 100,000 y Ice Ages.
In other words when earth gets warm it's only for a very short time 12-15k y.But the Ice ages last 100,000 y. So it's been warm for that blip already....
You are not getting it. That's why he shows the past's interglacial periods CO2, methane and temperature levels vs those same metrics of today/recent times. This is were our case deviates from those previous periouds.
Interesting and relevant analysis. Many thanks.
There may be three separate cycles. 1.Milanvokitch orbital.
2. Oceanic Thermohaline circulation.
3. Sun spots.
Wouldn't it be insightful if people had a comprehensive image? Could you make a video that examined the relationship between these three cycles?
It's unclear to me what you think the relationship might be. They're all caused by completely different phenomenon.
The sun oscillates every 11 years, the poles flip at the change points when goes from maximum to minimum, we are 3 years into a maximum cycle were every day we have flares and CME's, in minimum cycle there's almost no flares and CME's, I can tell the difference in how hot it is standing in the sunlight
@@abebuckingham8198 true.
Climate scientists have extensively studied all of these factors as well as many others. None of them can explain the recent rapid warming without CO2.
@QT5656 falsely premised statement. What's empirical about these agencies' data?
Imagine, with our current CO2 and methane output, we keep it up and we'll go into a warm peak on the Milankovich cycle... now that's scary.
Keep in mind that modern science needs to improve its understanding of the cosmos and its cycles. Learn from what was known. Ancient science knows of a 5000plus year cycle as civilization's lifespan. So what is happening today on every level is already known and will conclude in one global cosmic event sometime in the 2030s.
These ancient scientists, were they the same ones who thought the earth was flat?
But the difference is that farming releases C14 isotopes and fossil fuels do not, and what we're seeing from the 1800s to now is a dramatic increase in C12 and C13 in the same ratio as in plants, but not a proportional increase in C14, demonstrating that the main modern GHG emissions are from fossil fuels specifically.
The greenhouse gas is + 99,9% WATER VAPOR....or clouds....no the 0,04% of CO2....
I worked in an industry that handles co2, so I have had access to co2 meters. The numbers change minutely, hourly, seasonally. I live in northern Canada,we can use the heat, it will lower our emmisions that we need to heat our homes. I have planted a lot of trees in my yard so from 650 ppm in the mornig it drops to 350 in the mid afternoon. So when they say 50 ppm are terrrible it makes me wonder who takes the readings , when, where. Satalite info has proven to be manipulated to fit political intrerests. PS in no way have we had record warming as predicted, Aug 22, 7 am was 6 degrees
The temperature and density of CO2 from place to place tells us exactly nothing about global climate. You're making an incredibly common mistake of confusing weather with climate. They're not the same thing.
Chapter and verse from Plows Plagues and Petroleum by Ruddiman. An interesting aside. When the black death occurred and the demise of the population of the Americas (from European Diseases) the forests recovered and we just slid into the next glacial period. Then it was reversed by our increased output of green house gasses. This can be seen up around Baffin Island.
Above video: "Farming increased green house gases enough to keep earth warm."
Well then let's all give a loud hip hip hooray for farming! And a second though more restrained hip hip hooray for the industrial revolution that has also contributed to the life-supporting CO2 increase.
And BTW, the small ice age we would have been in now (were it not for farming) would have proceeded into a full-blown ice age. And maybe it still will, no matter how much CO2 man is able to continue pumping into the atmosphere. Will the anti-global warming crowd rejoice to see mile-high glaciers again covering America's Midwest? No, civilization will be gone. Continental glaciation is very bad for humanity.
Spot on we would be in Arctic igloos by now and many would not of survived
Let's try to figure out exactly how much GHG's are needed and the exact composition of them to keep our planet at exactly 80° mean so we never have an Ice Age again. We still have to figure out how to stop that damn ring of fire from activating though lol.
Co2 does not keep the planet warm. Please stop the propaganda. Please check Willie Soon videos to know the truth about the climate change fraud.
@@praem9597
I agree. I was trying to help the alarmists see a different perspective.
Make hay while the sun shines.
In terms of the reference to C02, near the end of the video: the geological time frame under consideration is much too short. If you look at the last 600,000,000 years you will see that C02 levels have been much higher than today, (we are in C02 famine today, as opposed to what the IPCC will try to tell you, that "there has never been so much C02 in the atmosphere as today!") in fact there were ice ages where C02 levels were in the thousands of parts per million - ppm (it is about 400 ppm today), so greenhouse gases do not explain temperature. Yes C02 is a trace gas, and does have important vital greenhouse qualities, (unfortunately unfairly demonized) but then so does Water Vapour, which is the largest greenhouse gas, and never "popularly" mentioned, yet has far reaching impact on earth's climate. Then there is correlation, which shows that C02 levels actually follow the change of temperature, NOT causing temperature, in other words the climate is far too complex for simplistic explanations. Mathematical climate models don't account for the "shoreline measurement" paradox, which take into consideration irrational numbers, (where very small rounding, swell to gargantuan changes in measurements over long time series analysis, hence garbage in garbage out.....for an excellent impartial source of information, (which also explains the brilliant Milankovitch cycles) see Jerome Corsi's (Ph.D) educational book; "The Truth About Energy, Global Warming, and Climate Change". Release date: 05-07-22.
You need to take it one step further. The cycle will start to rise and over the next 6,000 years the earth will become very warm indeed.
My take away: Human induced global warming is good because it's staved off another ice age which would've been very detrimental to civilization and farming.
It's good for the plants but it's not so great for warm-blooded animals like humans. They do better in cooler temperatures as it avoids overheating.
:Insert "Scientists Say" Comment Here
Scientists say, "We are immature, animal-origin, evolutionary creatures, naturally bellicose and quarrelsome -- still largely subject to stimulus and response -- until we evolve further. Our immediate supervisors await the day that we take that next HUGE evolutionary step. There will be an Epochal Eclipse a CROSS North America on April 8th 2024, when MORE shall be revealed to those with "eyes and ears." The rest will see only an eclipse. Don't stare at the sun: Matthew 16: 4 Jonah 3: 5, 8 Jonah 4: 11."
The dominant temperature cycles are the 1000 year solar Eddy, 463 year solar Babich, 200 year solar Devries and 60 year AMO and PDO. Look them up.
How dare you?!
My only complaint is that the host spent a few minutes on the fact that farming rose atmospheric CO2 levels from about 250-280 PPM over a thousand plus years, but only a few seconds on the fact that modern fossil fuel burning rose CO2 levels from 280 to over 400 PPM in only 120 years.
Also forgot to mention that millions of years ago CO2 concentrations were in the 800 PPM range and life went on its merry way.
@@jb-xc4oh you forgot to mention or understand that life at that time had adapted to 800ppm of CO2 and its effects.
@@jb-xc4oh Perhaps you didn't notice, but 800 million years ago, there were no millions of people living along the coasts, there were no farms to feed millions of people, (just for starters) I give the poorly informed two chances to get educated, but your statement is so off base, this is the only one I will write.
@@granitfog If you care to reread what I wrote you will notice I said life went merrily on its way. Are you so educated to believe there was no life on this planet when CO2 concentrations were 800PPM......I did not say human life, I said life. Human life is just a drop in the bucket compared to plant life, bacterial life, mammals, reptiles and insects.
@@santaclaws1501 Crocodiles have been around basically unchanged for 240 million years and still breathe the same air as humans today. Even humans suffer no effects from 800 PPM concentrations of CO2. However at CO2 concentrations of 150 PPM all plant life will die and so will humanity. Low CO2 levels are not a good thing.
Now that you stated all that, bring in a bit of Magnetic Pole changes. And then you could throw in a ever so wee bit of Plate Tectonics. But, just a wee bit.
Not sure what carbon has to to do with the Milankovitch cycles. The reason it's "so warm" is because we're in an inter-glacial period, and yes, we are in an ice age
The question is why is this interglacial period is lasting so much longer than normal.
@@ItsJustAstronomical... normal? you're welcome to kid yourself but leave us out. BTW about half of the "carbon" stays in the soil and half is respirered as CO2 by the decomposition process ... I know, details, details but a couple extra words or using the wrong ones change the entire conversation from mostly truthful to deliberately misleading.
Because more CO2 in air do not let planet to cool down so fast.
Please learn how greenhouse gas effect works www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effect-works.php
So, essentially the increase in CO2 slightly slowed down the imminent cooling which now is apparent as the last few years there has not been increase but rather drop in overall global temperature.
Moreover, despite the fact CO2 has been high in the past, much higher than today's levels, ICE ages still continued to happen nevertheless.
C02 has never been the primary greenhouse gas as WATER vapour is the main greenhouse gas, having at least 70-80% effect.
C02 can slightly accentuate the effects but definitely not the level contributed by man which is merely 3-5% of the overall carbon cycle. The effect is negligible even if any actually existed in the first place. That's the gist of it right?
That's definitely wrong. Firstly 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years so whoever told you that it was cooling recently lied to you. Secondly the last time CO2 levels were this high was 14 million years ago, about 11 million years before the modern cycle quaternary glaciation began. No ice age has ever occurred with over 250ppm atmospheric CO2. While water vapor is a greenhouse gas the atmosphere hold more as the temperature increases. This means it will amplify any warming or cooling effects rather than regulating it by itself. This is not the case for CO2 as temperature changes do not effect its concentration in the atmosphere. Finally, the evidence of man-made climate change is overwhelming. If you aren't aware of it then you either haven't looked at the evidence, are incredibly stupid, or lying intentionally. It seems obvious you haven't looked at the evidence since you got essentially all the facts wrong but at the same time being so consistently wrong typically takes effort so you could be lying intentionally too. I guess you're the only one who knows which applies to you.
@@abebuckingham8198 Overall global temperature average from 2015 to 2021(last 7 years) show a -0.88°C, in a downward trend over a century and -0.09°C over a decade, as per Official NOAA records.
Where's the warming?
Just in case you didn't know, carbon dioxide is known as the Gas of Life, as it plays a crucial role in sustaining life on Earth for millenia.
@@abebuckingham8198 BTW, more than 95% of the last 10,000 years recorded warmer temperatures than the temperatures recorded in the last 20 years. So I'm not sure what you mean by 9 out 10 years have been hottest years? Hottest in comparison to what?
Water is condensable. Hence, it is an amplifier not a driver of climate change. CO2 is noncondensable and that's why it is a key driver.
So when did the Milankovich cycle we are in begin? And what about the Holocene Epoch that also has been keeping us warmer for the last 12,000 years?
The cycle peaked about 12,000 years ago. The cycle is responsible for starting the interglacial period we are now in.
you totally left out the effect of solar activity cycles on the other cycles.
i don't buy the CO2 argument for one minute.
solar activity lines up directly with the maunder minimum, the dalton minimum, and other known historical warm/cool cycles
then why was it so hot e.g. 550 million years ago, when the sun was about 4,3% cooler?
@@snuffeldjuret -
the atmosphere was a WHOLE LOT denser then.
heat retention and transference is more than just about the composition of the air. it's also a function of density.
global warming proponents like to point to the fact that venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2, claiming that is the sole reason for its heat. what they don't tell you is that venus' atmosphere is 90 times denser than earth's atmosphere.
haven't you ever wondered why you can survive walking outside on a 110 degree day in texas, but if you stick your hand in 110 degree water, it will scald you and send you to the hospital with severe burns?
or why the thermosphere would be freezing to exposed skin, even though that layer is usually over a thousand degrees F?
@@carcarjinks1430 how much denser was it back then? I have never heard that claim before, so I wonder what there is to back up that claim. Maybe you should focus on backing up your claims instead of talking about basic physics.
@@snuffeldjuret - earth's atmosphere has changed many times over its history. the biggest change of all was caused by the KT event of 65mya - the same event that killed off the dinosaurs, and marks the break between the cretaceous and paleogene periods - believed to be caused by a meteor impact on the yucatan peninsula.
although ice core samples only go back about 200K years, there are plenty of other sources of information about the ancient atmosphere, such as air bubbles trapped in amber from over 100mya, which indicate much higher levels of oxygen and CO2 -- 31-35% oxygen, compared to 21% today.
fossilized plants and animals also provide proof of not only higher O and CO2, but higher density - estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 5 times current pressure. such an atmosphere is the only explanation for the giant plants and insects from that period, which would need a hyperbaric atmosphere to grow to that size. insects breathe through their exoskeletons, which limits the size an insect can grow, because volume increases at a faster rate relative to surface area. dragonflies with 3 foot wing spans would not live in today's atmosphere. higher oxygen alone is not enough to explain the size difference before the KT event. higher pressure would be needed to saturate the blood of a dinosaur, with its limited lung capacity.
earth is constantly losing a portion of its atmosphere to space. this loss is in the hundreds of tons per day. some of the causes are solar wind, thermal expansion, and open magnetic field lines near the poles that allow ions to exhaust into space. but by far the largest known loss of atmosphere was ejecta from the KT event.
@@carcarjinks1430 can you quantify the effect of "density - estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 5 times current pressure"? How does the calculation look like that makes you think it is the key to understanding earth temperature?
im not a 100% sure about this but i think the "mild iceage" is that recent record cold temperature in february.. even here in the philippines, we've never saw our thermometers go down to 20-22 deg C, the normal lowest temperature here is 26 deg C. that's a small difference but it's understandable 'cause we're way farther away from the north pole compared to texas and other countries.
what
*Texas starts with a capital **_T_** , Yee **-fuqqin-** Ha.*
Thank you for great videos ! 👌
where did you get your interglacial graph from?
Ruddiman, Fuller, Kutzbach, Tzedakis, Kaplan, Ellis, Vavrus, Roberts, Fyfe, He, Lemmen, Woodbridge. (2015). Late Holocene Climate: Natural or Anthropogenic?. Reviews of Geophysics. 54.
@@ItsJustAstronomical ah cheers so helpful
@@ItsJustAstronomical It might be worth including that on a slide at the end next time.